This collection of Essays was written in the years 2000 and 2001. They were grouped as a separate series to facilitate revision of the author’s website but are now of record as a basis for reference via links from commentary elsewhere in these web pages. Each Essay ends with a link to the next Essay and so they may be read in sequence. hopefully they will interest the reader.
I have decided to write this brief commentary on August 9, 2000 because the time has come to add something new to this ENERGY SCIENCE web site.
As those of you who have been regular visitors to this web site will know, I declared in the UPDATE note of May 5, 1999 that I was diverting my attentions to active experimental research and would not be developing these pages further until I had reached a certain point in that effort. It concerned a new kind of electric motor, my objective being to prove experimentally that energy could be extracted from the aether, over and above any energy input supplied to that machine. My research findings based on a machine incorporating several powerful magnets were encouraging for a while until I discovered that a mechanical resonance conveyed through the bench support had caused a moving coil measuring instrument to give misleading readings. This has halted my efforts using that particular equipment and I will now need to pause for a while, step back a little and followed a separate route branching out from an early stage in my experimental motor research.
That said, I am now ready to progress with the ENERGY SCIENCE theme presented in these web pages.
I can also say that in my mail this morning I received two items, which happen, by sheer coincidence, to relate to a physical issue of importance that also concerns the aether and its energy role.
It is the combination of these three factors that gives basis for the following account.
The first of these mail communications was the August, 2000 issue of Foundations of Science, a venture directed and edited by David Bergman of Common Sense Science., Inc., P.O. Box 1013, Kennesaw, Georgia, 30144-8013, USA.
The second was a letter from Dave Gieskieng, of 8416-D Everett Way, Arvada, Colorado 80005, USA.
David Bergman is someone who has in-depth knowledge of an academic nature on the physics of electrodynamics, whereas Dave Gieskieng has in-depth experience of radio transmission and reception. I respect both for their discernment of the truth, namely that there is something amiss with the accepted teachings concerning the fundamentals of electromagnetism.
We are, all three of us, in our declining years, dedicated to getting our message across, but in our own different ways, owing to our perception of the serious errors in the common understanding of how energy is transmitted by electromagnetic action. Naturally, we may see the situation differently, according to the different ways in which we have developed our interest, but the message to the scientific world at large warrants attention and one can but hope that one day the scientists of the future will wake up to reality and be able to overcome their confusion and separate fact and fiction.
Now, the trigger that evokes my comment is a Letter which has been published in the above-referenced issue of Foundations of Science. It was entitled ‘Aether and Space’, its author being Robert J. Hannon of 4473 Staghorn Lane, Saratosa, FL 34238-5626, USA. It simply declares that electromagnetic radiation consists of nothing but in-phase E and M fields whose intensities vary sinusoidally with time. It goes on to say that these E and M intensities are not spatial parameters, because nothing moves in any direction orthogonal to the direction of the propagating field when its intensity varies. It says that they are not physical and do not require a “medium” but that their speed of propagation is controlled by the local value of energy-density of radiation in the region through which there is propagation.
The letter then ends. It is a mere collection of assertions, but it does show how the basic teachings of electromagnetic theory register in one’s mind but then leave so much unanswered.
Anyone who has a sound training in electromagnetic theory knows that when electromagnetic waves are generated by a radio transmitter there is energy that is forced into the space surrounding the transmitting antenna. Energy is shed by that action. They also know that energy can be received by a distant antenna which intercepts the transmitted waves. Furthermore, they know from actual experiment or from the theoretical work of Clerk Maxwell that the waves have those E and M field components. In addition, they know that, to launch the maximum amount of energy into space, those E and M wave components must set off on their journey into the depths of space by being in-phase in their time relationship.
I knew that from my physics training in the mid 1940s, so Robert Hannon’s message has little to say to me, other than that he does not believe there is an aether medium, or that the fields are real, but he does believe that radiation has an energy-density. So radiation from an antenna is like a gun shooting off energy-quanta at the speed of light through a medium that does not exist but is a true void. Well, Robert Hannon is entitled to his own beliefs on these matters, but I would rather be guided by experiments, particularly those in which I have been involved, which relate to how energy is stored in vacuo and then recovered from vacuo, though by “vacuo” I really mean the vacuum medium or the aether.
Now, as to the other item, the letter I received from Dave Gieskieng. Well, Dave’s letter told me that his efforts to interest the journal `Nature’ in publishing what he had discovered concerning EM wave propagation had been rejected. He also advised me that he had changed his address and was going off to hospital for a few days. Dave is well on in years and his health is of concern. Naturally, he hopes that his research over so many years will not sink into oblivion and pass away without record. Included in his letter was a graph showing some test data from his antenna measurements. I had seen it several years before and even included it in these ENERGY SCIENCE web pages, but it still had its impact and it clearly warrants attention. See Fig. 6 of An Antenna with Anomalous Radiation Properties
Dave Gieskieng has, over many years, been pursuing tests on the radiation properties of an antenna, which he has called a “Maxwell Antenna”, but which I prefer to name the “Gieskieng Antenna”. Simply stated, this antenna is not the best design for forcing energy into space as electromagnetic radiation. It does not force the E and M fields to oscillate and propagate with an in-phase relationship, as Robert Hannon declares with such emphasis. No, the antenna designed by Dave Gieskieng deliberately ensures that these two fields or waves set off on their journey into space in a phase-quadrature relationship, meaning that as one goes through its minimum intensity, the other goes through its maximum intensity. The waves are still in phase-quadrature spatially, meaning that they and the direction of propagation are mutually orthogonal, but, in energy density terms, they exchange energy as they oscillate at the transmission frequency rather than convey energy. Here I am saying that the energy can oscillate between electric and magnetic field forms without moving forward at the speed of light.
Now, ignoring theory and what this implies, take note of the experimental facts that Dave Gieskieng discovered. He compared the propagation of his antenna and a standard dipole antenna, taking measurements across canyons to avoid distortions owing to ground reflection. He found that over a range up to 0.36 mile his antenna was less effective in transmission than the dipole antenna. There was a 3 decibel discrepancy close to the transmitter but at the 0.36 mile stage the reception was of equal power. However, at 5 miles, his antenna was 2.2 decibels more effective than the reference dipole antenna and at 14 miles the difference levelled off thereafter over larger distances at the 3 decibel level.
What this means to me is that electromagnetic wave propagation prefers a mode in which the E and M fields are 90 degrees out of phase time-wise, so that the waves propagate by exchanging energy that sits there local to the aether without moving forward at the speed of light. The radiation from the dipole forces energy into space and superimposes its effect on the initial propagation, obliging the two field components to be in-phase initially, but that energy disperses into the aether as heat along the route and leaves the natural oscillation of the aether to develop the wave propagation that ensues. The secret of this action is how the aether can be is tuned locally to cope with the frequencies of all the electromagnetic waves in transit. However, that is where I have made my contribution, as I explain in the next ESSAY.
You do not have to believe me when I say that the in-phase field components of electromagnetic waves shed their energy until they lapse into a phase-quadrature state and then travel ever on at the speed of light, but without carrying energy along with them at that speed. However, if you cannot believe what I say, then just ask yourself why, otherwise, anything material travelling at the speed of light has an infinite energy (as per Einstein’s theory or, rather, experiments on particle accelerators), but yet wave energy contrives to break the rules and stay finite as it travels for what can be many billions of light years through that imaginary void we call ‘space’. Ah yes, you can invent the notion of a photon that has no mass and so, applying the relativistic formula for its mass increase when travelling at the speed of light, you can say that infinity times zero is zero, but I say that mathematically infinity in numerical terms is a quantity divided by zero and so multiplying it by zero brings you back to that finite quantity. The photon is an example of how modern theoretical science, it seems, can be the art of talking nonsense in a logical way, but when experiments speak then we really ought to listen, even though the language seems foreign and so is difficult to understand. Experiment presents the photon as an ‘event’ involving a quantum of energy transferring between aether and matter or vice versa and characterized by a frequency of electromagnetic field action. Just because two energy events, one at A and one at B, distant from A, can occur at the same frequency and exhibit a connection owing to one appearing to be consequence of the other, energy being conserved, it does not follow that something we call a photon has actually travelled from A to B.
Without bringing photons into the picture, I would rather think that that initial journey over the 0.36 mile range of the radiation from Gieskieng’s antenna and on to the 14 mile stage where the action levels off involves waves that travel at slightly below the limiting speed of light and then develops into a faster travelling wave system as it adopts that limiting speed of light, even though it then conveys no energy.
I know we get warm if we sit in the sun’s rays, but I see the heat as being released by the aether locally in response to interception of those rays. That is why one needs to understand the mechanism governing the photon, something that started me on this scientific journey of mine nearly half a century ago, as I explain in the TUTORIAL NOTES in these web pages, but I wonder how you, the reader, might choose in judging between those assertions of Robert Hannon and the experimental report of Dave Gieskieng.
I accept what Gieskieng says because there is mounting evidence wich confirms there is an aether that can shed its energy as useful power to keep the populace of the world alive when our regular fuel resources are exhausted. I also to see that aether energy resource as the source of our own creation, via the process of first creating protons and electrons. The quantum underworld that accounts for these processes warrants our attention, and especially its interplay with the atoms of ferromagnetic materials. That action is what I seek to explit in my motor experiments, as I shall report in these web pages in due course.
Meanwhile, I suggest, if the reader has not already seen the web page item reference to what I have to say about a motor experiment reported by Bedini, then that be read next. It is the next ESSAY in this 2000 series. I believe it shows a fascinating way of using the aether as a catalyst in converting ambient heat into useful electrical power. It is not, in my opinion, a way of tapping energy from the aether, the province of my efforts, but it offers an alternative route in our onward endeavours to resolve the energy problems of the future.
H. Aspden
August 9, 2000
If you wish now to see the next Essay in this 2000 series then press:
Whatever your religious beliefs concerning the role of God in the Creation of this our universe, there can but be satisfaction in deciphering the messages coded in what we see around us, and which surely reveal some of the secrets of Creation.
The language involved is itself universal, being that of mathematics, the logical foundation of physics, and so, for those who understand algebraic equations and integral calculus, let me now guide you along a path of exploration as we confront those coded messages.
Having outlined what I regard as the physics of Creation by concentrating on the essential foundations and features of the theory, there remains much that now needs discussion, particularly as a result of the author having confronted a problem in the theory as originally developed. That problem is at the very heart of the theory of gravitation where it is unified with the physics we associate with electricity and magnetism.
As readers have seen, the theoretical derivation of G, the constant of gravitation, has been based on gravitation being an electrostatic phenomenon arising from the displacement of charge of density σ from space taken up by the gravitons needed to provide the dynamic balance for the mass of matter which thereby experiences gravitational attraction. The self-repulsion of σ means that holes in it will be attracted to one another and, by their coupling with matter, rendering matter self-attractive and so establishing the phenomenon of gravitation.
In the author’s earlier theory, the conventional assumption was made that gravitation had to be unified with electromagnetic action, but such assumption must fail for the reason now to be explained in the first part of the following discussion.
Though much of this chapter will be devoted to discussion of several other topics of interest peripheral to the main theme already covered, there is also need to give special attention to an important issue of technological importance. This probably warrants a book of its own, but it is so diverse in character and is ever evolving, besides lacking in academic recognition, that it seems best to mention it but briefly in this final discussion section rather than give it a chapter or two of its own. I refer here to the prospect of our being able, as it were, to mimic some of the creative forces in Nature by tapping into the energy resource of the aether in an effort to extract energy which we can use to replace our dwindling oil and gas reserves.
This, therefore, is the scope of this chapter 9 and it is hoped the reader will find it of interest, whilst appreciating that it is no easy task to find that my study of electrodynamics, as motivated by the desire to forge the connection with gravitation, though having spin-off pointing to new energy technology, has, in the process, failed on the gravity front. Thankfully, however, the pillars on which the theory stood, meaning the formulae for those ‘coded messages’ concerning the basic dimensionless physical constants, stand firm. Thankfully, also, the theory as it now exists is much simpler and easier to understand, since the theory of gravitation is now devoid of dependence upon the intricacies of electrodynamics as rooted in the Fechner hypothesis and its quantum electrodynamic equivalent.
The Neumann Potential
The Neumann potential dates from 1845 and is an empirical formulation derived from electrodynamic theory by which the energy potential of two interacting current circuit elements, here denoted QV/c and qv/c, is:
Qq(V.v)/Rc2 ………………………………… (9.1)
where R is the spacing between two charges Q, q moving at velocities V, v respectively and c is the speed of light. The dot between V and v signifies that the term in brackets is a scalar product which means that if the angle between V and v is θ, then the product has the value Vvcosθ. For our purposes here, it is noted that, by applying this Neumann potential to calculate the force of attraction as between two charges moving mutually parallel at the speed of light with respect to the electromagnetic reference frame in which matter is seated, I did in my earlier theory obtain a force of mutual attraction in which the (V.v)/c2 term reduced to unity. I seized upon this situation to build a theory of gravitation around the electrodynamic formula, assigning charge to gravitons according to volume of continuum charge σ that they displaced and so arrived at the same value of G as that derived above in chapter 2.
The problem that arises is that the Neumann potential applies only to actions which are supported by a quantum electrodynamic process akin to that found for electron currents. That empirical formulation does not have a textbook derivation from first principles but when we really delve into such a first principle derivation it becomes evident why the gravitons as a current source behave differently from electrons as a current source.
The analysis is as follows. Considering two charges Q and q spaced apart by that distance R, energy is transferred at speed c between their kinetic energy and the Coulomb interaction energy and, owing to its momentum and mass-equivalence, this results in a force given by:
(1/c)(δE/δR)(δR/δt) …………………………… (9.2)
where:
E = T [δ(Qq/R)/δt] …………………………… (9.3)
Here E is the energy in transit between the potential and kinetic forms and T is the time taken for energy to traverse a distance R at speed c.
Equation (9.3) reduces to:
E = – (R/c)(Qq/R2)(δR/δt) ……………………… (9.4)
and so the force term given by (9.2) becomes:
(Qq/R2 c2)[(δR/δt)2 – R(δ2R/δt2)] …………………. (9.5)
Since δR/δt is the velocity component along the line of R and (- δ2R/δt2) is the acceleration term given by the square of the velocity component at right angles to R as divided by R, then we see that (9.5) reduces to:
(Qq/R2 c2)U2 ………………………………… (9.6)
where U is the relative velocity between Q and q.
By supposing that there is an electrodynamic frame of reference in which elemental current elements as individual electrons each comprise two charges +e and -e moving with opposite velocities that are each half that of the primary charge, the above force expression has four components. The U2 term becomes:
(V – v)2/4 – (-V – v)2/4 – (V + v)2/4 + (-V + v)2/4 ……… (9.7)
which emerges as -2(V.v) and so makes the force term (9.6):
-2Qq(V.v)/R2c2 ………………………………. (9.8)
When this force is integrated with respect to R from R to infinity, we find that it corresponds in magnitude to double the empirical term (9.1) that we refer to as the Neumann potential.
This means that the magnetic field set up by any electron current is really double that we have assigned from our measurements but do note here that we are delving into action at the truly fundamental level and have not accounted for the reaction effects of any charge that might be moving in that field. This introduces us to the problem of the gyromagnetic reaction.
That assumption introduced in making the step between (9.6) and (9.8) dates from classical physics of the 19th century and is known as the Fechner hypothesis. Its modern equivalent is a feature of quantum electrodynamics by which an electron in motion is accompanied by the statistical presence of electron-positron pairs created by quantum fluctuations in measure related to the kinetic energy. This adds mass and explains why the mass of an electron increases according to the formula prescribed by the theory of relativity, but also it explains how an electron current is conveyed. This involves the progressive creation and mutual annihilation of opposite charges e, allowing an electron to convey current, but by moving towards a positron coming in the opposite direction, sharing that action, then decaying by annihilation with that positron to leave an electron ahead in the field as if the primary electron itself is the sole mover.
The Gyromagnetic Reaction
Here, as a preliminary, it is appropriate to take note that, in deriving equation (9.6), we need not have presumed that both Q and q were leptonic in the sense that they involved charge pair creation and decay. It suffices to say that q has that property but not Q. It may then be verified that the U2 term becomes:
(2V – v)2/4 – (2V + v)2/4 = – 2(V.v) ………….. (9.9)
as before.
Note also that, in saying that energy travels between Q and q, a distance R at the speed c, it may seem that we are ignoring what is normally assumed, namely that the energy possessed by an electric charge is distributed over its field, rather than concentrated in the body of the charge. It is an interesting mathematical exercise to work out the field distribution of the interaction component of the mutual energy of the two charges as a function of distance from either charge. The fascinating result of this exercise is, surprisingly, the fact that there is a zero net interaction energy within the sphere of radius R centred on either charge and that the interaction energy density reduces as the inverse square of distance as the radius of such a notional sphere increases beyond that distance R. This means, quite simply, that, in shedding some of the interaction field energy owing to change of R, the energy so released must traverse that exact distance R regardless of which of the two charges is to receive that energy as added kinetic energy. The reverse also applies and so T as used in (9.3) above is definitely R/c. The mathematical proof of this is to be found in my paper entitled: ‘The Spatial Energy Distribution for Coulomb Interaction’ published in the periodical ‘Lettere al Nuovo Cimento’, 25, 456-458 (1979).
The question then of interest stems from the fact that the energy can only travel from Q to q or from q to Q at any given instant, and there is the further complication, that we really never ever can have two electric charges in isolation from the rest of the universe, given that the aether is seething with numerous electric charges which sustain the oscillations we associate with the passage of electromagnetic waves. I can envisage, for example, a charge Q with two charges q, one on each side of the charge Q. If energy flows from Q to both of the q charges at the same time, then there need be no reaction force on Q but yet there are forces acting on both of the q charges. Looking purely at each component interaction as between any two charges in an electrodynamic system, we cannot therefore contend that action and reaction must balance. What we can say, given a choice between balance of linear action and reaction and balance of turning action as produced by a force couple, is that the latter must surely balance so far as two-charge interaction is concerned, but the former need not be in balance.
This is a vital factor in the development of electrodynamic theory, where, historically, the wrong assumption was made. Just test your knowledge of physics by considering two electric charges moving in general directions relative to one another, work out the magnetic field that one produces on the other and then apply the Lorentz force law, which you are told is valid because it is consistent with Einstein’s theory. You will find that there is an out-of-balance force set up by such a charge system. Action and reaction are not equal. There is balance for the force components acting along a line drawn between Q and q but there are out–of-balance forces acting on the charges at right angles to that line.
To get answers which fit what is observed the tests have to involve an electron current flow around a closed circuit as part of the interaction. So you see, accepted electrodynamic theory breaks down when applied to the physical underworld and the charges that move as part of the aether. So, how can we proceed? The answer is that we must explore the significance of that factor 2 in expression (9.8).
Let us now consider the action of electron current flowing around a solenoid which has a cylindrical copper core. Textbooks will tell you that each cc. of copper has as many free electrons moving through the metal as there are atoms in that 1 cc. volume. Those electrons experience the magnetic field of the solenoid and so are deflected into reacting orbits which set up a magnetic field in opposition to the applied field. By the accepted electrodynamic laws of physics it is then found that the reaction field must virtually cancel out the effect of the primary field. In theory a magnetic field cannot penetrate a lump of copper, but in reality we know that it can! We then face the problem of ‘free electron diamagnetism’, a problem which baffled physicists of the early 20th century. The problem was never solved. It was ignored, in a sense, by resorting to a vague notions such as one that depended on a governing rule prescribed as a law of statistics and which bears the name of Miss Van Leeuwen’s theorem. It is an absurd proposition devised to get the books to balance and one that does not warrant further consideration here but I give the reference as J. de Physique. (6) 2, 361 (1921), particularly pp. 372-374.
The proper approach was to see those reacting electrons as interacting with the primary electrons in the solenoid and exchanging energy as part of an equilibrium process rather than being servile in their response as if energy can only flow one way. The force which the motion of one electric charge asserts on another such moving charge is not something that is ruled by a mathematical formulation. It depends upon energy equilibrium criteria and may or may not exist if the energy so dictates. With this in mind, therefore, let us, for the moment, replace that factor 2 by a factor k and see where a little analysis can take us.
Let the true applied magnetic field be of strength Ho and suppose this to be offset by a diamagnetic reaction field Hr to produce an effective field H given by:
Ho – Hr = H …………………………………. (9.10)
By Lorentz’s force law, which we can use because Ho is deemed to be produced by a solenoidal electron current flow or the equivalent, the force Hev/c acts on a charge e of mass m moving at speed v perpendicular to the magnetic field of strength H. This charge e is, for example, an electron in that copper core. The charge will be deflected into a circular orbit with this force in balance with centrifugal action:
Hev/c = mv2/x ……………………………….. (9.11)
Here x is the radius of the orbit. Regardless of the direction of motion or polarity of the reacting charge, the deflection is always in the sense that results in a reaction field opposing the primary field Ho. This reacting field strength is found from the reaction current moment evx/2c, that is the area πx2 times the current ev/2πxc.
Thus the total reaction current moment per unit volume of the field is given by:
Σ(evx/2c) = Σ(mv2/2)/H …………………………. (9.12)
from (9.11). The summations apply to unit volume. The value of Hr is, conventionally, 4π times this quantity, but we need to introduce that factor k and so:
Hr = 4πkE/H ………………………………. (9.13)
where E now replaces the kinetic energy density of this reaction.
Combining (9.10) and (9.13) we obtain:
HoH – 4πkE = H2 ………………………….. (9.14)
With k constant and assuming that magnetic interaction energy criteria require the energy fed into the kinetic energy density to be the maximum that is possible we see that, to make E a maximum, we must have 2H equal to Ho. In turn, this means that k has to have the value 2 that we deduced above from first principle analysis based on Coulomb’s law, because this gives the result that E is H2/8π, which is the magnetic field energy density within that copper core.
There is no ‘free electron diamagnetism’ on this basis and we have found that the anomalous factor of 2 introduced in (9.8) is wholly consistent with what is observed, which means that the Neumann potential is no longer an empirical quantity but rather one derived from and wholly justified by fundamental theory based on Coulomb’s law.
The by-product of this, however, is the implication that the aether must exist as a medium that can itself react to halve the action of any primary magnetic field. Here is a case supporting the aether and based on pure theoretical foundation. More than this, however, we have to confront evidence that tells us that a fundamental unit of magnetic moment set up by a reacting charge in motion will be double the strength expected from standard theory. The magnetic moment to angular momentum ratio, otherwise known as the gyromagnetic ratio, will be double that implied by classical theory.
This is a phenomenon that is observed experimentally and has been totally misunderstood as being attributable to an anomalous spin property, the so-called ‘half-spin’ feature of quantum theory. In fact it is evidence which points a finger clearly at the reality of the aether. Furthermore, it is a phenomenon that is further fully supported by the ferromagnetic properties of iron, nickel and cobalt in a truly impressive manner as one can see from my paper ‘Crystal Symmetry and Ferromagnetism in the periodical: Speculations in Science and Technology, 1, 281-288 (1978).
The Law of Electrodynamics
Allowing for aether reaction and the equivalent free electron diamagnetic reaction present in electrically conductive media we have seen why the Neumann potential governs electrodynamic interaction. Also, an astute reader will have noticed that in invoking Fechner’s hypothesis to advance from the force expression (9.6) we made it impossible for us to use the Neumann potential as a basis for gravitational force.
The reason is that our graviton system requires the force of gravity to arise from the interaction of gravitons that have a common motion at speed relative to the E frame, a motion that assures that those gravitons move in unison in mutually parallel directions at all times. Therefore, that expression (9.6) says that, since there is no relative motion, there can be no electrodynamic action as between the gravitons and so no electrodynamic contribution to the force of gravity. This may also explain why, in formulating our detailed analysis of aether structure in chapter 7, we avoided completely assigning electrodynamic properties to the aether itself and so avoided magnetic field energy considerations. The latter, it seems, belong only to the province of electrons, namely the material world.
It is in this latter world, our real world, that we make the measurements pertaining to magnetic fields and electrodynamic forces, and having introduced a theoretical derivation of the Neumann potential, it is of interest now to explore how this leads us to the formulation of the proper law of electrodynamics. Here I use the word ‘proper’ because physicists concerned with electrodynamic action have been too willing to cut corners, as it were, and be satisfied by rules of thumb and contracted versions of electrodynamic law, such as that of Lorentz. The latter only applies to actions which arise from steady current flow around a complete closed circuit, current flow that must be that of electrons and cannot be that of charge displaced, as across capacitor plates, where the aether is involved.
The research on this question was motivated by the quest to connect electromagnetism and gravitation but there were also certain anomalies as to the cathode reaction forces exerted in cold cathode discharges in gas at very low pressure. I do not intend here to go through the formal analysis by which I derived the law of electrodynamics. It is of record elsewhere, as in my paper ‘The Law of Electrodynamics’ in Journal of the Franklin Institute, 287, 179-183 (1969).
Energy from Nowhere?
At this stage, as we approach the end of this work, I feel I must explain that after many years of developing this theory of Creation by challenging much that is today accepted as correct, particularly Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, I have in recent years been drawn into the forum of discussion that concerns what some call ‘free energy’. This is energy tapped as if from nowhere, meaning the ‘aether’. If, as I claim, the aether is a scene of ongoing creation of matter which eventually decays but which, in the meantime, feeds our energy needs, as by the Sun’s radiation, then one can but wonder whether we can get into the act, as it were, and invent a few shortcuts by which to tap energy from the aether directly and so help mankind to face up to the impending energy problems of our future.
As already stated, this energy topic warrants a book of its own, but, owing to age, destined to be a spent force as a pioneer in the research arena, I wish to be remembered for my theory of the aether as outlined in this book and the many papers and earlier work I have authored.
The ‘free energy’ theme does, however, warrant mention in these closing pages. So, as we continue with this DISCUSSION theme, I pose the following question that could, I feel, have been addressed by researchers back in the 1910-1920 period when that ‘free electron diamagnetism’ topic was much debated.
“Given that the magnetic deflection of free conduction electrons in a copper core embraced by a magnetizing solenoid will surely cause those electrons to set up a reaction field opposing the field applied by that solenoid, why cannot we draw energy from those electrons and so gain power from whatever it is that sustains the perpetual motion of electrons in atoms?”
Consider the following argument. We switch the current on in that solenoid and it produces a magnetic field H in that core. This field acts on the free electrons in the core and causes them to produce an opposing field. The back EMF induced in the solenoid will be proportional to the switching speed and the difference between H and that field reaction. The energy input will be so determined. Then, opening the switch suddenly to reduce H to zero, the reaction field will become responsible for the primary change of magnetic flux linking that core and will induce an unopposed EMF that adds power to the solenoidal current as it is reduced by the opening of that switch, no doubt by forming an arc discharge, but possibly delivering more output energy than was injected as input.
Wishful thinking you say, because everyone knows that one cannot get something for nothing, particularly energy, given our acceptance of the Law of Conservation of Energy. However, look again at the physical structure under consideration. If the diamagnetic effect were to be so overwhelming that it virtually equalled the strength of the applied magnetic field, a reasonable proposition given that there are so many electrons moving freely in that copper core at very high speeds, then the input energy would be very small. In contrast, given a little inertia in the magnetic moment and related angular momentum reactions of those electrons owing to their reacting orbital motion, we would see the full reaction field active in delivering energy output and that would be far in excess of the energy input.
So, here we see that standard physical doctrine of the early 20th century, doctrines we adhere to today, suggest that we can, as it were, get energy from nowhere. You say that is impossible. I say that you then have to face up to the fact that the physics you rely on is faulty. Now, why was this aspect of the subject not explored and resolved long ago?
If one begins by assuming that this is a no-gain situation then logic says that the applied magnetic field is really double the value indicated by standard physics and the reaction field is half the strength of the applied field. Then the difference in field strength during power input is the same as that during power output, given the latter is a sudden switch-off of the applied EMF but the current decay lags owing to the inertia involved. So, here, by use of simple logic one can reason that the applied field really does have to be double that of the reacting field thereby induced. That factor of 2 we deduced above by the mathematical reasoning of theoretical physics has to be correct.
So where is the error in standard physics? It resides in the fact that we formulate our laws of physics and our theories on the basis of experiment in which currents act on individual electric charges in motion, whereas certain hidden factors need consideration when numerous reacting charges are affected by those currents. In the context of the above analysis by which we derived the Neumann potential I can but point my finger at that term T in equation (9.3). The time T is the distance R divided by c. Energy travels at speed c over the distance R in time T, but that energy travels one way and the question is: “Which way?”
It will surely travel in the direction, Q to q or q to Q, according to optimum energy criteria, rather than according to a man-made law that suits certain conditions that do find support by Mother Nature working according to those same energy criteria. Remember that without energy there is no force and, whenever you rely on force equations to tell you something, do be sure there is enough energy at the right place to support what you say.
The case I put is that those free conduction electrons in that copper core are only deflected by a magnetic field to the extent that the kinetic energy of the reaction has reached its maximum level as determined by the strength of the resulting magnetic field. This may seem to be an arbitrary way of overriding the principles of accepted physics, but at least it is a process based on optimization of energy deployment and the alternative seems to be to let physics sink in a sea of confusion, because physicists in general are too stubborn to question what they have been taught and look to others to deal with the anomalous issues that arise, but seldom get a hearing in refereed publications.
As to the scope for tapping aether energy by the method outlined above, I submit that it is not possible, even though standard physics would say it is, but do not lose heart, we will come to a ray of hope on that theme before we conclude this DISCUSSION chapter.
Concerning the Michelson-Morley Experiment
I well know that there will be some readers who wonder how, in advocating the existence of a real aether, I have disposed of the implications drawn from the Michelson-Morley experiment. This was an experiment in which rays of light were reflected back on themselves in one direction of the Earth’s motion and compared with corresponding rays reflected back on themselves at right angles to that motion. No consideration was given to the fact that a ray of light encountering the energy of a ray of light coming the other way might have its propagation speed affected by that encounter, but, that aside, the experiment purported to imply that the speed of light is referenced more on the apparatus used in the test than on motion though the aether.
Now, unlike the effects in a solid material medium, where lateral field oscillations occur on the passage of electromagnetic waves, with the atomic structure of the solid absorbing the strain, the aether copes by setting up a reciprocal field oscillation. Remember that we have in the aether the structured system of quons immersed in a sea of muons. If the quons are displaced laterally in setting up an electric field as the wave propagates in a forward direction, so some of the relatively massive muons must be displaced in an opposite sense to provide dynamic balance.
This duality applies also where the quon lattice system is moving steadily along as it shares the motion through space of body Earth itself. This primary action would involve a build up of quons at the forward boundaries of the Earth’s aether, were it not for the quons suffering annihilation along with an equal amount of continuum charge, with the energy being merged to create muon pairs which, as a secondary system, migrate through the Earth’s aether in the reverse direction to transform back into quons and continuum charge where needed at the boundary where the lattice system separates.
The net inertial effect of this is then zero. One then sees that, by analogy with an optical effect named after Fresnel, we can expect this reverse flow to affect the speed of light through the primary structure. Fresnel’s theory explains why the speed of light increases in proportion to u(1-1/n2) where u is the velocity of the disturbing medium and n is the applicable refractive index. This can be deduced from electron theory, but it has been verified by experiments in which the speed of light through moving water is measured.
Applying this same theory to the aether itself, and recognizing the counter displacement, it is an easy matter to arrive at the result observed experimentally by the famous Michelson-Morley observations.
Let there be N like charges e per unit volume within an electrical continuum of uniform but opposite charge density σ. Then:
Ne = σ ………………………………….. (9.15)
Let N1 and N2 denote the population density in the primary structure (the quon system) and secondary structure (the muon counter flow), respectively. Then:
N = N1 + N2 …………………………….. (9.16)
On the basis of electron theory the propagation velocity is proportional to (Noe2/m)½, where there are No charges e of mass m per unit volume, and the system has a resonant mode at frequency given by the angular velocity:
ω2 = 4πNoe2/m ………………….. (9.17)
By analogy with the properties of matter we know that the propagation velocity is given by (P/ρ)½, where P is the pressure modulus of the medium and ρ its mass density and so this guides us to the formula:
c1 = (P/N1m)½ ……………………………… (9.18)
for the speed of light c1 set by the primary structure of the aether, where ρ becomes N1m.
Let v denote the velocity of the primary structure (the quon system) and u the velocity of the secondary structure, the reverse flow of muons. The linear momentum of the aether has to be zero unless there is a build up of electric field. Hence:
vN1 + uN2 = 0 ………………………….. (9.19)
Now refractive index n is the ratio of light speed in an active medium to that in the undisturbed vacuum state, the latter being denoted c. Hence:
n = c/c1 …………………………………. (9.20)
The speed of light in the frame of reference set by the quon system, the Earth’s frame so far as our laboratory experiments are concerned, then becomes c as augmented by the Fresnel drag of u(1-1/n2) caused by the reverse flow of muons.
From (9.18) and (9.20), n2 becomes proportional to N1, with P constant, so that, from (9.14), n2 is 1-N2/N so that 1-1/n2 is -N2 /N1. We then see from (9.19) that 1-1/n2 becomes simply v/u. Thus the Fresnel drag in the vacuum, which is u(1-1/n2), is the velocity v of the primary structure, proving, from simple classical electron theory, that the speed of light will be referenced on the vacuum structure moving with the Earth, as was found by Michelson and Morley. That vacuum structure is the system of lattice charges, the quons, in the aether theory presented in this work.
The Numbers Game
I have founded this account of Creation on the task of deciphering the significance of the measured numerical values of certain dimensionless physical constants. In discovering the physical formulae by which these constants are determined it is found that there is very close agreement between what the theory indicates and what is actually observed. In this quest, however, it is a cause of very considerable anxiety to find that theory can, for example, bring one within, say, 0.1% of the measured value, when the estimated range of error in that measurement is somewhat less than this. One wonders if there is something that one has missed or whether there is an overriding factor such as a wave resonance that modifies the physical parameter involved.
Interested readers who study my published work and see how the theory evolved will notice many such situations, including the step that determined N as being necessarily an odd integer which was 1843 that value of N introduced in chapter 2, and I can but say that it would make this account of ‘The Physics of Creation’ far too long had I sought to include them all. One must also keep in mind that the techniques by which physical constants are measured can bring in their own uncertainties, apart from the range of error attributable to merging data from different measurements at different laboratories that are based on the same measurement method.
Furthermore, if one struggles to get the perfect fit between theory and experiment then one may be seen as ‘cooking the books’, as it were, when one is only exploring tentative hypotheses to see if one can discover the physics that underlie the true reason for the discrepancy.
By way of example, consider the two graviton forms discussed in Chapter 2, the τ-graviton and the g-graviton, as well as the quon or aether lattice particle introduced in that chapter by reference to the integer factor N of 1843. When I first discovered the structure of the aether and published this in my 1960 booklet ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, I pictured the graviton as a minute element of charge occupying a spherical hole and moving in circles around the inner bounding surface of that hole to set up the electrodynamic interaction that accounted for the force of gravity. I had the concept of dynamic balance but had not been bold enough to see the graviton system as one having mass equal to that of its dynamic partners including matter. I was writing at a time when reference works indicated that the measured value of the fine-structure constant (α-1) was 137.038 and not 137.0359, as now measured. I struggled a little in that work to make sense of the correction for the finite size of the aether lattice particle which put doubts on my theoretical quantification in the digits beyond 137.0. Only by the passage of time, six years to 1966, when I published a new edition of ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, was that lattice particle question resolved, but by then also I had the correct picture of the graviton, or rather the g-graviton form, which I saw as having a mass of some 5063 electron units. I derived that value of 5063 by theory (equation 5.19, pp. 76-79) of that work but at that time had no inkling that the tau-lepton would emerge in my later theory as a partner to the g-graviton. Indeed, since the tau-lepton had yet to be discovered at that time, it was bad enough having to predict the existence of an unknown particle, the graviton, of 5063 electron mass units (2.587 Gev), as a feature of my theory of gravitation.
On the question of whether the 2.587 GeV particle has ever revealed itself in high energy particle experiments, I did find reference to a so-called ‘(2585) bump’ listed by the Particle Data Group on p. 314 of ‘Physics Letters’, 170B, published in 1986. It was specified as 2586 +/- 45 MeV. I also found that there had been interest in Japan in the research of Hasegawa who had proposed the existence of a fundamental energy quantum with a rest mass two or three times as high as nucleon rest energy (the H-quantum) which a 1973 paper by Nanjo and Takana (‘Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys.) 54, 120 said had a mass energy between 2.4 and 2.6 GeV.
As my theory of gravitation evolved, with its dependence upon gravitons of mass-energy 2.587 GeV, so I was ahead of the field in this regard, but it came as a massive boost to my theory when I was able to show how its mass is derived theoretically in my book ‘Physics Unified’, page 121 (1980). Even so it was not until 1988 that I was able to publish papers revealing the role of the tau-particle as a graviton alongside the g-graviton, by virtue of their functional link as described in chapter 2 above.
The perplexing question that I will not attempt to answer is whether that link is a 100 per cent rigorous relationship by which the precise mass of one determines the precise mass of the other. Extraneous influence regulating the precise value of either quantity can affect the evaluation of G at the part per 10,000 level and I feel this is best left for future research consideration. I am mindful also that I have, in my writings (Hadronic Journal, 9, 153-157; 1986) given reason for suggesting that the taon has a mass energy related to the proton by a ratio which is the cube root of 3 times the fourth root of 3. This may seem a curious contention but perhaps less so in the light of what has been said about hyperon creation at the end of chapter 4. One finds from this that the taon has a mass-energy of 1.8982 times 1836.152 times 0.511 MeV or 1.781 GeV, which is 3485 electron mass units.
This commentary on graviton mass values will give meaning to the numbers 3485 and 5063 as introduced in the section of text which follows, but I would just add a note here to say that in my published work there is mention of the ‘super-graviton’ which I suspect is generated in the presence of very concentrated elements of matter, typically a heavy atomic nucleus. The value of G must remain the same but to provide local dynamic balance for a very heavy element of mass the normal gravitons would need to get too close to one another and so, by their combination, I suggest they can cope with this situation in an interesting way. This phenomenon reveals itself in the field of ‘warm superconductivity’ where it appears that, when integer clusters of super-gravitons provide the dynamic balance for atoms or groups of atoms, the energy of electron flow is sustained by tapping the thermal energy of the atoms. See my paper entitled ‘The Supergraviton and its Technological Connection’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 12, 179-186 (1989).
Hydrogen Creation by Graviton Decay
Here I now wish to engage in a rather speculative digression. It is prompted by having received, when half way through the writing the original version of this work, a rather unusual communication from a scientist named Dr. Paul Rowe. He claims to have found experimental evidence showing that, under certain circumstances, hydrogen can appear as if from nowhere and he sees this as sourced in the aether. He is also able to quote references to the earlier research of other scientists who have discovered the anomalous appearance of gas, presumably hydrogen, in their experiments. The common feature of these experiments is an electrical discharge or an explosive reaction in the presence of metal, aluminium or tungsten.
Now, it has been shown earlier in this work that, though the aether is not a system of rather elusive protons, it can, from its muon activity, create protons. Also we have seen that matter once formed by those protons combining with electrons can take up position in the E-frame of the aether and share its harmonious jitter motion. In so doing it puts the aether out-of-balance dynamically which is why the aether responds to provide the counterbalancing motion of a system of gravitons created in the G-frame, thereby giving rise to the force of gravity.
Upon consideration of Dr. Rowe’s claim in the context of the theory governing proton creation, theory which we verified earlier by deriving the Hubble constant, one finds that it is impossible for protons to be created on demand by explosions or electric discharge, unless there are other factors needing consideration. Note that proton creation according to this author’s theory arises only where there is energy present that is surplus to the equilibrium requirements of the aether. One cannot then see how a chemical laboratory bench experiment can involve energy input on a scale that can create hydrogen atoms, meaning creation of matter according to the equation E = Mc2.
However, I have engaged in a little speculative enquiry and taken note of the factor posed by the metal flakes of Dr. Rowe’s own experiments and the metal electrodes of the other experiments he has in mind. I asked myself how a piece of metal, that is electrically conductive and of higher mass density than its immediate environment, might cope with the cosmic motion through space in requiring the aether to adapt its graviton system to the presence of that metal.
Note that a unit of mass that is part of an element of matter moving through the aether will have an inertia not shared by the corresponding unit of mass in the graviton system. The gravitons are part of a leptonic underworld that governs quantum mechanics and they are created where required from the energy of the aether. The passage through space of a piece of metal will involve the creation of gravitons at its forward surfaces and the corresponding demise of gravitons at its receding surfaces. In short, this poses the interesting question of how gravitons shed their energy in their decay mode. It is a question I have not addressed until now [February 2003] but one which captured my attention when I asked myself how many graviton groups, those two τ-gravitons plus one g-graviton, would be needed to create protons with a negligible energy surplus, given a decay stimulus, namely the impact of a virtual muon upon one of those τ-gravitons by which it exchanges polarity with the muon and so can engage in pair annihilation with its associate τ-graviton.
This becomes a question of how many units of 3485+3485+5063+207 are needed to create an integer number of proton-antiproton pairs. I was then surprised, indeed very surprised, to find that only three such units, totalling 36,720 electron mass units would be needed, as this is exactly 20×1836, 1836 being the proton-electron mass ratio.
Now, do bear in mind that this diversion is a speculative exercise, but consider too the implications in the light of Dr. Rowe’s experimental findings. I was intrigued and so I took the analysis further. Dr. Rowe had measured the volume of gas that had appeared anomalously in his discharge experiments. It was only a few cc. at atmospheric pressure and so I wondered how I might account for that.
My thoughts were on the possibility that the creation of protons and anti-protons at the receding metal surface could capture electrons from the metal and so create hydrogen from the protons, whereas the anti-proton might even combine with the nucleus of a metal atom and change its isotopic character. In a sense this is creating matter from the aether by stealth, but one has cause to wonder given the anomalous atomic transmutations that are reported to occur in so-called ‘cold-fusion’ experiments. I have in mind here the paper by David Moon entitled ‘The MODS Theory of Cold Fusion can explain Tungsten Cathode Plasma Electrolysis’ that was published in the Volume 8, Issue 47, 2003 of the periodical ‘Infinite Energy’.
In any event, with the problem of estimating how much hydrogen gas might be created per sq. cm. of metal surface by graviton decay still in mind, I reasoned that we move through space at a cosmic speed of some 3.5×107 cm/s and I was able to put a rough figure on the lifetime of the gravitons and so could proceed. I quote from my paper ‘An Empirical Approach to Meson Energy Correlation’ that was published in ‘Hadronic’ Journal 9, 153-157 (1986):
“The one direct indication which the author has seen arises from the likely possibility that the decay of the tau and the decay of the g-particle may be associated. The tau has a lifetime of 4.6×10-13 s and falls in a class of particles discussed by J. D. Prentice [Physics Reports, 83, 102 (1982)] as “in the 10-13 s range”. One such reported decay time was 10.69×10-13 s for the “longest-lived entry …. giving a fitted mass of 2583 +/- 26 MeV/c2…..” This might be direct evidence of the g(2587) particle.”
Multiplying a lifetime of this order by that cosmic speed one finds a range of a few hundredths of a micron. Then taking the mass density of the metal times this as a measure of the mass of hydrogen produced per square cm of metal surface per discharge event we expect hydrogen gas at atmospheric temperature and pressure to be of cubic cm order, as Rowe found.
Accordingly, I do think we need to take Dr. Rowe’s claim seriously and see that he has discovered a way of generating hydrogen from the aether. Whether or not this could be developed into a new source of power depends upon the energy involved in setting up those electrical discharges, but at the very least research confirming his findings will surely be research proving that a real aether of the kind envisaged in this work does exist. Such research could include testing the composition of the hydrogen produced to see if it contains the normal percentage of deuterium. Newly created atomic hydrogen should not be contaminated by the presence of the deuterium isotope. Such a finding would confirm Dr. Rowe’s claim that hydrogen is being produced ab initio rather than being absorbed somehow from the chemical environment of the test apparatus.
In conclusion, I feel obliged to draw attention to the fact that the generation of hydrogen from the aether, if pursued on a large scale, could, in the long term, be destructive of life on Earth because our oxygen supply is limited and by creating water as we burn up our atmospheric oxygen resource we merely add a few metres to the levels of our oceans to leave us with only nitrogen to breathe. Some other energy resource is needed and that brings me to our next and final topic of discussion.
Vacuum Spin as a Prospective Energy Technology
The aether was shown in chapter 8 to have properties conducive to what was termed ‘vacuum spin’, this being the basis on which stars and planets acquired their rotation and much of their kinetic energy. In this final discussion section I now give my reasons for thinking that, by exercising a little ingenuity, we might be able to tap energy from the aether by replicating in laboratory apparatus the conditions which govern the vacuum spin phenomenon.
This account which now follows is the unamended text of a paper I presented in Berlin on June 14th, 2002 to an audience interested in alternative energy techniques. Since it was compiled before this work: ‘The Physics of Creation’ was written it will, so far as concerns the vacuum spin theme, be somewhat repetitive, but I thought it best to leave the text of the paper unamended. It now follows as a conclusion to this chapter 9.
OUR FUTURE ENERGY SOURCE: THE VACUUM
A Scientific Introduction
Whilst oil companies scan ocean beds in search of future drilling sites by which to replenish our dwindling energy resources there seems to be little or no interest in looking for energy within the omnipresent vacuum medium which exists everywhere, both here on Earth and in outer space.
The reason, of course, is that scientists do not recognize the vacuum as a source of energy. They tell us that the vacuum is, in simple words, a mere ‘nothing’, but yet they teach by reference to textbooks which declare that the vacuum has a magnetic permeability expressed as µo of value 4π10-7 henries per metre and a permittivity 1/µoc2 of 8.854187817×10-12 farads per metre.
How can the vacuum, as a medium devoid of matter, be said to have such curious properties if it is a mere nothing? Consider what we mean by that word ‘permittivity’. It tells us how much energy we can store by setting up a voltage between two metal plates in a vacuum. That energy sits in the vacuum – not in those metal plates! The vacuum has a way of releasing that energy when that voltage is reduced and that mysterious quantity we call `permittivity’ governs that action.
Note now my point that a magnetic property is also involved owing to that µo term, as is c, the speed of light. Magnetism is basically a dynamic action arising from electric charge in motion and motion implies energy. The vacuum, that mere ‘nothing’, also somehow determines the speed of light c, a factor in the famous energy equation E = Mc2, and yet scientists ignore the vacuum as a potential source of energy. There is indeed much they have to learn about this aspect of Energy Science and I intend here to summarize this in four stages.
In the first and third of these I will point to free energy technology that has been demonstrated. In the second stage I will outline the physical principles involved and in the fourth stage I will conclude my message by reminding you that our universe had to be created from energy that apparently came from nowhere and cast some light on that great mystery.
I. Capacitor Magic or a Mere Dream?
I want you to imagine that you have discovered an electrical capacitor that you can charge with energy and which, on discharge, gives you double that amount of energy as output. It is as if you can perform magic, though you are merely dreaming.
Fig. 1Fig. 2
How would you turn this into a practical device? The problem you face is that the capacitance is quite small. Let me tell you how I would do it. I would connect two identical capacitors through an inductive circuit to form a resonant system and let the energy oscillate between the two capacitors, as one discharges whilst the other charges. I would draw power off, as, for example, by incorporating an electrical load denoted R in Fig. 1.
Now, the chances are, that if I built such a device it would not work because of that low capacitance property and the energy loss owing to the resistance of the inductive circuit. So, exercising my ingenuity, I would connect a high d.c. voltage V to the capacitors (see Fig. 2), knowing that this additional source could not deliver energy continuously, once I had switched the device on. The reason is that d.c. does not flow through capacitors.
For a high enough d.c. voltage this would, as I can verify by basic electrical theory, have the quite remarkable effect of making the energy oscillations escalate in strength sufficiently to overcome the resistance loss problem. I would then surely have a working ‘free energy’ device.
If I did not use that high voltage d.c. polarizing source then there is still the possibility that I could get a self-sustaining oscillation and draw as output a small amount of ‘free energy’, but only if I made sure that the inductors were quite large and wound from thick gauge wire so as to have a very low resistance.
Can solving our future energy problems really be so simple? It is such a wonderful dream, truly magical, but we have, of course, to live with reality and here we need to face up to the facts of life. Can such a capacitor property ever be a reality? As to facts, I have several examples in mind, three of which I now mention.
Firstly, as long ago as 1871, there was a U.S. patent granted which comprised two cross-coupled inductive components each having two concentric windings separated by insulation and so constituting, in effect, a capacitor which could develop a resonant oscillation with the inductance of the other cross-coupled component. Fig. 3 is a copy of Fig. 2 of that patent. The introductory paragraph of the patent specification stated that the invention: ‘relates to the combination of two or more simple or compound helices and iron cores or magnets in such a manner as to produce a constant electric current without the aid of a galvanic battery’.
Here then in 1871 was U.S. Patent No. 119,825, as granted to Daniel McFarland Cook of Mansfield, Ohio, telling us how to build a device which somehow generates electricity with no evident power input source. Here I see a device in which electric charge can oscillate between the two components and somehow generate a steady excess of output energy which is supplied by the windings on those two inductive components. Here there was no priming d.c. high voltage input source, but large gauge wire was specified as essential for the inductive windings.
Fig. 3
These were very early days in the history of the electrical power industry. Thomas Edison was only 24 years old and Nicola Tesla was 15 years of age at the time, so it is no wonder that this very important invention was buried in Patent Office records.
Secondly, there is the almost incredible story of the efforts of Dr. Henry Moray. It was reported that on 21 December 1925, Moray and three others, who went along to witness what was to be demonstrated, took a trip to a canyon in USA which was well removed from any electric power lines. A wire antenna was strung between two points well above the ground and connection made from the antenna to Moray’s apparatus, which itself had a ground connection. Electric power was delivered as if from nowhere. It was said to be powered by ‘radiant energy’, energy somehow delivered via the aether, but in spite of repeated demonstrations, some delivering substantial power measured in kilowatt terms, Moray’s discovery, notwithstanding our developing hunger for a new energy source, has not found its way into modern technology. The reason, of course, is incredulity on the part of our learned scientists plus lack of insight as to the true energy source.
A description of the Moray device by T. J. Yates of Cornell University, dated 16 March 1929, says that, in the demonstration he witnessed, two wooden boxes were placed on a table. On one box there was a high-frequency transformer and in the other box there were ten large capacitors and ten small capacitors, these all being connected by wires in a circuit including the antenna. One can see, therefore, that somehow it is possible to set up a resonant inductor-capacitor circuit which can deliver aether energy with the help of an antenna placed well above ground level in open air which delivers that high d.c. input voltage but not the steady input power needed to explain what was observed.
It is, by the way, experimental fact that atmospheric electricity exists everywhere in the open air and has a vertical voltage gradient of several hundred V/m. It is caused by solar-powered thermal radiation exerting a downward pressure on electrons in the atoms of our atmosphere. Of itself, this is not a useful source of power but, as the Moray apparatus shows, it can serve as a priming agency in setting up the operating charge on those capacitors.
Thirdly, there are the reports on the ‘free energy’ apparatus of the Methernitha community in Switzerland. They have an electrical generating machine they call Thesta-Distatica. It produces a substantial output of electrical power. Its main features are inductive coils connected to a pair of glass Leyden jars plus an electrostatic generator that we in England call a Wimshurst machine. When the discs of that Wimshurst machine rotate high voltages are generated and the pulsed output somehow activates the energy-generating properties of those two Leyden jars. A Leyden jar is merely a capacitor having concentric cylindrical electrodes, one on the outside and one on the inside of that glass jar. Here also we have two capacitors in an oscillatory circuit and a d.c. source that can supply high voltage but very little energy. Yet, somehow those capacitors can tap aether energy and generate electricity which serves that Swiss community.
I believe we have here a situation where there is skill and knowledge in that community as to how to build this ‘free energy’ device, but I feel sure that no one there understands the physics that can explain where the energy that is generated really comes from.
An extensive account of both this Swiss discovery and the story of Henry Moray’s efforts is provided in a recently-published book by Keith Tutt entitled ‘The Search for Free Energy’, published in 2001 by Simon & Schuster (ISBN 0-684-86660-9).
II. The Physics of the ‘Magic’ Capacitor
All physicists have heard of Clerk Maxwell and Werner Heisenberg. Some few may have heard of Alexandre Veronnet. Maxwell’s name is associated with electrical displacement within the aether (the medium we refer to as the `vacuum’). Heisenberg’s name is linked to quantum mechanics and the Principle of Uncertainty by which matter has an underlying jitter motion as if sharing a universal circular motion in tiny orbits at the very frequency physicists associate with the creation of the electron. As to Veronnet, he has also a place in history. On December 16, 1929 the French Academie des Sciences conferred the Henry Poincare medal on Louis de Broglie for his work on wave mechanics, but on that same occasion Veronnet was presented with the Prix Lalande for his works in astronomy. The point I want to make is that Veronnet saw the aether as having electrical structure and an underlying quantized angular motion akin the that we learn of from Bohr’s theory. Veronnet realised that jitter motion in the aether could perhaps explain why electrons in atoms have a quantized angular momentum, that is, why they have specific energy quanta linked to their rotation.
Fig. 4
So, as I see it, it is quite logical that we should be influenced by the perceptions of these three great men of science and begin to portray the aether as I do in Fig. 4 which I copy here from page 89 of my 1980 book ‘Physics Unified’ (ISBN 0-85056-009-8). Here I depict the vacuum as having a cubic structure, a state of order of the kind we see in crystals or in the magnetic domains of a ferromagnetic material. In each notional cubic cell there is an aether particle describing a circular orbit with all such particles keeping in step in a synchronous motion. They all have the same electrical polarity and are immersed in a continuum of uniform charge of opposite polarity and are attracted to their respective centres of those cubic cells, but are displaced from those centres to radii at which their mutual electrostatic energy avoids being negative. Therefore they must move in orbit to assure that their centrifugal force is in balance with the electrostatic force attracting them to the centres of those cubic cells. It all sounds very hypothetical, but I can assure you that this model of the aether holds the key to solving the prevailing mysteries of physics, and it is unquestionably correct.
Fig. 5
However, here my subject is concerned with capacitors and their ‘free energy’ potential and I must not digress into other fascinating realms of fundamental physics. So let us now consider a parallel plate capacitor sitting in the aether as just portrayed. I refer now to Fig. 5.
When I asked myself what happens when an electric voltage is applied between those two capacitor plates I could see that the aether charges would all be displaced in unison relative to the centres about which they are in circular orbit. Then I could see that they could not keep strictly in synchronism with their counterparts elsewhere in nearby space unless they were subject to a continuous very high frequency oscillation of energy exchange, something I felt was impossible. Then, and by ‘then’ I mean nearly 50 years ago, I saw how Mother Nature deals with this problem. If that applied voltage has a two-fold effect, in that it displaces the aether charge in the direction of the electric field to a new equilibrium position but also produces, between the capacitor plates, a continuous motion of that charge at right angles to that direction, then there can be absolute synchrony with external space charge with no high frequency energy exchange problems. In Fig. 5 the centres of the charge orbits are indicated and one can see that charges seated between the capacitor plates have an eccentric orbital motion and so their velocities in orbit need to be compounded with a superimposed velocity in order to keep in synchronism throughout their orbital period. This means the whole structure of aether particles must acquire a linear motion in the space between the capacitor plates, a motion which increases as the voltage between those plates is increased.
In other words, I could see that one unit of electrical energy added to charge the capacitor would be supplemented by a further unit of energy accounting for that linear motion and it would be supplied by the external quantum jitter of the aether, since it was the external aether that was applying the constraint that assures the universal synchrony. Here was the ‘free energy’ source but the extra energy was locked into that aether motion and, as soon as the capacitor was discharged, that motion would collapse and dissipate the energy within the aether itself as it recovers and sustains its equilibrium.
What I have just described applies to the parallel plate capacitor but even back in the late 1950 era when I was researching on these matters I knew that that aether motion produced by electric field action could import both energy and angular momentum but I saw this as limited to the realm of cosmology and so of no technological significance. I earned my living by dealing with technological issues but still let my thoughts wander into pure physics and that higher plane that is the realm of those who seek to understand our universe on a grand scale and delve into that quest for the Holy Grail that is termed ‘Unified Field Theory’ and the problem of gravitation. With a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and working in a high technology corporate environment I really had no platform from which to project my scientific contribution, especially as my belief in a real aether medium made me an outcast from the world of theoretical physics.
Nevertheless, 20 years on, in the 1970s I had seen how the aether feeds energy into events on body Earth, as evidenced by the creation of the thunderball and the inflow of energy to power the action of a tornado. This was still far from the ‘free energy’ technology theme we are discussing today.
Fig. 6
To jump rapidly ahead, now consider Fig. 6. Here I show a section of a concentric capacitor. That aether motion I mentioned is now not linear motion but rotary motion confined between the capacitor electrodes and so, when the capacitor voltage is reduced, that motion will have inertia and not dissipate by collisions which feed energy back into the enveloping aether. Instead, it will try to sustain the electric displacement, meaning that it will deploy its energy into the release of electrical energy which can be drawn from the capacitor. In other words, we have our ‘magic capacitor’. It can deliver very nearly twice as much energy on discharge as is supplied during charging!
One, therefore, now has a physical explanation of the energy source that may have been tapped accidentally and in ignorance of the true physics involved, by Cook back in 1871, Henry Moray in the 1920s and the Methernitha community in the 1980s.
That, at least is my personal assumption, and I leave it to others to judge on such matters, whilst I am all too conscious of the implications of what I say here from the point of view of patenting technology in this field.
If we now move ahead to develop technology that taps energy from the aether, guided by the physical principles just outlined, will the U.S. patent granted in 1871 be seen as prior disclosure? Will the work of Henry Moray, which was denied U.S. Patent protection, be seen as prior disclosure? Will the confusing reports we have heard concerning that Methernitha apparatus be seen as prior disclosure, when the only inference is that Leyden jars (concentric capacitors) were used in conjunction with a Wimshurst machine to deliver the `free energy’ as they claim?
If so, then the patent system offers no incentive to those who pioneer the forthcoming revolution in the ‘free energy’ field, but we must do our best to take things forward in spite of the inevitable hostility of those who oppose our efforts.
III. ‘Free Energy’: The Way Forward
Fig. 7 shows how one can design a circuit aimed at tapping aether energy. I leave it to those of you who understand electrical circuit theory to work out what may be the practical scale of what is suggested on the basis of this ‘magic capacitor’ theme.
Nevertheless, 20 years on, in the 1970s I had seen how the aether feeds energy into events on body Earth, as evidenced by the creation of the thunderball and the inflow of energy to power the action of a tornado. This was still far from the ‘free energy’ technology theme we are discussing today.
To jump rapidly ahead, now consider Fig. 6. Here I show a section of a concentric capacitor. That aether motion I mentioned is now not linear motion but rotary motion confined between the capacitor electrodes and so, when the capacitor voltage is reduced, that motion will have inertia and not dissipate by collisions which feed energy back into the enveloping aether. Instead, it will try to sustain the electric displacement, meaning that it will deploy its energy into the release of electrical energy which can be drawn from the capacitor. In other words, we have our ‘magic capacitor’. It can deliver very nearly twice as much energy on discharge as is supplied during charging!
Fig. 7
My own calculations assure me that a concentric capacitor system running at a bias of, say, 25,000 volts and oscillating at, say, 100 kHz, can deliver power, whether on a power/size or a power/weight basis, that can more than rival existing power plant technology – all with no chemical pollution and no cost for fuel input. It can even suit the needs we have for powering an automobile when our oil resources dry up.
One can, therefore, dream of what might be possible, but, as ever, one might be deluded and encounter new obstacles, but, at least, one should confront those who ridicule the possibility by getting them to heed the underlying scientific message in the hope that they will wake up and see the sense of joining us, or leading us, in our efforts.
As to those ‘obstacles’, one might doubt whether aether energy can flow in fast enough to satisfy one’s design specification, but I feel assured on that from the performance data reported by those who have witnessed Henry Moray’s demonstrations. The one ‘obstacle’ I would see as warranting special attention is the effect of large current oscillations at a high kHz or even MHz frequency in the large inductors of a future power generating plant. There are those who worry about the adverse EM (electromagnetic wave) radiation effects of using mobile telephones. To allay such concerns I draw attention to the Energy Science Report No. 10 that I published in 1997, ‘Cyclotron Resonance in Human body Cells’ (ISBN 0-85056-011-X), where I discussed the real danger, which occurs at the much lower power frequencies as used in overhead power lines and in electric blanket heating. High frequency EM power radiation leaking from our future power generating systems need only be an interference problem affecting radio communication that happens to be in the same frequency band.
As to the way forward, I can but draw attention to my 1996 publication Energy Science Report No. 8, entitled ‘Power from Space: The Correa Invention’ – (ISBN 0-85056-016-0). That report was essentially directed at highlighting the experimental findings in Canada of Alexandra and Paulo Correa, who have already proved over-unity operation of their PAGD (Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge) technology. As that report explains I see there the same physical action for generating excess power that I have just discussed. Also I mention that I was so interested by the recently reported experimental efforts of the Correas on another anomalous energy generating theme [‘The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment under Limit Conditions’, Infinite Energy, 7, 37, pp. 12-21, 2001] that it caused me to write about this energy inflow from the aether topic in a related article published earlier this year [‘Gravity and its Thermal Anomaly’, Infinite Energy, 7, 41, pp. 61-65, 2002].
In that Report No. 8 I also mentioned the apparatus designed by Geoffrey Spence, an inventor based in U.K. This is the subject of his U.S. Patent No. 4,772,816.
I feel, after what I have explained to you about the physical principles of tapping energy from the aether, that, just by looking at Fig. 8, copied from that patent, you will see how this relates to the Spence invention.
Fig. 8
Electrons injected into a chamber formed between two concentric electrodes are deflected into the inner electrode by a pair of magnets that provide and magnetic field along the central axis of the concentric electrodes. Of itself, this should add no excess energy, because the energy fed into accelerating the electrons is merely absorbed by electrostatic repulsion in charging the central electrode and so the capacitor. However, if that electron flow pulsates and there are connections to draw electron current from that central electrode then the pulsation implies a recurring sequence of charge and discharge. That ‘magic capacitor’ function is then harnessed.
The questions then are whether the Spence invention really works and whether it is commercially viable? Well, I wrote that Energy Science Report back in 1996, six years ago, and it is only a few months ago that I heard any more of that project. Geoffrey Spence has developed the prototype product to the stage where he has closed the loop in the sense that a portion of the output power was fed back to impart the energy needed to sustain the electron beams. He has a self-sustaining unit that can deliver kilowatts of useful electrical power with no visible energy input.
In the light of what I have discussed here, there will, no doubt, be those who take note of my message but say: “Well, we have heard it all before; so, when will see ‘aether energy’ heating our houses and powering our automobiles?” My answer is that it will be only when the scientific explanation of that potential source of energy is well understood and endorsed by our energy research community. That is the real hurdle that stands in the way of progress, given that inventors in this field who see excess energy are mystified themselves.
I recall Stanley Meyer in 1993 at the International Symposium on New Energy held in Denver, Colorado (April, 1993) describing his so-called ‘Water Fuel Cell’. He claimed to be producing a combustible gas mixture of hydrogen and oxygen by the electrical pulsing of a concentric cylindrical capacitor using water as a dielectric. His oral explanation and the paper as published in the conference proceedings were completely incomprehensible, even allowing for his terminology for a resistor as an ‘amp consuming device’ or as an ‘amp inhibitor’. He inferred that some kind of cold fusion process was involved but it was evident he had no idea as to the true source of the excess energy that he was claiming.
So, having explained the energy source, and guided by what others have discovered, I feel vindicated in asserting that a concentric capacitor system can perform as the ‘magic capacitor’ of our dream world and I just hope that I may live long enough to see the technology applied on the grand scale.
IV. The Energy of Creation
As to the ‘grand scale’ of things, what can be grander than the creation of stars such as our sun and their satellites such as our Earth? I see a beginning where matter, essentially protons and electrons, is dispersed throughout space, along with the electrical charges that come together to form the aether. Once the aether condenses from a state of chaos into the ordered state of its quantum form, as by shedding a little more of the energy which created that matter, then the phenomenon of gravitation would be born. There is analogy here with the state of ferromagnetism which appears in iron only when it cools into a state of
There is something that cosmologists who theorize about what we see in outer space have yet to learn. There are two very basic errors in the scientific foundations on which they build their understanding of stars.
Firstly, they ignore completely the fact that hydrogen as the gas from which stars are formed will, upon compression to a mass density of the order of 1.4 gm/cc as shown in Appendix IV, experience overlap of the electron shells, the K-shells of the atomic structure of hydrogen. This means that the star will be partially ionized, which means that many protons and electrons will roam free. In turn this means that, since the mutual rate of gravitational acceleration by two interacting protons is 1836 times that of two interacting electrons, the star must adopt a uniform mass density throughout its core and have a positive electric core charge density enclosed in a surface shell of negative charge density. The electrostatic repulsion of the core charge will balance exactly the internal gravitational attraction of the star as a whole. That electrical core charge density will be G1/2 times that mass density 1.4 gm/cc. This happens to be the mass density of our Sun but this fact is surely not a matter of coincidence!
Secondly, there is the quite ludicrous assumption that starlight in its passage through the aether for billions of years as it traverses vast distances is not subject to frequency attenuation. Because cosmologists know that light waves of different frequency travel at different speeds through a material medium they see ‘dispersion’ as the telltale property of a medium in space and assume, incorrectly, that no frequency dispersion in the vacuum means no frequency attenuation and so no aether medium. One can but deplore the cosmological blunder that has ensued and bequeathed us with the nightmare syndrome of the Big Bang, an expanding universe and, in respect of that first error, ‘Black Holes’.
Moreover, by ignoring that positive electric core charge possessed by a star one has not seen how Nature, in interacting with a quantum aether, will develop a state of spin importing energy from that aether and so cosmologists have missed something of vital importance to our understanding of Creation.
It does not need a genius to see the obvious and one can but wonder if the cosmological fraternity is composed of the blind leading the blind, which means that I address what I now have to say to the general reader rather than seeking to ‘enlighten’ those who see themselves as specialists in cosmology. Such is my strength of feeling on this matter, especially as my earlier published work on this theme has not been heeded.
This is my introduction to this chapter 8. Apart from the discussion concerning ‘space domains’, a subject addressed in my books ‘Modern Aether Science’ (1972) and ‘Physics Unified’ (1980) I base much of this chapter on a lecture I delivered to the Physics Department of Cardiff University in Wales in 1977 and an extended revision of the subject of a peer-reviewed paper of mine published by the Italian Institute of Physics in 1984. The latter paper was entitled: ‘The Steady-State Free Electron Population of Free Space’, Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento, 41, 252-256 (1984). The Cardiff lecture was the subject of a paper entitled ‘Space, Energy and Creation’. Also, added to this chapter since the first draft edition of this work was published on my website, is a very important development pertaining to what are referred to as ‘neutron stars’. The recent announcement of the first-ever measurement of the magnetic field of such a star has provided data allowing my theory to be tested in a quite remarkable way.
Deriving the Hubble Constant
I believe that what astronomers see as the basis of the Hubble constant, the shift of the frequency of starlight towards the red end of the spectrum as a function of distance from a star, is a phenomenon associated with proton creation. Nature’s ongoing attempts to create protons everywhere in space must fail if there is inadequate energy available for a proton to materialize in a permanent form. In lending energy momentarily to test the water, as it were, and see if proton creation is possible, the aether is constantly experiencing failure, given that almost all of its surplus energy has already been deployed in the creation of matter. The aether is vast and those attempts at proton creation are occurring in a very small proportion of its unit cells at any instant and so its overall transparency is only slightly blemished by this activity. So, you see, in now mentioning those blemishes that arise from proton creation, we are holding firm to the theme of this work ‘The Physics of Creation’. In summary, the proton creation activity already discussed in chapter 4 is ongoing everywhere in its failure mode on a universal scale where there is no energy surplus feeding the creation of protons that can survive, but yet is effective in a way that does reveal itself by determining the value of what we refer to as the Hubble constant.
In physics one has the choice of believing that the vacuum is a true void or that it is a real aether medium. There is no halfway house in which one can shelter, as by inventing a geometrical multi-dimensional fabric and dressing accordingly as one plays a part on an imaginary stage and so pretends that the universe is a mere illusion.
The sensible approach is to say that the aether exists and functions as a kind of workshop that accepts energy shed by matter and recycles it by fabricating protons and electrons which can be drawn back by gravity into the real world. This is the vision of an everlasting universe, a steady-state universe in the overall energy sense, but one which evolves by creation and decay of its component parts.
At the very least, however reluctant one might be to accept this proposition, one should explore its implications theoretically before accepting the alternative, a universe in which protons and electrons were created at time zero and which then ceased their manufacture in favour of a slow death. Indeed, ask yourself why would our universe start creating protons and electrons and then stop suddenly or is one to believe that God operated a switch called ‘Creation’ and, alarmed by hearing the ‘Big Bang’, immediately opened the switch and adopted a low profile just to watch events from then on?
So I have envisaged an aether which is ongoing and trying all the time to create protons and electrons, succeeding only by using any surplus energy that finds its way into its system. Then, supposing there are vast regions of space where there is no such surplus energy, that aether in those regions would at all times exhibit a kind of haze as it tries, using its own latent energy resource, to create protons and electrons, only to find that they promptly decay, but yet their transient existence provides a permanent but very faint haze throughout space which can obstruct the passage of electromagnetic waves.
We have, in chapter 4, seen how the muon activity of the aether can create a proton. This is, I believe, a process in which nine muons act in concert by attacking a quon in the time interval of one oscillation at the Compton electron frequency or in an immediate succession of such time intervals. The chance of such an event occurring is found as follows.
Quoting from the above-referenced paper in ‘Lettere al Nuovo Cimento’:
“We look to the event when four muon pairs plus one muon of charge opposite to q all combine within the volume of q in the same cycle of migration. The muon pairs have a random chance of movement and are not confined to a particular cell. The chance of one muon entering the q volume is (1/N)1/3(me/2mµ). Therefore the chance of nine muons entering this same volume is this factor raised to the power 9. The logic of this supposes that each muon arrives independently and simultaneously and that the chance of four negative muons appearing is the factor raised to the power 4, whereas the chance of five positive muons appearing is the factor raised to the power 5, the total chance being the product of the two. We find that the overall effect is that at any time the chance of a q element converting according to the equation: q = N(e+, e-) is (1/N)3(me/2mµ)9. It is supposed that the reverse transition occurs at the end of each cycle when the muons migrate to new positions. In effect, however, the condition just described is ever present and is a steady-state condition.”
Here, I interject a comment that qualifies what is said above. Arising from the discovery claimed by Dr. Paul Rowe (see chapter 9), I now believe that the transient state left even by one muon impact upon q, the quon, will hold the energy just long enough to carry the action into the next muon cycle. This means that the numerical factor still applies but to a sequence of successive impacts on the same quon target. The odds of a quon being hit by nine muons in the unit time interval are the same as that of a sequence of single muon hits on the same quon target in a succession of unit time intervals. This reverts the aether model to that for which a muon pair is confined to each unit cell of the aether, given that their combined energy is the mass-energy of a unit cell of the charge continuum.
Note that N, as 1843, the number derived theoretically in our earlier analysis of photon theory in chapter 7, is the charge volume of the quon in terms of the charge volume of the electron.
To complete the quotation from that 1984 paper:
“The formula for d, the lattice dimension of the cubic cell of aether, as 72πe2/mec2, can be used to evaluate d as 6.37×10-11 cm, meaning that there are 3.87×1036 cells per cubic metre of space. With N as 1843 and mµ/me as 207 it is evident that one cell in 2.2×1033 is subject to the transition just discussed. There are, therefore, approximately 1,760 excited electron cells in each cubic metre of space. The state of excitation involves a q charge becoming an electron and the nine muons shedding energy and creating 921 electron-positron pairs to leave the residual energy nucleated in a positive charge of larger energy content, but physically very much smaller in size than the electron. The question then is whether 1760 such systems in each cubic metre of free space might be detected owing to the disorder they represent in what is otherwise a transparent and wholly ordered medium. The electron-positron pairs will not obstruct the passage of electromagnetic waves because they have a mutual inertial balance and are collectively neutral in their response to electric fields. This leaves the electrons, 1760 per cubic metre, as the dominant factor presenting a scattering cross-section to radiation.”
Here is the cause of that ‘haze’ mentioned above. The approach I now take is to assume that the wave must shed some of its energy in passing through this ‘haze’. As a self-propagating oscillating wave it will shed energy during both the up and down parts of its lateral displacement cycle. During its ups it will move the distance required to match the amplitude of its electric field, not travelling quite as far as it would were there no loss of energy. However, during its down periods it must traverse the same displacement distance before beginning the next up and down cycle, albeit in the opposite direction, but, ask yourself: “How can it then reveal that it has lost energy?” The answer, given that we are considering a system in which electric field energy is being exchanged by oscillation into kinetic energy, which Clerk Maxwell would say is magnetic energy, is that we must look to a reduction in speed, given the same distance of travel, and so a frequency reduction. By ‘speed’ is meant the speed of the quon charge oscillations in a direction lateral to the wave propagation direction.
In summary, to the extent that the electron ‘haze’ absorbs energy from the wave, half of the energy loss will mean amplitude attenuation, even for a plane wave, with the other half of the energy loss producing frequency attenuation. This is why light from distant stars suffers a loss of frequency.
Upon encountering an electron as an obstruction in the path of an electromagnetic wave, the wave sheds some of its energy density W and also suffers a related loss of frequency f. Since, for a given oscillation amplitude of electric field intensity in a medium where charge displacement is subjected to a linear restoring force, W is proportional to frequency squared, the relationship between these two quantities, expressed as a function of distance s travelled, can be formulated thus:
(1/f)df/ds = (1/2W)dW/ds ………………………. (8.1)
However, since the attenuation of frequency occurs only during half of the wave cycle, this equation needs to be further modified to become:
(1/f)df/ds = (1/4W)dW/ds ……………………….. (8.2)
Now, when I wrote the 1984 paper from which the above quotations are taken, I proceeded upon deriving this equation (8.2) to show that this implied a value for the Hubble constant determined by estimating the energy dissipation in the aether as if each of those 1760 transiently-created electrons per cubic metre presented the electron scattering cross-section according to the standard Thomson formula. Unfortunately, I misquoted the value of this quantity by a factor of π and so derived a Hubble time factor of 11,400 million years, whereas the theory based on such assumption indicates a lower value of the order of 4 billion years. I am now somewhat hesitant about relying on such a formula and would rather simply make the point that an electromagnetic wave travelling through such an field of electrons must suffer a loss of energy and a reduction of frequency.
That frequency attenuation is scaled as a function of frequency exactly as it would be if it were due to the Doppler effect. Inevitably therefore, the notion of an expanding universe is unsound and it becomes of interest here to denote the empirical value of the Hubble constant as N billion years, this being the relevant exponential decay time constant, and deduce from this the scattering cross section of those electrons. 4% energy absorption corresponds to a 1% frequency reduction over 1% of the distance travelled at the speed of light and so 1% of the Hubble time constant.
Suppose the scattering cross section of each electron to be β times 10-25 sq. cm. To achieve 4% energy absorption this means that the wave travels a sufficient distance to encounter 4 times 1023 times (1/β) electrons per sq. cm. of wave cross-sectional area. At 1,760 electrons per cubic metre this means that the wave must travel over a distance of (1/β) times 2.27×1026 cm to suffer a 1% frequency reduction. Since 1 billion light years is a distance of 9.45×1026 cm we then find that the 1% frequency reduction occurs in a period of (1/β) times 0.24N billion years. This gives the relationship between N and β as one for which βN is equal to 24.
On the basis of the electron scattering cross-section according to the J. J. Thomson formula of 6.65×10-25 sq. cm, the Hubble time period should be 3.6 billion years, which seems too low. We must remember, however, that this is not a measure of the age of the universe. It is merely the time constant of an exponential frequency reduction curve. It is reasonable to suppose that the process by which we have explained the successful creation of the proton in chapter 4, as attributable to nine muons coming together within the space occupied by quon charge, may, even so far as unsuccessful events are concerned, fall short of achieving that 1760 transient electron level per cubic metre. A one in five chance would enhance the Hubble time period by a factor five. Also, one can even question the merit of using the Thomson radiation scattering formula for reasons to be discussed in Appendix II and readers who need to know more about this before delving into the creation of stars should pause here to read through Appendix II.
Had we used instead the cross-sectional area of the electron as based on the Thomson electron form discussed in the early chapters of this work then that Hubble time period would be longer by a factor of 6, meaning that it would be of the order of 20 billion years. Such a step would, however, need theoretical justification as to precisely how the physical interception of an electromagnetic wave extracts energy from that wave. Also, it seems illogical to ignore the physics underlying the derivation and experimental support for the conventional theory of the scattering cross-section of the electron.
Given the Hubble constant the theory which involves the Big Bang notion of creation with the universe expanding from the moment of Creation necessarily involves theoretical assumptions that are difficult to verify but suggest that the age of the universe is somewhat smaller than that measured as the Hubble time period.
Our uncertainty here in our theory concerns the effective cross-sectional area of an electron obstructing passage of an electromagnetic wave in outer space populated by a mere 1,760 electrons per cubic metre of mass density 1.6×10-27 kg/m3. This, incidentally, is of the same order as the mass density of the so-called ‘missing matter’ that cosmologists say should be present in space to give account of certain features of their theories.
I feel, however, that enough has been said to show that we need not belong to an expanding universe with its Big Bang scenario. It seems far more preferable to accept that the facts of record support the case for a steady-state universe, thanks to our understanding based on this work of how protons are created and the ongoing role of our aether in that activity. This is especially the case as we now address the problem of how a star is created, but go on from there to show how the space domains that feature in this star creation role define boundaries which must one day be traversed by the star at a very acute angle. This means that the star will be located astride that boundary and be partially in one domain and partially in an adjacent domain. Since, as we shall see, the force of gravity does not act in an attractive sense between matter in different space domains, there are then conditions which arise that may cause the star to explode and disperse, as by a supernova event. Accordingly the cycle of life and death of a star becomes part of the syndrome of a steady-state universe rather than one exhibiting the one-off Big Bang scenario. It is one thing to accept that the universe exists and for us to try to probe its secrets, but quite another to say when it came into existence and confront the mystery of what was there before that event. We can never know the answers to these questions but the picture we can form has more clarity if founded on the notion of a steady-state universe.
The Creation of a Star
Why are there so many stars and not just one large star that sits at the centre of the universe? What causes a star to rotate? How is the energy which it radiates sustained? Cosmologists have answers. It all happened in the Big Bang and within a fraction of a second what had appeared blew apart as its numerous fragments interacted one upon the other to impart angular momentum in opposite spin directions and so form stars that rotate in their ever-expanding distribution in space. They supposedly feed on energy, nuclear energy as they transmute their hydrogen into inferior lower forms of matter such as helium and so emit their radiation. The aether is not a part of this picture of Creation.
The source of their expert knowledge on these matters is their observation of what they see in distant space using high powered telescopes plus laboratory analysis of that pattern of radiation as it reaches Earth. The reason that the energy has to be nuclear is because they can conceive of no other source adequate to sustain the Sun’s radiation for billions of years.
So you may ask how it is that I can claim any special insight into these matters. What have I seen in a telescope that others have missed? As to ‘insight’, is that what is needed to ask the obvious question: “Why cannot the energy radiated by a star come from the collisions of those electrons of its adjacent hydrogen atoms, given that their energy is sustained by interaction with the quantum underworld of the space medium, the energy of the aether itself?” As to that ‘telescope’, my answer is that I was looking instead at a situation one can see by looking through a microscope, not at a crystal ball but at the surface of a crystal of iron. My experimental Ph.D. research concerned an energy anomaly found in iron and I spent a great deal of time one summer supplementing that effort by trying to develop a theoretical model justifying the ferromagnetic state of iron, as based on electrostatic and electrodynamic interaction of 3d state electrons in iron atoms. Those atoms are arrayed in a body-centred cubic lattice and I was exploring the trade-off between the negative energy potential of the interactions versus the accompanying mechanical strain energy to explore, not only the ferromagnetic condition, but property dependence upon mechanical stresses as I had measured the loss anomaly factor as a function of such stress.
That theoretical research convinced me that a phenomenon known as the ‘gyromagnetic ratio’ was not attributable to electron spin, as theoretical physicists assumed, but was in fact attributable to the existence of a reaction which halved the strength of an applied magnetic field, a reaction that must also be exhibited by the vacuum medium, the aether.
I later realized that my ferromagnetic model of an iron crystal, if adapted to the simple cubic structure, had something to tell me about the properties of the aether, because it had a message concerning angular momentum and rotation.
More than this, however, the iron crystal has an intrinsic structure that is characterized by energy deployment and what one could see in a microscope is what are called ‘magnetic domains’, regions of the crystal bounded by planar separating walls which divide the iron into parts in which the electron orbital motion accounting for ferromagnetism have opposite directions.
It does not take a genius then to imagine that, possibly, the aether itself might have the characteristic feature of incorporating domains on a large scale and that this might have some bearing on the distribution pattern of stars when born, meaning one star or one binary pair of stars per space domain. I had in mind also the great mystery posed by the hope that gravitation might prove to be a phenomenon linked in some way to electromagnetism. So there I was, at Cambridge, having ideas that I dare not express for fear of ridicule, but pursuing in private my hobby of delving into theoretical physics when my formal discipline was connected with electrical engineering.
I was, after all, at the venue where, some two decades earlier Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac had been acclaimed for establishing the case for electron spin by which that gyromagnetic factor of 2 is supposed to come from what I can best describe as pseudo-relativistic mathematical equations. It was a little consolation to think that Dirac had graduated in engineering in his first university, Bristol, and a comfort to think that he saw space as a ‘sea’ of states from which a missing electron would appear as a positive ‘hole’, the positron, but the aether was still a ‘taboo’ subject and I had a living to earn upon leaving academia. I had already spent three years at Manchester University obtaining my first degree and had two years of graduate apprenticeship before entering Cambridge. At least, being at Trinity College, the venue of Isaac Newton and J. J. Thomson, whose portraits overlooked one’s dining habits in Hall for some three years, I could hope that that might engender some creative inspiration and, indeed, courage as I quietly pursued my hobby of exploring the aether in the years ahead.
As to the creation of a star, I saw that as an event resulting from the aether ‘cooling’ from a chaotic state into an ordered state, just as magnetic domains form in iron as its crystalline form sheds extra energy in cooling through its Curie temperature. In the aether, however, that energy is released as gravitational potential of the star or binary star pair so formed within each domain. In other words, we are looking at the situation in which gravity as a phenomenon is switched on by domain formation just as the state of ferromagnetism comes into being only when those domains form.
Creation as applied to a star then involves the coalescence of dispersed matter, protons and electrons, which means, once the gravity switch is thrown, that many of the protons rush in ahead of the electrons because their mutual rate of acceleration is 1836 times that of the electron-electron interaction. Here is the trigger causing a star to spin, the initial state of it having a positive electric core charge, and this brings us to the point of primary importance in this work. It is a factor that can explain the spin of a photon as well as the spin of a star and may even explain something I shall reveal in the last section of chapter 9, something having technological implications for the alternative energy field.
I did, at the end of 1959, document this aspect of the theory in printed form [‘The Theory of Gravitation’, (1960)], but at that time I had not seen the link to any technological implications, as otherwise I might well have changed course much earlier in my career pursuit. The book just mentioned was privately published at that time only to make a break as I changed from a professional role with a major engineering company, English Electric, to a higher management role with IBM in their Patent Operations.
I was sure that a star forms owing to it acquiring a positive core charge density at its creation, a charge which is later sustained by virtue of its hydrogen atoms being crushed together by gravity so as to be close enough for their electron shells to overlap and so develop the ionized state which leaves enough protons free to move inwards under gravity and so sustain that core charge. The charge density would be the square root of G times the mass density of hydrogen corresponding to that overlap of their electron shells. The result is the mean mass density of our Sun, a little over 1.4 gm/cc as I show in Appendix IV.
So now let us see how the aether coextensive with the Sun reacts to the presence of this charge. Being a little impatient here I rush to say that it shares the spin of the Sun at the time the Sun comes into being, simply because aether spin means electric charge induction, displacement of charge from its core body to its spherical aether boundary. You might then say that such a proposition would mean that the Sun along with other stars would then have a magnetic moment and so a magnetic field should be in evidence. You could even suspect that body Earth, if also having a coextensive aether sphere spinning with it, would be subject to an internal electric strain and also possess a magnetic moment giving rise to a magnetic field.
All very well, you might then say, but how does theory yield quantitative results that we can check with observation and measurement? As I now show, the solar system can be obliging in this endeavour but we need to be cautious. We will proceed in stages and I am sure you will find the commentary interesting and convincing.
The Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis
That comment above that the sun should exhibit an electric charge density in its core equal to the square root of G times the sun’s mean mass density should remind any well-read cosmologist of what came to be known as ‘the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis’. A. Schuster [Proc. Roy. Soc., 24, 121-137 (1912)] and H. A. Wilson have shown that the magnetic moments and angular momenta of the Sun and Earth are approximately related in a common ratio. This led to the hypothesis, the speculation that a moving element of mass as measured in gravitational units might have the same magnetic effect as an electric charge measured in electrostatic units.
It seems not to have occurred to those interested in this hypothesis that rotation of an astronomical body might entrain rotation of aether, which could involve the induction of an electric field and so electric charge displacement duly cancelled by charge displacement in that astronomical body. If the latter and not the former gives rise to magnetic action one has here a situation where one can explain the presence of a magnetic moment with no commensurate evident presence of an electric charge.
Wilson sought to prove the hypothesis by experiment based on seeking to detect the magnetic action of a swinging iron bar [Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 104, pp. 415-455 (1923)]. The null result of the experiment is hardly surprising. I would not expect the aether to respond to the oscillations of an iron bar though I could contemplate a response if a rotor spinning at the same speed for a prolonged period was used and there were some effect akin to the presence of an electric charge within that rotor. However, one must keep in mind that in 1923 the aether was not surviving as a popular notion in the vocabulary of science. Nor, indeed, could one expect that hypothesis to survive, given the boldness of what it claimed.
However, interest in the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis revived in 1947 when W. W. Babcock [Publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., 59, 112-124 (1947)] succeeded in measuring the magnetic field of the star 78 Virginis. The hypothesis was verified as being fully applicable to three bodies instead of two, the range of angular momenta then being 1010:1. Nobel Laureate P. M. S. Blackett [Nature, 159, 658-666 (1947)] then became very interested and wrote an extensive article on the subject. He began by presenting the hypothesis in the form: (Magnetic moment)/(angular momentum) = G (β/c) where β is a constant of the order of unity, c is the ratio of electrostatic to electromagnetic units and G is the constant of gravitation.
This was followed by a Table I in which he presented numerical data in support of the above formulation before then enlarging on the whole theme by reference to the research findings of several authors. What is however perplexing for a serious reader of his account is the data he provides in that table for the magnetic moments and angular momenta of the Sun and the Earth. The ratios of magnetic moment to angular momentum for Earth and Sun are shown to be 1.11×10-15 and 0.79×10-15, respectively, whereas my calculation of G (β/c) gives the value β times 0.86×10-14.
There is a factor of 10 discrepancy if β is to be ‘of the order of unity’ and I can but suspect that there has been a numerical miscalculation on Blackett’s part which is quite misleading even if an error factor of 10 was seen ‘as of the order of unity’ in the context of a number 10 raised to the fifteenth power. In the event, however, Blackett himself was sufficiently intrigued by the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis to mount a further experiment [Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 245A, 309-370 (1952/53)]. He contrived to acquire a quite large object of pure gold just for the period of the experiment and placed this in a wooden shed in a rural location remote from any metal objects or external power supply equipment, his purpose being to use an extremely sensitive magnetometer to see if the concentration of mass by the high density of gold allowed that object to reveal a magnetic property attributable to its rotation with body Earth. Again, not surprisingly, there was a null result, because surely, if we are really looking at a property of the aether, one cannot expect the aether itself to increase its action merely because of a mass seated in very dense matter.
So here was an astronomical observation of major importance but, owing to it not complying with one’s hopes on the laboratory front and in spite of the related efforts of many authors, it was merely a hypothesis that had somehow to be buried and forgotten. The aether had not been seen as a factor involved owing to it also having been buried and forgotten for not itself complying with an assumed property that it did not possess and yet the basis of the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis was a pointer to the existence of the aether. Such is the arena of scientific endeavour, at least where cosmology is concerned.
If the aether spins with an astronomical body and such spin can induce electric charge displacement, then one might still expect that hypothesis to hold true at least in a limited sense as applied to hydrogen in a star, and all the more so, given the opening comments of this chapter, my observation that ionization in the Sun must endow it with a core charge that has the density implied by that Schuster-Wilson hypothesis.
It could well be that there is something fortuitous about the way in which the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis has crept into physics. The problem with the numerical data might well arise because it is so difficult to be sure what magnetic properties a star has. There are Sun spots on the Sun which signify regions of ionized gas spinning independently of the general spin of the Sun itself. The magnetic fields in evidence from spectral line shifts in radiation from the hydrogen atom fluctuate over time and make estimates of magnetic moment unreliable. Accordingly, whilst accepting that the G (β/c) factor has a role in cosmology by linking gravitational action on ionized gas with an astronomical body having a core electrical charge density and core mass density that are uniform and related, we will not ponder further on the specific values of magnetic moments of such ionized bodies. Instead, we shall look to the aether to reveal something of relevance to this curious factor.
We are converging onto the proposition that aether spin involves induction of a charge density within the spinning aether sphere, owing to charge being displaced to or from its spherical boundary. This charge density is neutralized in its electrostatic effects by virtue of a corresponding charge deployment of opposite polarity within the astronomical body seated within that aether sphere. Accordingly, one can only sense the magnetic effects associated with one of those charge components, namely the action of the charge displaced within matter. This is further supported by my contention that the ionization of hydrogen in a star will, owing to collisions between K shell electrons in gravitationally compacted hydrogen atoms, free just enough protons to set up the precise density of positive core charge that the hypothesis requires.
I can provide some further insight into the reasons why aether charge itself, absent a reaction in coextensive matter, does not set up a primary magnetic field action. Reason (a) is that we found in chapter 7 that all the right results emerged from analysis of aether structure without our incorporating any magnetic interaction in the aether model considered. Reason (b) will emerge from chapter 9 where we derive the Neumann potential and see that we need to retain the Fechner hypothesis to explain the phenomenon of electromagnetic interaction. The Fechner hypothesis requires quantum electrodynamic charge pair creation and annihilation of the kind we associate with moving electrons, but electrons are not part of the basic aether medium. Reason (c), also to be discussed in chapter 9, is that the aether charge that has freedom of movement is governed by statistical factors by which the energy involved optimizes its deployment. The aether can set up a magnetic effect by the reaction which accounts for that gyromagnetic factor of 2 being halved, but this is a reaction and not a primary action unless, as applies where we have stored field energy in an inductance, we deliberately terminate current flow in matter with the result that the aether induces the back-EMF that feeds the return flow of the induction energy. Reason (d) is the fact that, contrary to general expectation, one can explain gravity and derive the value of G as an aether property without associating gravitation with an electrodynamic action.
Enough has now been said to show that the aether figures prominently in the process of star creation. In contrast with my earlier accounts of the theory involved, where I discussed first how the setting up of an electric charge density in a body of astronomical proportions accounted for the creation of our Sun and the planets, I will, before delving into the mathematics of space domains, start here by introducing space domain theory.
Space Domains
Although cosmologists like to think that the action of gravity knows no bounds and that matter, however separated by distance, will be subject to the unabated action of gravity as defined by the value of G that we measure here on Earth, I think otherwise. Gravity has a limited range of action. It only operates between matter seated in the same space domain or between matter and quons of the aether lattice seated in the same space domain.
The latter can be verified in the following way. Consider a region of aether in the near vicinity of Earth and the effect of the gravitational potential of Earth and Sun on quons located in that region. Those quons, which define the E frame of the aether, move in circular orbits in which they are dynamically balanced by the gravitons in the G frame. Each has a mass mo which, subject to gravitational potential Φ, imports an amount of energy Φmo which is held at the seat of that quon as the thermal vibration energy of that quon. This is an energy quantum kT, owing to the quon having only two degrees of freedom, imposed by the constraint of keeping in synchronism with the orbital motion of other quons, this constraint precluding the third degree of freedom. T is the temperature in Kelvin and k is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38×10-16 ergs/K. This gives us the equation:
Φmo = kT ……………………………………. (8.3)
Now, in chapter 7, we were able to show that the mass of the quon was 0.0408 times the mass of the electron, as one can see from equation (7.25) by substituting the value we derived for r/d. Since we then know that the electron has a mass of 9.109×10-28 gm, the temperature of the quon system, which we can refer to as the ‘aether temperature’ or ‘cosmic background temperature’, if it can be measured, will give us the value of Φ, the gravitational potential in the near vicinity of Earth.
Now, of course, we can only be referring here to the 2.7 K temperature exhibited by any rarefied form of matter that interacts with the aether at high altitudes above the Earth. It appears that radiometers carried by U-2 aircraft flying at altitudes of 20 km detected a 390 km/s component of Earth motion through space by interpreting the observed local anisotropy of the 2.7 K temperature by reference to an assumed isotropic distribution. This was reported in October 1977 [Phys. Rev. Lett., 39, 898] and again, on November 3rd 1977, under the title: ‘Aether Drift Detected at Last’ at page 9 of the journal ‘Nature’, followed in May 1978 by an article ‘The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether Drift’ in ‘Scientific American’.
With T as 2.7 K, equation (8.3) tells us that Φ is 1.002×1013 erg/gm. So here we have an approximate measure of the local gravitational effect of all the matter in the universe that lies within the range of gravitational range. I say ‘approximate’ because one cannot rule out a small contribution to temperature from another source and because the assumption concerning the two degrees of freedom may be too rigid an assertion. However, since G is 6.67×10-8 cgs units, body Earth of mass 5.977×1027 gm and radius 6.378×108 cm contributes about 6.2% of this value of Φ. Also, the Sun of mass 1.989×1033 gm at a distance of 1.496×1013 cm contributes 88% of this value of Φ and so, even if the other planets plus the rest of the universe within gravitational range contribute nothing to this potential, we can account for 2.6 K of that temperature. This is close enough to justify my assertion that gravitation has a limited range.
As I show in Appendix II, the inertial property of a particle vests in its electric charge responding to the influence of an accelerating electric field in just such a way as to conserve its energy and avoid radiation of its intrinsic electric field energy. This is not to say that the accelerated electron is inactive in the role of radiating energy, because a group of electrons accelerated together can operate collectively in developing such radiation and one has to look also at the kinetic energy (magnetic energy) associated with electromagnetic wave propagation. This key to understanding the nature of inertia is of vital importance to cosmological theory.
Ernst Mach (1893) regarded the background of very distant stars as a firm base of reference for the determination of inertial action. Quoting from p. 169 of the book: ‘The Structure of the Universe’ by J. Narlikar (Oxford University Press; 1977):
“Mach concluded that inertia owes its origin to the background of distant stars. Remove the background and the body will cease to have any inertia! This reasoning is known as ‘Mach’s Principle’.”
Then on p. 170 of that book one reads:
“In the early 1950s the Cambridge physicist Dennis Sciama suggested an interesting interpretation of Mach’s principle. He argued that, when a non-inertial coordinate frame is used, the inertial forces arose because of gravitational forces exerted by distant matter. Imagine a body like the Earth which is being attracted by the Sun’s gravitational field. In the frame of reference in which the Earth is at rest, we can argue that it is acted on by two equal and opposite forces: (1) the Sun’s gravitational force of attraction and (2) the force exerted by the rest of the Universe. The latter is expected to depend on the density of distant matter and its distance from the Earth. Starting with this idea Sciama deduced from general arguments the relation: ρGT2 = 1 In this relation, ρ is the mean density of matter in the Universe and T is the time scale associated with the expansion of the Universe. If we use Hubble’s constant H, we may write T = 1/H.”
Sciama’s ideas on this theme are typical of the reasoning used by cosmologists who cannot contemplate gravity having a limited range of action, and look to find answers to the problem of inertia in the far distance of space, whereas the phenomenon of inertia is something they can research on a laboratory bench. All they have to do is to look into the physics of the electron and avoid the a priori assumption that a single accelerated electron must radiate energy by saying instead that it seeks to conserve the energy it acquires from its interaction with the electric field that produces that acceleration [see Appendix II].
In mentioning Sciama, I am reminded that I received my Cambridge Ph.D. in 1954 as did Sciama, and that a few years later I met with Sciama to discuss my ideas and the aether theory I present in this work. He was polite and attentive but showed little interest other than saying: “We all believe in the aether, but we call it ‘space-time’.” The message was clear; relativity rules in the mind of the cosmologist and unification of field theory means building on Einstein’s foundations to discover the ultimate link.
I maintain that the 2.7 K cosmic background temperature, coupled with the theoretical derivation of the quon mass, in the aether which I have explored in deciphering Nature’s coded messages, provides the evidence that gravitation has a restricted range of action.
I would have liked in this section on space domains to be able to explain what, on an ab initio basis, determines the size of such a space domain. That is a problem I have not solved and one which I can but bequeath to future researchers. In the analogous situation, that of the magnetic domains which form in the crystals of a ferromagnetic material, domain size is determined, as ever, by an energy optimization process. The domain walls which divide adjacent domains have an energy density per unit area owing to the field reversal that occurs in traversing the wall. The volume of domain enclosed by the domain walls determines an energy which scales in proportion to domain size, the energy density being partially strain energy (positive potential) and magnetic field energy (negative potential). Combining these energies, optimum (minimum) energy criteria determine the domain size, of the order of 100 microns or so in iron.
It is not so easy to see a way forward along these lines when considering the space domain, bearing in mind we are dealing with distances measured in light years. However, before moving on from this chapter section, we will approach the problem by imagining the initial creation of our Sun in a space domain and looking to see if, in acquiring its initial angular momentum, it did that by drawing on the resource of the space domain in which it was born. We shall assume one single space domain devoted to the creation of the Sun and see if we can deduce the physical size of that domain, using the data we have derived for the photon in chapter 6 and for aether structure in chapter 7.
In deriving equation (6.17) we saw that an energy E fed into the aether involves the addition of an angular momentum of E/Ω and, from equation (6.16), half of this energy goes into kinetic energy. Conversely, if the aether sheds an energy E as gravitational energy it loses angular momentum E/Ω and kinetic energy E/2. This angular momentum, as shed by an entire space domain, is assumed to go to the star.
On this basis each quon in the domain will shed energy given by the equation:
Φmo = ΩΗ …………………………………… (8.4)
where H is here the angular momentum released by each unit cell of the aether. We have seen that the mass of the quon is 0.0408 times that of the electron and we know r/d is 0.3029, where r is the Compton electron wavelength 2.426×10-10 cm divided by 4π, and so can determine d. From this, given that each cubic cell of the aether has a volume d3 and that electron mass is 9.109×10-28 gm, the mass density of the quon lattice is approximately 144 gm/cc.
When we double this to add the equal mass density of the graviton system, the total mass density of what might be referred to as the ‘structured space medium’ is 288 gm/cc. It is high compared with the mass density of Earth or Sun but low in comparison with the mass-energy density that applies to the virtual muon population of the aether. Yet we do not sense any resistance in moving through this aether, thanks to the inherent inertial balance of the aether medium. We shall see presently in this chapter how such a mass density can be confirmed by the evidence available.
Meanwhile we denote this 288 gm/cc mass density as ρo and formulate an equation for the total angular momentum (AM) shed by a domain to form a star. Although space domains must have planar boundaries as with magnetic domains and so are likely to be cubic in form, it eases calculation to assume a spherical form of radius D, merely to estimate the scale involved.
From (8.4), bearing in mind that only half of ρo is effective in interacting with the gravitational potential Ω, the total angular momentum shed in forming the star is:
(AM) = ∫ ( GM/R)(ρo/2)(4πR2)(1/Ω)dR …………….. (8.5)
The result is:
(AM) = πGMD2ρο/Ω ………………………… (8.6)
and so D is given by:
D2 = SΩ/πGρo ……………………………… (8.7)
where S is the parameter angular momentum /mass of the star.
We can now calculate D as it applies to the creation of the Sun. At creation, prior to the Sun shedding its planets, its angular momentum, as evaluated in Appendix V, was some 3.2×1050 cgs units and its mass 2×1033 gm. With ρo as 288, G as 6.67×10-8 and Ω as 7.8×1020 also in cgs units, we then find that D is 4.6×1020 cm or 480 light years.
If the Sun was created within a cubic space domain one would expect its cube dimension to be of the order of 760 light years on this basis, a figure that might seem to be a useless piece of information, were it not for certain geological evidence. Given that our solar system is travelling through the aether at some 390 km/s subject to an uncertainty of 60 km/s, as detected from the U-2 aircraft radiometer experiments measuring anisotropy of the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation, the Earth would surely traverse a domain boundary more than once in every period of one million years. Such an event must be quite traumatic if the range of gravitational action is confined within a space domain. One would need to pray for a fast crossing in a direction normal to the planar boundary of the domain, as a crossing at a very acute angle would prolong the lapse of gravity and involve enormous upheaval and earthquake activity.
So, you see, understanding more about Creation even in a steady-state universe can bring with it the threat, one day, of impending doom. Geological history must have its own messages of record and such history will inevitably repeat itself one way or the other.
We will end this chapter by digressing into this subject and also into the theme of neutron stars, but first we must complete our analysis of the aether properties by considering the theory of aether spin by reference to Fig. 8.1 and the one bright hope that it brings for the prospect of our tapping energy from the aether itself.
Aether Spin
We have seen how the photon is explained as a tiny unit of aether structure spinning about a central axis. It was implied that the presence of an electron might suffice to nucleate such a spin on the basis that its electric field acting on the group of quons and from the centre of that group might induce that state of spin. Now we shall look at this picture to see what happens on an astronomical scale.
Referring to Fig. 8.1, a quon, denoted q, describes an orbit of radius r at the angular frequency Ω of our quantum underworld and we will now assume that, for some reason, there is a superimposed rotation of the centre of that orbit owing to motion at angular velocity ωR about a central axis at a distance R. We suppose these two circular motions are coplanar, meaning their axes of spin are mutually parallel.
Fig. 8.1
Now, the overriding constraint that governs our aether and accounts for so much of what is fundamental to the physics of our universe is the synchrony of time keeping that ensures there is no departure from conformity with the Ω angular frequency. One then sees from Fig. 8.1 that, when the two motions are compounded, the radius of the quon orbit is affected and must vary between r(1+ωR/Ωr) and r(1- ωR/Ωr) for the condition of synchronous motion to apply. In effect, the quon moves at a steady speed in orbit about a new centre radially displaced from the remote axis through a distance ωR/Ω. This means that, if a spherical body of aether with its quon lattice spins at the angular frequency ω, there will be an accompanying induction of charge density σs given by incrementing the radius R of a disc of charge density σ by this amount ωR/Ω. We then have:
π(σs)R2 = πσ[(R + ωR/Ω)2 – R2] ……………….. (8.8)
Which gives:
σs = 2σω/Ω ………………………………….. (8.9)
This is a formula for aether spin by which a charge density of σs is induced in the aether when it spins bodily at the angular frequency ω and, conversely, a formula giving the rate of spin produced by the presence of a charge of density σs. Here we have something that has eluded the efforts of generations of physicists who seek to understand the mechanics of the universe, whether as believers in the existence of an aether or not.
The value of σ as the charge density of the continuum is known from the theory, but it is charge which is neutralized by the presence of the quon population. This means that the only charge density which is in evidence is the induced charge density σs. However, even this, when present owing to aether spin, can induce charge displacement in matter, and vice versa, in a way which, in certain circumstances, reveals itself by setting up a magnetic moment without exhibiting a measurable electric field.
Having now regard to equation (6.8) in chapter 6, since we proved that x is 2r, we can write:
8πσqr = moΩ2r …………………………… (8.10)
which, by writing ρo as 2mo(σ/q), tells us that;
ρo = 16π(σ/Ω)2 ………………………….. (8.11)
Then, having in mind the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis and the charge induction in a star by virtue of the K-shell atomic electrons of hydrogen colliding to set protons free and so develop a positive core charge density of G1/2 times the mass density ρm of the star, we can now formulate:
σs = ρm (G)½ ………………………………. (8.12)
which, from (8.9) and (8.11), gives the following relationship between the angular velocity of the aether spin and the mass density of the star:
ω = ρm (4πG/ρo)½ ……………………… (8.13)
Sixteen years after the publication of the 1984 paper, the author has revised the theory to account for the fact that the electron is not a point charge but has a finite size. This leads to a revised value for the electron radius, which in turn affects the value of the fine structure constant. The revised value of the fine structure constant is 137.036, which is in excellent agreement with the experimental value of 137.036. This is a strong indication that the theory is on the right track.
Since we have, by theoretical analysis of the aether derived the numerical values of G and the mass density ρo of the quon-graviton system, the term in brackets is known to be 5.39×10-5 rad/sec per gm/cc.
The equation (8.13) is important because it tells us how fast the aether of a star spins owing to its positively charged electrical core, assuming our theory is correct. This spin is sustained by the presence of that distributed charge set up by gravitational forces being balanced by proton charge repulsion to cause the core mass density to be uniform at the value 1.4 gm/cc set by the K-shell electron collisions in the close contact between the star’s hydrogen atoms.
Now, although we are progressing in our quest to understand the processes involved in Creation, the formation of our universe, there is an element of speculation involved, once our analysis involves us in looking too far beyond our own solar system. You may regard the space domain as a mere notion but you will see the evidence before we end this chapter. Meanwhile, however, I shall concentrate on giving my account of how our Sun was created and how it evolved to form the planets.
The Creation of the Sun
The aether was in a chaotic state having no structure and no order. Then it found order just as iron does when it cools from its molten state to form crystals and then, at a lower temperature, the Curie temperature, form magnetic domains and bring ferromagnetism into being. However, the aether analogy is the formation of the quon lattice structure with its space domains and with gravitation as the emerging phenomenon, rather than ferromagnetism.
So somewhere in this sea of aether there was the space domain in which our sun was born. That space domain had a certain physical size which our theory suggests was a cube of the order of 760 light years in its side dimensions. With order and a surplus of free energy came the creation of protons and electrons to keep electrical charge in balance, but gravity was now in control and those protons came together faster than the electrons and so set up a stellar body, our sun, with a positively charged core. The relatively few electrons that came in late converged on the Sun at its boundary spherical surface but were held there because by then the aether coextensive with the body of the Sun was spinning at the speed determined by equation (8.13) above.
Independently from this, however, the matter which constituted our sun was also spinning because it had acquired the angular momentum shed by the aether owing to its gravitational potential. That angular momentum was the quantity defined by equation (8.6) above, which was the value 3.2×1050 cgs units that we have already related to the space domain size.
As one can work out from these data, given the mass of the sun together with that of the planets and its radius, the Sun at creation was spinning at an angular velocity of 8.3×10-5 rad/sec or about once every 21 hours [See Appendix V]. Is it not then interesting to find, from equation (8.13) that our aether theory tells us that the Sun’s aether, even now, spins at 7.5×10-5 rad/sec or about once per day, like the Earth today? Is this a message that says, working backwards, that the size of a space domain is determined over eons of time by stars being created and then suffering annihilation in a cycle of events which are governed by an overall process of equilibrium in energy and angular momentum deployment?
I leave that thought here on record and move on in my more immediate quest.
How did the planets form as our Sun somehow shed its angular momentum? Well, I can but assume that, once formed at the centre of its space domain, the sun was left in limbo for quite a while before it drifted into a boundary wall of that domain. Here it would, being so slow in traversing that first boundary, be subject to enormous gravitational upheaval as its surface material would tend to break away. Once released, of course, by being thrown off, the inertial reaction would impart momentum through the centre of the Sun and it would then travel much faster through cosmic space and many a domain boundary from then on without suffering much loss of matter.
I remind you that I cannot claim to know all the answers and at this stage I can but rely on something I referred to on page 158 of my book: ‘Physics Unified’. I there stated:
“R. A. Lyttleton in his book ‘Mysteries of the Solar System’, (Clarendon press, Oxford, p.34; 1968), has explained how magnetic forces exerted within a system of charge by its rotation and self-gravitation will force angular momentum outwards. Thus the transfer of angular momentum X to a concentrated surface zone is understandable. In a sense this can be thought of as a phenomenon similar to the gyromagnetic reaction already discussed. The reaction angular momentum of the field absorbs angular momentum from the centre of the body and the primary balance of angular momentum is driven to the outer periphery of the rotating system, all as a result of the diamagnetic screening effects within the electrical core.”
Here that reference to gyromagnetic reaction will be seen as a topic we discuss in chapter 9, and that quantity X as belonging to the matter shed by the sun to form the planets is here introduced in the following equation:
kQ2/R2 = X2/mR3 ………………………… (8.14)
This equation merely says that a positive electrical charge Q sitting inside a charged sphere of radius R and interacting with a negative charge Q at the surface of that sphere will develop a force that can be balanced by matter of mass m having an angular momentum X. The factor k is merely a coefficient introduced to help the onward discussion.
The Creation of the Planets
The argument is that when the sun traversed its domain boundary the normal gravitational pull on mass m was eliminated for much of the transit period. Also the result the electrical attraction would be affected because one can see space domains as defining regions of space and anti-space in which electric polarities are reversed. By this I mean that, whereas here in our own space domain of the present era, we have protons that are electrically positive and electrons that are electrically negative, one could find the situation reversed in an adjacent space domain. On this basis it is plausible to suggest that the mass m with its angular momentum X could break away from the Sun when the domain boundary is crossed or, perhaps, there might be a sequence of such eruptions and separations as successive domain boundary crossings occur in the early life of the sun.
The overall consequence has to be what we see today, which is a system in which the total planetary mass m in relation to the Sun’s mass M can be formulated as:
m/M = 3ω2/25πρmGk ………………………… (8.15)
This equation is derived from (8.14) given that Q is G1/2M and that M is 4πρmR3/3, with X as 2MR2ω/5.
Consider what this equation (8.15) means. It tells us that, if we know the total mass and angular momentum of the solar system and accept that this was all seated in the Sun when it was created then we know ω. With ρm then known to be 1.4 gm/cc from our hydrogen ionization theme, as discussed in Appendix IV, or as is evident by dividing the Sun’s mass by its volume, we are in a position to deduce the value of m/M theoretically.
Surely, then, if this were to be even reasonably close to the value we derive from astronomical measurement of our solar system, we would be justified in crying out: ‘Eureka’. After all, we are discussing Creation and the birth of our planets, including Earth, and it is indeed a challenge for physics to give a justified foundation for such a claim.
Well, Appendix V, shows the value of m/M based on observation. The total mass of the planets as divided by the mass of the Sun is 1/745. So what does equation (8.15) tell us? Remember that G is 6.67×10-8 cgs and we have just shown that ω is 8.3×10-5 rad/sec, so with ρm as 1.4 gm/cc we find that m/M is 1/355k. Now you see why that factor k was included. If only it were to have the value 2, then the m/M ratio of 1/710 would be close enough to 1/745 for the cry: ‘Eureka’!
We can but move on now to consider how the Earth itself was created.
The Creation of the Earth
The Earth has a ρm value of 5.5 gm/cc and ω of the initial Earth before the Moon was ejected was, according Lyttleton (Science Journal, 5, 53; 1969), 5.5 hours per revolution or 3.2×10-5 rad/sec. This is easily verified by adding the Moon’s angular momentum in its lunar orbit to that now possessed by the Earth’s spin, given the assumption that angular momentum is conserved.
In this case we find that for k =1 the Moon/Earth mass ratio given by equation (8.15) is 1/83. Here we can shout: ‘Eureka’ because the mass is known from astronomical measurement data to be 1/81 and that surely is close enough for us to see merit in our theory. We do seem to have a viable theory of Creation as applicable to planetary formation, but must somehow explain how k as pertaining to the sun can have the value 2.
What is the difference between the Earth in its state of crossing a space domain boundary and the sun in crossing such a boundary? In this primeval state the Earth can hardly have consolidated as a solid body. It must have condensed from an ionized gas and the core charge induction of G1/2 times that mass would hold for atoms that have shed an electron as it is not restricted to protons. The problem, however, is why our Earth formed from a spread of atoms of many forms given its source in the hydrogen atmosphere of the Sun. If there were such heavy atoms in the Sun, how is they were the one’s expelled to form Earth along with its partner of similar form Venus? Maybe Jupiter and Saturn were created in the first domain boundary crossing by the Sun, and Uranus and Neptune in the next boundary crossing, then Earth and Venus, followed by Pluto and Mars, with Mercury and a body that broke up to form the asteroids as the final traversal that created any satellites. Maybe atomic transmutations to form heavy atoms can occur in profusion at times of traversal of space domain boundaries, particularly in smaller bodies. Whatever the answers are, one at least can see a reason for physics to operate in an unusual way during the transitions at those domain boundaries.
One possibility that I have in mind is the thought that Venus and Earth were expelled in opposite directions when the Sun traversed a domain boundary at an oblique angle. The surface segment of the solar sphere that penetrates into the adjacent domain will then lie to one side of the Sun’s spin axis and the ionized matter that is shed will tend to be thrown off in a plane at right angles to that spin axis. Inevitably, therefore, if the matter which formed Venus went off into the forward direction and so moved faster into the new domain, the matter forming our Earth would be thrown backwards and, being still in ionized gaseous form, it could experience its own excursion back across the domain boundary and so back into the domain it had just left as part of the Sun. In that case it too would be subject to break up on the basis of equation (8.14). The moon would then emerge as the Earth’s satellite in virtually the same creation stage as the Earth itself. This would be long before the Earth solidified and so implies the creation of the moon independently of the notion that its creation might account for the Pacific Ocean being so large. As to the Earth solidifying, that would begin to occur as the gaseous matter rapidly deionized and as the Earth cooled upon moving well away from the sun. As to the processes regulating those atomic transmutations necessary to build the heavy atoms of the Earth’s composition, that has to remain a matter of speculation, though such processes could well be activated during the many successive crossings of space domain boundaries over eons of time, possibly hundreds of millions of years, before the Earth assumed its present form. Meanwhile the Sun itself would remain immune from such transmutation activity, because its tremendous physical size would, by its strong gravitational pull, keep its hydrogen atoms in close enough contact to remain ionized. Note that the ionization condition, if in accordance with what is outlined in Appendix IV, will preclude direct contact of the protons of adjacent atoms and so make atomic transmutation into heavier atoms less likely.
Moving on, we come now to our next ‘Eureka’ exclamation as we find the answer to that k=1 or k=2 dilemma. The answer, it seems, depends on whether the astronomical body in question has a spinning aether of larger or smaller radius than the body itself.
The Ionospheric Aether
Upon crossing a domain boundary there is a transition between space and ‘anti-space’, analogous to the transition between matter and antimatter, meaning a reversal of charge polarity in the aether itself. So our Sun with its proton charged positive core, as compensated by a negative charge induced by aether spin and charge displacement to the spherical surface, will, in crossing a domain boundary, suddenly find that the core charge polarity induced by aether spin is reversed. There will then, according to whether the aether spin radius lies outside the Sun or inside the Sun, be an effect as defined by equation (8.14), where k is 1 or 2. This action is depicted in Fig. 8.2 where the red circles represent the bounding contour of the astronomical body and the blue circles the bounding contour of the associated spinning aether.
Fig. 8.2
The two alternatives are illustrated in the upper part of Fig. 8.2 and one can see that the electric field effects of the core charge plus aether spin charge cancel in both cases to leave a charge Q, negative in one case and positive in the other, sitting within the outer charge Q of opposite polarity. Remember that we are discussing circumstances that apply in the very early stages of Creation.
When the space domain boundary is crossed the lower part of Fig. 8.2 represents the charge deployment. The core charge Q of the body remains as before, but the aether spin, being sustained in direction by angular momentum conservation, involves quons and charge continuum the polarities of which have reversed and so we have a charge 2Q sitting within a negative charge Q at the body surface in one case but 2Q as offset by a negative aether surface charge Q sitting within a negative charge Q at the body surface in the other case. Here is the explanation of how k can be 2 or 1. We can conclude that the Sun had, or at least had during the planetary creation phase, an aether spin that was of larger radius than the Sun itself, whereas Earth, for which k is 1, had an aether spin bounded within what was effectively its physical surface.
The story unfolding from this is that our Sun was created by an onset of gravity accompanied by an inflow of protons ahead of electrons and by an inflow of aether angular momentum. This was a one-off event occasioned by aether structure crystallization which introduced the synchronous dynamic state and allowed gravitons to form and so introduce the action of gravity. Since Creation, our sun has shed much of its initial angular momentum to form planets, but its inherent core charge is maintained by gravity acting on its ionized atoms in a preferential sense focussed on free protons. In its turn, this core charge sustains aether spin at a rate of spin that is unrelated to the actual spin of the matter comprising the sun, but an aether spin which, over time, must reverse in direction to adapt to the normal state where core charge is compensated by a neutralizing charge displacement. The conditions prevailing for a short period during and after crossing a space domain boundary are therefore exceptional and are in no way representative of what we observe today as our Sun moves through space well within the confines of the local space domain.
As to our Earth, during this initial creation phase it must have been gaseous in form and so of much larger physical size that it is today. As its ionization vanished and heavier matter evolved so that it became consolidated in the form we see today its aether spin would be sustained, not by gravitationally induced core charge, but by its residual aether angular momentum. Aether spin would become the primary factor resulting in electric charge displacement and the Earth would respond by deploying electrons in its metallic and semiconductor composition and ionic displacement in its oceans along with deployment of free charge in the aether itself. The spin of the quon lattice system sets up radial charge displacement from the spin axis and so a charge system that shares that spin but the counterflow of non-spinning aether charge, as needed to balance linear momentum owing to the cosmic motion of our Earth with its spinning aether, provides the action which neutralizes the induced charge electrostatically but not its magnetic effects.
We therefore have the situation where, after the moon had been shed by the Earth, it could, for a short period, induce the charge effect which produced aether spin and imported angular momentum and, thereafter, as it lost its charge induction capability when no longer ionized, leaving the aether already spinning to hold on to whatever angular spin momentum it had acquired. This would keep the Earth’s aether spinning in the same direction as the Earth traverses successive domain boundaries in its onward cosmic motion with the solar system, but owing to the charge polarity reversals of the aether as each new space domain is entered, there then needs to be a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic moment at each domain boundary crossing. Such a reversal would take effect over a period governed by eddy-current reaction as the currents induced in the Earth retarded the transition, but our expectation then has to be that our space domain theory is open to test by our search for the geological fingerprints left by such reversals. This brings us to the final topic of this chapter, geomagnetism.
Geomagnetism
Before we delve too deeply into this question of the Earth’s magnetic field, it is appropriate to note that two compensating charge effects are involved in an electrostatic sense, one seated in the Earth’s body form and the other seated in the aether spinning within body Earth. Additionally, there is the factor that the aether spin is about an axis that does not share the precession of the Earth’s spin. Here may lie the reason why the geomagnetic poles are at latitudes offset from the geographic poles by as much as 17o and why those geomagnetic poles move around the Earth at the 73o latitude in cycles of 960 years duration. In 1659 the magnetic declination at London, England was zero. By 1820 this declination had reached its maximum westerly of 24.5o and it reduced to 11o 52′ W by 1933, the expectation being that it will be zero again in the year 2139.
So here you can see that something involved in setting up the Earth’s magnetic field is moving within body Earth and changing its spin axis very slowly, a sure sign of something having a very large amount of angular momentum subjected to forces that cause the kind of precession one sees in a spinning top. This has to be a message which says the aether is there spinning within body Earth!
A great deal of effort has been expended by physicists in trying to prove or disprove claims concerning the source of the Earth’s magnetic field. Some decry the idea of a magnet sitting in the Earth’s core. The reason is that the shape of the Earth’s magnetic field does not fit the dipole pattern. Some have argued also that the field cannot arise from an electric charge sharing the Earth’s rotation, even allowing for some factor neutralizing its electrostatic action. Their reason is the same, the shape of the field as measured at the Earth’s surface and in comparison with measurements at depths a few miles below the Earth’s surface. None, however, seem to have factored into their analysis the simple fact that a distributed core charge of one polarity accompanied by a compensating surface charge of opposite polarity would combine to determine a magnetic field pattern that fits what is observed.
As to the magnitude of the field, we can calculate the geomagnetic moment involved, noting that whatever the component for the distributed core charge, the surface charge will set up double that in the reverse sense. The net magnetic moment in theory is, therefore, 1/2c times the electric charge velocity moment, or:
(1/2c)(2/5)(4πσs/3)R5ω ………………………… (8.16)
Here, R is the radius enclosing the charge of density σs and ω is the angular velocity of its rate of spin.
Since the charge here is induced by aether spin we need to use the equation (8.9) to eliminate the charge density term and give a result dependent only on R and ω plus two constant parameters of the aether. We then obtain:
(8π/15c)R5ω2(σ/Ω) …………………………. (8.17)
which, since σ is e/d3 and Ω is c/2r, gives us our final formula for the magnetic moment induced by aether spin as:
(16π/15)erR5ω2/d3c2 …………………………. (8.18)
In this expression er is the Bohr magneton, known from experiment to be 9.27×10-21 cgs units, d is 6.37×10-11 cm as we know from the evaluation of r/d in chapter 7 and e and c as measured are 4.803×10-10 esu and 2.998×1010 cm/s, respectively.
Applying this to our Earth’s aether, if deemed to spin at the same angular velocity as Earth itself, namely 7.27×10-5 rad/s, and if R is 6.45×108 cm, we obtain a magnetic moment of 7.86×1025 in cgs emu. Now the corresponding value of the geomagnetic moment as estimated from measurement of the Earth’s magnetic field is 8.06×1025 which is close to our theoretical value. If R were 6.50×108 cm then the magnetic moment in these units would be 8.17×1025.
I conclude from this that the Earth’s magnetic field is generated by aether spin and that the aether sphere spinning with body Earth, albeit with its spin axis tilted with respect to that of Earth and there being precession causing the geomagnetic poles to move around the Earth’s geographic poles. The Earth’s radius is 6.38×108 cm and so its aether sphere extends a little way above the Earth’s surface and this may have a role in accounting for the outer ionosphere layer of our upper atmosphere. As to the magnetic action involved, I see the primary induction as that of charge displacement in the aether which is matched by a balancing charge displacement in the matter constituting body Earth, but the latter charge providing the magnetic field and the aether charge having a passive role in that respect.
Such is my theory of geomagnetism, a theory which convinces me that the subject of ‘aether spin’, whether by entrainment with a rotating material body to so induce an electrically charged condition or by a spin action arising from the prior existence of a charged state, has a potential role in future energy technology.
Note that, whereas we needed to argue that the Earth’s aether spin was bounded within the Earth’s material radius in its primordial creation state, as evident from the k = 1 factor, we find that, upon consolidation and contraction to its ultimate form, it has come within the aether spin boundary. This seems a consistent picture and so, our final task in this chapter 8, is now to show how geomagnetism can tell us something about the space domain pattern on a universal scale.
For the record I can say that discovering the basis of aether spin and obtaining this result for the geomagnetic moment were very early achievements in my theoretical efforts. They date from the second half of the 1950s as one can verify by referring to my work entitled: ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, the preface of which is dated 22nd November, 1959. On page 32 of that work, under the heading ‘The Calculation of the Geomagnetic Moment’, one can see how the same numbers emerge from the same formulae as those introduced above. As there noted the results obtained suggested:
“… that the Earth’s aether terminates at a mean height of about 140 miles above the Earth’s surface. This suggests that the ionosphere may be a phenomenon arising at the aether boundary. It should be noted that it could be that the aether boundary is graded and occurs in stages, corresponding to different ionosphere levels. These levels are at mean altitudes of 45, 75, 105 and 155 miles respectively.”
There was, in fact, one difference which affected the resulting numerical derivation, in that my analysis in that early work took account of the 23.5 degree tilt between the Earth’s spin axis and the axis in space about which it precesses. Charge induction by aether spin is subject to a reducing factor, according to the cosine of any such angle of tilt, because the quon orbits of radius r are about an independent axis in space, which I assume is closer to that about which the planets orbit the sun than to the Earth’s spin axis. This was factored into that earlier treatment of the subject, but is omitted here to keep the presentation simple and avoid digression along tracks that are open to debate but do not affect the primary case presented.
The derivation of the geomagnetic moment by such a theory was, of course, enough for me to cry ‘Eureka’ at the time, nearly 50 years ago, but, as ever, the doctrine of the aether was the bugbear. When opportunity presented itself some ten and more years later, I was able to draw my theory to the attention of Sir Edward Bullard, who was a key contributor to the physics of geomagnetism. He had published papers on the theory of the origin of the Earth’s magnetic field in terms of differential rotation of parts of the Earth’s core and the theory of hydromagnetism that was of interest in the middle of the 20th century [E. C. Bullard et al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 243A, 67-92 (1950)]. The only reaction I drew from that contact was his comment that my theory did not explain the magnetic moment of planet Mars.
Inevitably, you see, such contacts lead to one being side-tracked and diverted, with really no scope for recovery that addresses the main issue. Another such example was after my 1969 book: ‘Physics without Einstein’ was published and led to a published reviewed by a scientist of the National Physical Laboratory in U.K. My theoretical derivation of the fine structure constant on page 115 of that work had given the result: hc/2πe2 = 137.038 in agreement with what was previously of record as its measured value, whereas the latest consensus as to its experimental value had become a figure of 137.036. The tone of the review, though guarded, made me feel that it was thought my way of deriving this number was contrived to give a fit, rather than being good physics. Yet I had on page 111 introduced a section entitled: ‘Space Polarization Energy’, which was evidently a little speculative as to a term which enhanced r/d from its formal ‘zero energy’ aether structure value of 0.30289 to 0.30292 and a fine structure value of 137.036 requires, according to the formula given by the theory, equation (7.24), that r/d should be 0.302916, which might excuse my ‘error’ in relying on the approximate value 0.30292. Happily, thanks to the intervention of Dr. D. M. Eagles and his employment at the National Standard Laboratory in Australia Measurement, the necessary fine-tuning of my theory owing to discovering a resonance that governed that space polarization energy duly emerged. It led to evaluation of that factor governing N in the decoding exercise introduced in this work and gave the required result for the fine structure constant. As to our final ‘Eureka’ of this pursuit to fathom the secrets of Creation, it concerns a theme I first wrote about in 1977 by a paper published in a little known periodical named ‘Catastrophist Geology’. It appears in volume 2 at p. 42 and describes space domains and their correlation with geomagnetic field reversals and geological disturbances. Then, in 1980, I discussed the subject again at pp. 168-174 of my book: ‘Physics Unified’. The following text is, for the most part, a replica of the account there presented. The ‘Eureka’ cry is warranted because, not only does the historical pattern of geomagnetic field reversals tell us that there is a cubic pattern in space dividing domain regions of interchanged charge polarities as between electrons and protons and aether continuum and quons, but it also gives us a measure the dimensions of those domains and the latter matches what we have deduced from the dynamics of the sun’s creation.
I hope the reader will agree that, given evidence which shows the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed, albeit over a period of a few thousand years owing to retardation as by induction of eddy currents in the Earth’s core, and then retained its direction of polarization for a few hundred thousand years before flipping direction again, it is a very difficult proposition to justify by physical theory. One may then begin to think the unimaginable, namely that, for some reason, with the Earth maintaining its direction of rotation owing to its very high inertia, that positive electricity has become negative and negative electricity has become positive. Yet, even then, there will be those who argue that if source of an electrical action reverses polarity and so field direction the sensors indicating that field direction, being electrical themselves, must reverse polarity too and so detect no change at all. Either way, however, there is another circumstance that can result in a reversal that would be sensed. This applies if, in moving from one space domain to the next, the quons and gravitons in keeping to the precise rhythm of their dynamic balance, happen to orbit clockwise in one domain and anticlockwise in the adjacent domain. This has the merit of explaining how, on a universal scale, the angular momentum overall can be in balance, as seems likely given that the domain structure condenses from a chaotic state that would have no overall rotary motion.
On this latter basis, the key factor governing geomagnetic field reversal is the sustained direction of spin of the Earth and its entrapped aether, regardless of domain boundary transit. Then, since charge polarity induced by aether spin reverses with the change direction of Ω, we would surely have a geomagnetic field reversal at each domain boundary crossing.
Although it is convenient to assume that the space domains all have the same size so as to fit together well in a cubic pattern, this may not be the case but we will make the assumption nevertheless. If each domain gives birth at Creation to a single star or a binary star pair, then the size of stars ought really to be more uniform than appears. However, much depends upon the energy in surplus in each domain and so available to create matter, those protons and electrons that form hydrogen. More critical, so far as uniformity of domain size is concerned, is the resulting angular momentum acquired by a star at birth.
The key parameter here is that factor S in equation (8.7), the ratio of the angular momentum of a star to its mass. Constant space domain size means that this quantity must be constant, which in turn, for a star which has not shed any planets, means, from equation (8.13), a fixed ratio of mass/radius. However, a likely scenario affecting most distant stars is that there will be planets, in spite of our difficulty in detecting their existence. Accordingly, there is little point in trying to compare such data but, for what it is worth, let us take an extreme example of a red giant star. Betelgeuse is said by Jeans [‘The Stars in their Courses’, Cambridge University Press, p. 92 (1931)] to be about 40 times as massive as the Sun and to occupy 25,000,000 times as much volume. The mass/radius parameter is 0.137 compared with the sun and the value of D given by (8.7), the radius dimension of the space domain in which Betelgeuse was created, would on this basis be 0.37 of that applicable to our Sun at creation. However, a red giant is believed to be the decaying form of a star, rather than the form it may have had upon initial creation. Since the majority of stars are similar to the Sun, we can, therefore, expect a reasonably-representative pattern of geomagnetic field reversals to emerge from the choice of a simple cubic structured simple domain system.
As the reader can see, those who theorize about stars and their creation, the cosmologists, have plenty of scope for research without imagining the Big Bang scenario, but they do need to get a better grasp of the physics which underlies the phenomena we observe here on Earth and within our solar system. Deciphering the secrets which determine the numerical parameters that physicists measure, often with incredible precision, is a pursuit which surely cannot be ignored, given that it can lead us along paths such as we are exploring here in relation to geomagnetic field reversals.
If the domain cube dimension were to be such that its volume is that of a sphere having the radius of 480 light years estimated from the Sun’s data, or 780 light years as that of a cube matched to the volume of the assumed domain sphere in the earlier calculation, then, at its cosmic speed of the order of 390 km/s, our Earth would cross a domain boundary every 600,000 years or so if moving parallel with a cube side. That U-2 speed measurement was, however, subject to an uncertainty factor of 60 km/s and so a reversal period of the order of 700,000 years is consistent with the Sun’s data. In general, however, the motion will be inclined to such an axis and the planes separating domain boundaries will be crossed more frequently than this.
In Fig. 8.3 the hypothetical pattern of reversals due to motion through cubic domain space is shown in a time scale measured in millions of years before the present time. The solar system is imagined to move in a straight line through the domain space over this period of time, though it does move in a slight arc owing to its galactic motion. The inclination of the line with the domain cube axes is chosen deliberately to give results which resemble the observed reversal sequence and the time scale has been matched accordingly. The names assigned to the reversals are those used conventionally to designate these events. There is a reasonably close correlation. The interesting result, however, is that such an erratic pattern of events lends itself to decoding in this way. I believe that this is affirmative support for the domain theory suggested, especially as the size of the domains derived from the empirical data fit is in close accord with that calculated for the Sun.
Fig. 8.3
A textbook showing the Earth’s magnetic field reversal pattern over the past four million years is one by D. H. Tarling and M. P. Tarling [‘Continental Drift’ , Bell, London, pp. 52 and 66 (1971)]. They also comment on the rather perplexing evidence which shows that fossil species have disappeared at times of reversal and new species have appeared shortly thereafter. This implies that the geomagnetic field reversal was accompanied by a rather more traumatic event.
Reporting on documentary evidence gleaned from the deep-sea floor of the Indian Ocean, the Science Correspondent of the U.K. newspaper ‘The Times’ wrote in 1972:
“…. tiny metallic and glass beads that originated from outer space were fragments from some great cosmic catastrophe that caused molten particles to splash into the upper atmosphere some 700,000 years ago. The shower of debris coincided with the last reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field.”
The reader will notice that Fig. 8.3 shows a recent reversal of the geomagnetic field. The above report and the Tarling book both suggest that the last reversal was 700,000 years ago. If this were true then another reversal would be imminent on the time scale used in Fig. 8.3. However, since these reports were written, evidence of a reversal about 12,000 years ago, a very short-lived reversal, has emerged. This fits very well with the empirical evidence in Fig. 8.3, which shows a near crossing of a cube domain edge, meaning two reversals in rapid succession. I was unaware of the latest discovery when outlining this domain theory at the end of my book ‘Modern Aether Science’, published early in 1972. The fact that we have had a magnetic reversal in relatively recent times is reassuring if such events are accompanied by cosmic upheavals. One may well wonder whether catastrophic geological events can be traced to this recent period.
On a longer time scale it is interesting to consider the circuital motion of the solar system in its galactic cycle and contemplate the fact that the Earth would cross the domain boundaries at different angles of incidence with a four-fold periodicity per galactic cycle. If, as my theory indicates, the gravitational field between matter in the Earth is disturbed when the domain boundaries are traversed, the faster the crossing, the less this disturbance. The crossing will be most rapid when the Earth approaches the boundary in the normal direction. If it approaches a boundary at a low angle it will take much longer to traverse it. Indeed, it seems statistically possible for an approach to be at such a low angle that the Earth could disintegrate on reaching the domain boundary. The probability is very small but it is a consequence of this theory and one might wonder whether the asteroids really originated in a planet broken up in this way.
These ideas are rather speculative but they take encouragement from the researches of J. Steiner [Jour. Geol. Soc. Australia, 14, 99 (1967)], who did, in fact, visit me in England to discuss my theory several years ago after becoming aware of my book: ‘Modern Aether Science’. He has made an extensive study of the possible correlation between geological events and the galactic motion and concluded that the constant of gravitation G may, in some way, depend upon the period in the galactic cycle. The theoretical interpretation of such data is difficult in view of the uncertainty in the present state of cosmological theory, particularly so far as concerns variation of G. The problem is further confused by the expanding Earth hypothesis which is dependent upon a slowly varying G. Yet Einstein’s theory hardly permits G to vary and my theory as presented in this work requires G to be as constant as the charge-mass ratio of the electron. I therefore favour the supposition that G is constant but only acts between matter within the confines of a common space domain. This renders G effectively dependent upon the close proximity of a domain boundary as far as geological events are concerned and seems to offer scope for relating geological events and galactic motion. Reverting, therefore, to the statement above that there would be a four-fold periodicity of gravitational upset in the galactic cycle, given the space domain picture, I draw attention to another of Steiner’s papers [Geology, p.89 (1973)] in which he writes:
“If Phanerozoic geological history incorporates any periodicities, they are of the order of 60 or perhaps 70 million years …. The galactic periodicity of the solar system is, however, approximately 274 million years, representing the length of the cosmic year, or one revolution around the galactic centre.”
I see this as a message which says that space itself has a cubic structure and have in mind a circular orbit traversed by the solar system which cuts across space domain boundaries almost tangentially four times per revolution and so results in tremendous gravitational upheavals in body Earth. A crossing normal to the space domain boundary would be about a half a minute in duration, certainly enough to leave a trace in geological history, but the crossings that occur at very acute angles some four times per galactic cycle could be of several minutes duration and the loss of gravity between matter temporarily astride the boundary would be devastating at such times.
Can you wonder, therefore, if I am slightly amused when those knowledgeable on such matters declare with confidence that dinosaurs became extinct some 70 or so million years ago owing to our Earth suffering impact from a large asteroid at about that time? Doomsday, or rather the next doomsday, at least for mankind, may be a game of chance encounter with an asteroid but if we want to predict how far away we are from certain extinction then future generations of cosmologists need to map those space domains and chart our motion to predict when and at what angle we are due to cross those boundaries as we progress along our collision course. My guess, from Fig. 8.3, is that we are safe for about 300,000 years, but only if there was, in fact, a boundary crossing some 12,000 years ago.
That said, one could speculate concerning the long-term future of our Earth as it is transported through the vastness of space, riding, as it were, on the back of our Sun, a star that itself will surely have an eventual encounter ending in its demise, possibly as an event we call a ‘supernova’. To be sure, when our Sun explodes in such a way, our Earth will become nothing other than a multitude of energetic particles dissolved into and then swallowed by the all-pervading aether.
Our speculation, however, has purpose because astrophysicists do witness such rare events from a very far distance and ponder over the data that they collect, looking for inspiration to guide their curiosity into the creative and destructive forces that prevail in our universe.
Such data includes evidence which points to the debris of stellar destruction by creating what they believe are ‘neutron stars’, stars that are minute in size, when compared with a normal star, yet having an enormous mass density. So we shall now engage in a brief journey of exploration as we probe the structure of such stars and seek to understand how they are created.
Neutrons, Neutron Stars and the Aether
Physicists in general are indoctrinated into the belief that neutrons exist in atoms in order to account for the imbalance of charge and mass of the atomic nucleus, the Z and A parameters. For the basic hydrogen atom, which has a proton as its nucleus, Z = A = 1. For all other atoms A is greater than Z and so these atoms are deemed to contain A-Z neutrons. Yet one surely must wonder why such higher order atoms cannot be conceived as having a charge of Z units nucleated by a core of small mass but centred within a system of A neutrons, the latter being protons or anti-protons that are rendered neutral by displacing charges normally occupying sites in the aether.
However, as atomic theory developed with the discovery of the neutron, physicists were led to believe that the aether is a pre-20th century notion that became unnecessary once Einstein introduced his four-dimensional mathematical portrayal of ‘space-time’. This was even though the curvature of ‘space-time’ was deemed to account for gravity but yet could not bring the long-sought unification as between gravitation and electrodynamics, nor account for the quantitative value of G, the constant of gravitation, in terms of, for example, the charge/mass ratio of the electron or proton.
Now, sitting between these two problems, that of the neutron and that of the aether, there is, as it were, neutral ground, which might offer a decisive insight into this author’s completely opposite perception that neutrons, as particles distinct from protons, do not exist within atoms, but that the aether does exist and is needed to explain gravitation and provide field unification as between electrical interaction and gravitation.
Here I am assuming that some physicists, and particularly astrophysicists, who have glanced through the preceding chapters of this work, will have the neutron in mind and be reluctant to accept that I can jettison the notion of a neutron as something having a real existence in atoms, given also their insight into the discovery of what they term ‘neutron stars’.
Accordingly, the issue now to be addressed is the question: “Do neutron stars really exist and if so what form does the so-called neutron assume in such a star?”
This is a truly fascinating question, given the mounting evidence from astrophysics that stars do exist which have enormous mass densities as if the mass of a normal star is squeezed into a very small volume of space.
I persist in contending that neutrons, as particles distinct from protons or anti-protons, do not exist in atomic structure and my reason, simply, is that what atomic physicists presume to be neutrons are really anti-protons that have unseated and replaced quons in a region of aether occupied by the atomic nucleus. The hydrogen atom is special. It comprises, in A = 1 form a proton having a satellite electron. In A = 2 and A = 3 forms it comprises a deuteron or triton, respectively, along with a satellite electron, the deuteron and triton being rather special particles comprising protons bonded by an electron-positron accompaniment, as discussed elsewhere. See the paper entitled: ‘The Theoretical Nature of the Neutron and the Deuteron’, Hadronic Journal, v. 9, pp. 129-136 (1986), also reproduced as Paper No. 1 in the Appendix of my book: ‘Aether Science Papers’ , published in 1996. See also my Energy Science Report No. 5, ‘Power from Water: Cold Fusion: Part I’, 26 April 1994, which discusses the creation of the triton. These items are all of record on my website www.aspden.org .
For atoms other than hydrogen, the physics of their creation has involved transit across a space domain boundary, owing to the motion of a star through space by which it leaves the domain of its birth and so moves into an adjacent space domain in which the charge polarities of the aether components are reversed. In adapting to this new domain environment, a small proportion of the protons that have been created to form the star can become seated in aether sites normally occupied by the quons. Owing to the electrically-neutralizing effect of the aether charge continuum they then exhibit the properties that we ascribe to the neutron as an atomic constituent. The charged nucleus central to such groups of neutrons is formed from the merger of electrons, made possible during the space domain transit phase owing to the charge polarity inversion that features in the transition between what is, in effect, a region of matter and anti-matter or aether and anti-aether, a process by which they are converted into a merged positron form of charge Z times the unitary charge e.
The message here is that atoms of higher order than hydrogen are probably created over time as a star traverses space domain boundaries every few hundred thousand years or so, a subject discussed in the previous section of this chapter. Certainly also such atoms of higher order than hydrogen do not contain protons that are free from aether structure. The protons, or rather their anti-particle form, the anti-protons, that exist in such atomic nuclei are locked into the aether structure and indeed nucleate a unit of aether that can move through enveloping aether, each such proton contributing in effect to the atomic weight of the atom in proportion to the quantity A of nucleons that are deemed to be present with a quite small mass contribution from the charged composite positron charge of Z units.
This argument as to atomic structure is well supported by the author’s analysis dating from 1974 and published under the title ‘’The Chain Structure of the Nucleus’, also of record on my website: www.aspden.org . However, it is mentioned here solely because we are considering what is meant by a ‘neutron’ and are about to engage in a discussion of the composition of what is termed a ‘neutron star’.
So, by way of summary, I have, in earlier chapters of this work, introduced the notion that the aether is composed of charged particles which I have called ‘quons’, these being set in a cubic structured array, owing to their mutual electrostatic repulsion, within a uniform continuum of opposite charge polarity, whereby the aether is electrically neutral overall. This is the defining structure of the aether, but there are other particles, particle-antiparticle pairs of charges, present, the gravitons, the taons and the muons, which make the aether an omnipresent sea of activity, seething with energy, but yet somehow preserving an internal equilibrium and contriving to avoid detection, except by indirect, but very important intrusion into the physical world as we know it.
So how do I approach the problem posed by the ‘neutron star’? Well, one can see that those quons defining the structure of the aether itself are, so far as we are aware, hiding as electrically neutral entities in that neutralizing background continuum and their mass effect in a gravitational sense is absorbed by the equilibrium of the aether so far as concerns its interaction with the mass of any matter present. However, the point I am coming to, be it a wild suggestion or not, but it surely being one worth exploring, given evidence that stars having enormous mass densities seem to have a real existence, is the suggestion that maybe a normal star, in contending with an excess of spin energy, can collapse into a form nucleated by a region of aether in which protons unseat and replace all the quons, so creating a very dense star in mass terms.
At least this possibility warrants consideration, first in quantitative terms to see if the results fit with what is observed, and then in qualitative terms to see if we can provide a physical account of how this rare event in stellar evolution might occur. As we shall see, we encounter a quite extraordinary situation, because the factors governing gravity as we know it are severely affected. Yet, here again, thanks to the author’s independent research on a theme not directly related to astrophysics but what is primarily a technological issue, there is insight which guides our enquiry.
Here I refer to the subject of high temperature superconductivity as a pointer to the existence of the ‘supergraviton’ as needed to provide dynamic balance for atomic molecules that are of high mass or even certain atoms at the upper end of the atomic mass scale. This has been the subject of work published elsewhere: ‘The Supergraviton and its Technological Connection’, Speculations in Science and Technology, v. 12, pp. 179-186 (1989). This paper is also of record on my website www.aspden.org . The key point is that the gravitons present in association with a highly concentrated mass in matter form must themselves have high enough mass and be close enough to provide that dynamic balance by a close direct coupling with matter. The optimum state is one where these gravitons, though present in equal numbers in positive and negative electrical charge form, are not so prevalent or are such as to distort the aether from its normal state of equilibrium, that form in which it determines the values of the fundamental dimensionless physical constants on a universal scale. However, where exceptional conditions prevail and matter finds itself compacted to very high mass densities, then the aether is subject to some distortion but it will strive to adapt and must keep that dynamic balance that is the basis of gravitational action.
Under such circumstances where matter is present in very highly concentrated mass form, the optimum energy equilibrium conditions favour the creation of a form of graviton that has a much higher gravitational effect than provided by the g-graviton or the τ-graviton. It follows therefore that we must expect to encounter a gravitational anomaly if we seek to understand the state of a star which, from the evidence of astronomical observation, exhibits a very high mass density.
It is appropriate here to note that the theory by which we have in this work explained the creation of our Sun and Earth, is based on an aether that has been shown to have a mass density that is some 200 times that of the Sun, half being in the quon constituent of the quantum underworld and half being in its graviton constituent. We are about to embark on a discussion of the ‘neutron star’ for which the evidence of observation is said to indicate a mass density that is so enormous that it dwarfs the mass density of the aether we are considering.
Indeed, in seeking here to discuss the ‘neutron star’ we entering a realm of orthodox physics that loses sight of reality and introduces notions that are manifestly absurd. Any clear-headed reader will surely see that the following statement quoted from a news item on p. 3 of the July 2003 issue of Physics World, the monthly journal issued to members of the U.K. Institute of Physics, contains a message that cannot possibly be valid:
“Isolated neutron stars are highly magnetized, rapidly rotating objects that are formed by the collapse of massive stars. Although they are typically only about 10 km across, neutron stars are at least 40% heavier than the Sun and their core density is higher than that of an atomic nucleus.”
One is tempted to ask in expletive form: “ How on Earth can the core density be higher than that of an atomic nucleus?”, but know the answer will be: “We are not talking about anything experienced on Earth!” Instead, one must surely ask: “Without an understanding of the true nature of the force of gravity what justification can there be for assuming that G is the same regardless of the mass density of the interacting matter involved?” If the answer to that is: “Isaac Newton proved that G is a universal constant and so it must apply to neutron stars” then I say it is time to wake up and think again.
Surely, once we begin to think that the evidence from a gravitational effect points to a source that is of higher mass density than the atomic nucleus, we ought to suspect that G, as a factor governing gravitational interaction, has itself increased in value and misled us by giving far too high a value for the measure of the mass density.
Can G be Greater in a Neutron Star?
Since this work offers an insight into what governs G, the force of gravity, let us ask how the aether might react (a) if it has to balance a system of protons taking up a full occupancy of the quon sites and (b) if, instead of the heavy leptons serving the graviton role, we substitute the very prevalent muon as the only alternative available.
Now, before proceeding any further, I must make the point that, for a neutron star to have a mass of the same order as that of our Sun, whilst having a radius that is of the order of 10 km, it would need to have a mass density that is greater than that of the Sun by a factor in excess of 3×1014 and a mass density close to 5×1014 gm/cc. Then, in adhering to my belief in the aether theory presented in this work, I need to compare this with the mass density of the aether corresponding to its total energy density and almost wholly seated in the pair of virtual muons that populate each cubic cell of aether, this mass density having the limiting value which is less than 4×106 gm/cc. Note that these virtual muon pairs already exist in the aether and so, in adopting the role of the graviton, any distortion will be minimal especially in terms of energy adjustment.
Going further and presuming that the creation of the neutron star will involve decay of numerous protons which revert to the muon form from which they were created, one can see that there could well be enough muons available to fill the needed super-gravitational role posed by very dense matter. However, here we confront the limiting mass density imposed by that proton occupancy of the quon sites in the aether and this mass density is the proton-electron mass ratio 1836 times 24.52 times the graviton-coupled quon mass density of 144 gm/cc. The factor 24.52 is the mass of the electron in terms of the effective dynamic mass of the quon, the latter being half of the cube root of that fundamental factor N of 1843 discussed earlier in this work, it being the volume of a sphere of charge constituting the quon as divided by the charge volume of the electron. This mass density is therefore some 6.48×106 gm/cc, a value in no way comparable with the astrophysicist’s standard assumption concerning the mass density of the neutron star.
You will see from this that my vision of the aether can in no way support the belief that the neutron star has the very high mass density that is claimed on the basis of observation. By ‘observation’ here I mean the inferences drawn from observation as based on that unproven assumption that G, the constant of gravitation, is a universal constant that applies within the very dense matter of a neutron star.
I would rather be prepared for G to be different under such circumstances and contend that those virtual muons can replace gravitons and that the mass density of a neutron star is no more than that value of 6.48×106 gm/cc just derived. Note that this is 4.6×106 times the mass density of our Sun, a typical star composed of hydrogen gas nucleated by protons that can move freely in the aether.
Now, as to G and the possibility that it can become greatly enhanced in value by those virtual muons assuming the graviton role, we are here looking at a lepton form that has a charge volume some 14,769 times greater than the g-graviton and a mass that is 0.0407 times that of the g-graviton. To check this, keep in mind the derivation of g as 5062.3 from equation (2.6) in chapter 2 and the derivation of the energy quantum 412.6658 as that of a virtual muon pair from equation (7.29) in chapter 7. Then cube the mass-ratio 5062.3/206.33 and evaluate 206.33/5062.3. The ratio is 3.62×105 but is subject to a one third factor (corresponding to the factors involved in deriving equation (2.3) in chapter 2), modifying it to 1.21×105 and this has to be squared to derive the scaling factor for G itself. So you see, G within the neutron star will be greater than the normal value here on Earth by a factor of some 1.46×1010.
The new combination of G and the star’s mass density ρ come into play when a normal star such as the Sun traverses a space domain boundary at an extremely acute angle, a very rare event which means that the stellar body sits astride the boundary for a period long enough to create the mayhem in which the protons of the normal star displace aether quons and so form the nucleus we call a neutron star. During this process the energy of the star is conserved, which means preservation of the magnitude of the quantity: 3GM2/5R or: (4πρ)2GR5/15 as both ρ and G adjust to the new values.
Evidently R changes in this process and even M changes but our primary consideration is the conservation of the energy that characterizes the creation of the original star, inasmuch as during this period of violent activity as the star sits astride the boundary between two space domains, a boundary across which charge polarity reverses, particles of matter, even protons, have independent existence and can conserve mass-energy by being transmuted into other forms, reverting to the virtual muon state from which they were created.
Expression (8.20) simply tells us that R has reduced by a factor that is the fifth root of the amount by which Gρ2 has increased, the inverse of the fifth root of (4.6×106)2(1.46×1010) so that R is reduced from its parent star radius by a factor of 4.99×104. Taking the Sun as typical of the star which undergoes this transmutation into a neutron star, we can now estimate the radius of the neutron star as being of the order of 14 km, the Sun having a radius close to 700,000 km.
Our theory therefore does provide a way of estimating the size of a neutron star that conforms with observational data.
A Comparison with Standard Theory
According to standard theory neutron stars are formed when the degenerate core of an aging supergiant star nears the Chandrasekhar limit and collapses. Supposedly, a neutron star of 1.4 solar-mass units, consists of some 1057 neutrons held together by gravity and supported by ‘neutron degeneracy pressure’.
In explaining this, Carroll and Ostlie in their book ‘An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics’, published in 1996 (Addison-Wesley), derive a formula for the radius of the neutron star at p. 598, based on theory analogous to that applicable to a white dwarf star, of which they say:
“For a neutron star of 1.4 solar-mass units, this yields a value of 4.4×105 cm. As was found for white dwarfs, this estimate is too small by a factor of about 3. That is, the actual radius of a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star lies roughly between 10 and 15 km. As will be seen, there are many uncertainties involved in the construction of a model neutron star.”
Well, here you see what standard theory has to offer. It lacks the benefit of insight into the true nature of gravitation and imagines that neutrons exist as some kind of gas, without explaining how they emerge by ‘degeneration’ from the hydrogen of a normal star, and the result is an estimated physical size that is of the order of one thirtieth of the volume of a neutron star actually observed.
My theory has led directly and unambiguously to a 14 km radius that conforms with observation. My theory does not rely on the mere speculation that, given the discovery of the ‘free’ neutron by James Chadwick in 1932, it was feasible to imagine that such ‘free’ neutrons could coalesce to form a neutron star. Instead I have explained the true nature of gravitation and derived the correct value of G by pure theory based on an aether sub-structure and, after showing how protons are produced, have explored whether those protons might, under certain circumstances, become seated in the aether and so exhibit the property we regard as that of the neutron.
Accordingly, far from it being a weakness of my theory that I discard the notion of neutrons as being present in atoms having a Z value greater than 1 in spite of the evidence pointing to the existence of a neutron star, I claim a better understanding of the composition and structure of such stars than is available from standard theory presently of record. Conversely, in the light of this account of the ‘neutron’ star, I see this as strengthening the basis on which I have, in that 1974 reference above, explained the atomic structure of atoms of Z value greater than 1, those purportedly containing neutrons. Indeed, in a sense, I could say that a neutron star is, in effect, an enormous atom, so far as its internal structure is concerned.
I go further in my own speculations by suggesting that any normal hydrogen star can, if it happens to traverse a space domain boundary at a very acute angle, experience the traumatic upheaval of its protons sitting astride a boundary between space and anti-space in the sense of charge polarity inversion, a clear recipe for decay shedding an enormous amount of energy in what surely is a supernova.
The geological evidence of recurrence of gravitational upset for a few seconds as body Earth along with the Sun traverse a space domain boundary at a cosmic speed of some 300-400 km/s in a direction at right angles to that boundary is surely enough to point the finger at this scenario of stellar evolution, without delving into theory as to how stars might evolve as they shed their energy slowly over time in the form of thermal radiation powered by nuclear transmutation.
Keep in mind that stars were created, each in its own space domain, rather than at a common point in an event called a ‘Big Bang’. They radiate energy but that energy is absorbed into the aether and the aether has a way of regenerating matter from that energy, protons and electrons which inevitably are drawn into the stars by gravity. Therefore, in developing theory as to how stars evolve one should factor into the analysis those space domain crossings which are a matter of life and death where stars are concerned.
The Magnetic Field of a Neutron Star
It is a curious fact that astrophysicists see no problem in declaring that a neutron star has a very powerful magnetic field but yet is composed of particles that are neutral in electric polarity. Here in this work, however, we have seen why our Sun, owing to its composition of hydrogen atoms squeezed closely together by the action of gravity, has developed a state of ionization by which enough of those atoms shed electrons to leave electrically charged protons in a free state. Their stronger mutual rate of acceleration under gravitational attraction pulls them more closely together than their associated free electrons and so the sun has a positively charged core sitting within a spherical bounding shell of negative charge. This, as we have also seen, is a recipe for inducing aether spin as the whole body of aether bounded within that same shell is caused to rotate to set up a compensating charge displacement.
The mathematical analysis involved revealed that Gρ2 was a measure of the charge thereby neutralized by aether spin, but, conversely, should, for some reason, there be already a body of aether that has been set rotating, the matter sitting within it not acting as the primary charge causing that rotation, then aether rotation itself could become the primary action with charge induction in matter becoming the secondary effect.
You will see here that I am picturing a situation just discussed where the protons of the normal star are somehow replaced by neutrons and looking for a basis on which to infer that the neutron star can set up a magnetic field owing to it sharing the spin of the coextensive aether.
If those protons are seen as anti-protons once they enter the new space domain and so can unseat and replace quons in the aether, then they will appear electrically neutral. Although their mass is far greater than the quon mass that need not unduly distort the aether in a dynamic sense so far as affecting the quantum-related aether radius parameter r within that neutron star body, because of the synchronizing constraints asserted by the powerful electrostatic interaction prevailing within the relevant space domain. This assures that aether rotation must develop a magnetic field in a neutron star, just as it does in a normal hydrogen star in which electrons neutralize the action of almost all of the protons present.
Already we have deduced a typical radius value for the neutron star based on application of the aether theory advanced in this work. Also for that typical neutron star we have deduced by theory the amount by which that quantity Gρ2 exceeds the value normal for a star such as the Sun. This is all we need to derive an estimate of the magnetic field set up by a neutron star in its surface regions, as based on data for the Sun.
However, owing to various factors, including sun spot activity, taking the Sun as a basis of reference for this computation, though possibly sufficient as an approximation, is not as reliable as an estimate based on the data we have for our Earth’s geomagnetic properties. So, taking Earth, which has a magnetic field strength of the order of 0.5 gauss at its surface, an aether radius slightly larger than its actual equatorial radius of 6,378 km, a mean mass density of 5.5 gm/cc and an angular velocity of 7.27×10-5 rad/s, as the basis of reference, we should be able to estimate the magnetic field at the surface of a neutron star.
Take note that, in the system of units we are using, the magnetic field of a spherical object can be estimated, given knowledge of its magnetic moment, by dividing that magnetic moment by the volume of the object and multiplying by the factor 4π. This assumes that the magnetic field within the sphere is uniform. In fact, as applied to the Earth, the history of physics records that the greatest step forward in terrestrial magnetism was made by Gauss in a memoir entitled ‘Allgemeine Theorie des Erdmagntismus’ dated 1839, in which Gauss calculated the positions of the Earth’s north and south poles and estimated its magnetic moment as 0.33R3, where R is Earth radius. This corresponds to a magnetic moment of 0.08 per unit volume and, multiplying this by 4π indicates a mean magnetic field within body Earth of about 1 gauss, whereas we know that the field strength over much of the Earth’s surface, as directed along lines that dip at an angle with respect to the horizontal, is closer to 0.5 gauss.
Now, remembering the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis introduced earlier in this chapter, the magnetic moment of a spherical astronomical body of radius R spinning about an axis through its centre is proportional to G1/2ρ times its rate of rotation ω times R5. This means that the magnetic field of that body is proportional to G1/2ρωR2.
So, for the above estimate of the physical size of a neutron star, a 14 km radius based on the assumption that the source star from which it forms is similar to our Sun and in forming the neutron star deploys energy equivalent in magnitude to all of its gravitational potential energy, we can estimate the factor by which R changes. It is 14/6500 or 2.13×10-3 based on Earth’s aether having a radius estimated as being 6,500 km. We know the factor by which G changes. It is 1.46×1010, as was shown above. As to ρ, this is the quantity 6.48×106 gm/cc as divided by 5.5 gm/cc, a factor of 1.18×106, and this then leaves us with the task of estimating the factor by which ω changes.
Now, unfortunately, I have not, as yet, seen a way of deducing theoretically the rate of spin of the neutron star formed by the collapse of the source star, as otherwise this theory of neutron star formation would have been included in the earlier first draft edition of this work. Fortunately, however, in June 2003 it was reported in the journal Nature (v. 423, pp. 725-727) that both the speed of rotation and the magnetic field of a neutron star had been measured. That news item already mentioned as being at p. 3 of the July, 2003 issue of Physics World declared that this was the first ever measurement of the magnetic field of a neutron star and, concerning the measured field of 8×1010 gauss, the onward report at pages 27 to 30 of the September, 2003 issue of that same periodical declared:
“Although huge by terrestrial standards, this is much lower than expected, and the discrepancy is still not understood.”
This being the first reported measurement of the magnetic field of a neutron star, it is therefore very opportune and indeed very gratifying to find that this author’s analysis does explain the magnetic field both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The period of the star was stated as being 0.42413076 s, thereby giving ω as 14.8 rad/s, whereas the magnetic field strength measured was said to be as high as 8×1010 gauss. The neutron star factor by which ω scales in relation to that of Earth is, therefore, 14.8 divided by 7.27×10-5 or 2.04×105.
Collecting the various factors together to evaluate the magnetic field of the neutron star using the overall scaling factor G1/2ρωR2, we obtain: (1.46×1010)1/2(1.18×106)( 2.04×105)( 2.13×10-3)2 which, upon evaluation, is 13.2×1010. This is the factor by which we estimate the magnetic field of the neutron star to exceed that of body Earth. Now, the 8×1010 gauss measurement of the neutron star’s magnetic field was based on cyclotron resonance of electrons close to its surface and so, if we were to relate this to an Earth measurement of magnetic field strength of 0.6 gauss, we have the truly astonishing result that a neutron star magnetic field some hundred billion times the strength of the field here on Earth has been fully explained by the aether theory of record in the earlier draft edition of this work and elsewhere in the author’s other publications before that measurement was reported in the science literature.
So you see, we have here an account of the properties of a neutron star, based on a theory which does not admit the existence of neutrons as having a stable existence in matter, whether that matter be an isolated atom or a stellar body. We are looking instead at the notion that protons or antiprotons exist in such matter but to appear as stable electrically neutral particles such protons or antiprotons have to displace like-polarity charges in the structural underworld of the aether, as evidenced by the so-called ‘neutron star’. As to the free but short-lived form of neutron detected in the experiments of high-energy physics, that has already been fully explained by this author elsewhere. See that reference above in this section to the paper entitled: ‘The Theoretical Nature of the Neutron and the Deuteron’, Hadronic Journal, v. 9, pp. 129-136 (1986), where one has of record the full theoretical derivation of its mass, its magnetic moment and its mean lifetime, all in terms of the aether parameters as derived in this work.
What is particularly satisfying from my point of view, as author, is that the extension of the theory to account for the neutron star has added weight to the argument that indeed there are space domain boundaries built into the underworld space fabric of our universe, as otherwise it would be far too speculative to devise a reason why a normal star might suddenly collapse to form a neutron star. It was intuition that set me on course to the belief that space domains might exist, but intuition born some 50 years before writing these words, a time when I was engaged on researching the magnetic energy properties of iron in relation to anomalous activity in what is a crystalline substance containing within each crystal a pattern of magnetic domains bounded by planar domain walls.
Apart from one further comment, this completes the main thrust of what I have to say on this subject and on the aether in particular. That comment is the reiteration that, whereas I have suggested that atoms of higher order than hydrogen are created during the traversals of space domain boundaries by normal hydrogen stars shedding protons which take up quon sites in sectors of aether that become locked into the structure of the newly formed atomic nucleus, there is the very rare occasion when the action escalates to the point where what emerges is a truly enormous heavy atom in the form of a neutron star.
What remains now in the next chapter is the need to collect together certain loose ends and, in particular, clarify where electrodynamic action fits into the physics of Creation. Hopefully, however, enough has already been said to satisfy the reader that our decoding exercise is complete, or at least sufficiently complete to meet our set objectives. Whether what has been said will cause cosmologists to alter course in their theory concerning the Big Bang scenario remains to be seen. It will, I am sure, take some time, but at least I have done my best in presenting the case against that belief and the best I can hope for is that those who read this work will begin to understand what is implied by the word ‘Creation’.
In this chapter we delve into the theoretical foundations of the aether itself, guided by our knowledge (a) that it comprises a uniform continuum of charge density σ permeated by charges q arrayed in a simple cubic structure owing to their mutual repulsion subject to the constraint that the electrostatic interaction energy density cannot be negative and (b) that the continuum and q charge systems, the G and E frames, respectively, are displaced 2r one from the other owing to their relative motion at speed c in circular orbits of radius r given by: r = h/4πmec ……………………………….. (7.1)
The task ahead is mathematical in that we have to compute the lattice dimension d in terms of r, where d is the side of a cube of space housing each charge q. The photon will emerge as the largest symmetrical unit of that lattice structure which can spin about an axis of that structure without crashing into adjacent structure. It is also the smallest cubic unit of that lattice that has a lattice charge q at its centre. That spin involves energy and sets up pulsations which disturb surrounding lattice structure at a frequency characteristic of the energy quantum involved. Thus, in terms of the ratio of r/d, we will arrive at a formula for Planck’s constant in terms of two physical quantities pertaining to the aether, the charge q and the speed c. That dimensionless formula is known as the fine structure constant.
In the process we will have established the mass-energy of the lattice charge q, that of the quon, as well as the energy density of the aether, which will thereby indicate the mass-energy of the pair of virtual muons that exists for each cubic aether cell of side dimension d. Additionally, our analysis, by bringing the electron into the picture, will derive the odd integer value N that was introduced in chapter 2 as having the value 1843. Such is the scope of this chapter. It is the essential foundation on which the whole of this author’s theory is founded. The analysis to be presented was developed in the latter part of the 1950s and was first published privately in printed form in 1960 in the author’s 48 page booklet entitled: ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, when the author, owing to a change in employment upon being appointed to a Senior Manager position with IBM, was obliged to arrest his private research pursuit to concentrate upon his career in the patent profession. This explains why the advancement of the theory became so protracted in development over time and lacked the endorsement which a career in academia can offer. It is a curious coincidence that Einstein’s theory was conceived during his early years as a Patent Examiner in Zurich, given perhaps the stimulus of dealing with the field of invention on a daily basis, and no doubt Einstein was lucky in finding the favour of Max Planck, who supported publication of his papers. However, in moving ahead now to publish this account of my theory, which is probably my final contribution on the subject, it is for future generations to judge the merits of my work relative to that of Einstein. Hopefully, what I have to say will have some impact, but as to this chapter 7, for my part it is more a reminiscence on past work dating back some 50 years, from when I concluded my years of Ph.D. research and entered the patent profession.
Do keep in mind, however, that I have presented something of vital importance in earlier chapters, something wholly new, by changing my account of gravitation from the interpretation of gravity as an electrodynamic force consistent with the expectations of those in search of a unified field theory to the recognition that gravity is, in a sense, an ‘inverted’ electrostatic force. The theoretical derivation of G, the constant of gravity, in terms of gravitons is unchanged, but I will explain more fully in chapter 9 the reason why I was obliged to alter course. The contest against Einstein’s theory is nevertheless as strong as ever and I hold my ground firmly in now reproducing here in this chapter 7 an edited and slightly extended version of pages 103-115 of my 1980 book: ‘Physics Unified’.
The Mass of the Quon
We first consider the aether particles, the quons, that form the E frame lattice system. As with the gravitons and electrons, the Thomson formula is used to relate energy E, mass and charge radius of the quon, its charge q being the same magnitude as that of the electron: E = 2q²/3b ………………………………… (7.2) where b denotes quon charge radius.
Quons have the lowest energy quantum of all charged particles, owing to their radius b being larger. The least energy state is justified by the fact that the lattice structure of the undisturbed aether must be the ultimate in stability, a feature which demands also that the quons must be in a state of equilibrium in their interaction with the rest of the aether system. This is assured if the energy E, as a property of a charge sphere of volume 4πb³/3, implies an energy density which is common to the aether as a whole and so shared by the surrounding medium. Thus, with d as the lattice dimension, the cube side length or spacing of the cubic array of quons, we can say that the total energy per unit cell of volume d³ is: E₀ = (1/2π)q²d³/b⁴ …………………………… (7.3)
This is the energy density of the aether, on average, attributable to the notional rest-mass energy, and is deemed to be that of a pair of virtual muons as if there is one such pair in each cubic cell of aether. Such muons are active by creation and decay by mutual annihilation followed by recreation as on ever-ongoing process. This needs a little clarification concerning the interplay between the muons and the quons and so is subject to later commentary near the end of this chapter.
The effective mass of the quon is not found by using the formula E = Mc², because, when the quon moves in that uniformly dense background sea of energy, it behaves as if its mass is halved. This is akin to a known property of the motion of a spherical body through a liquid. We know from the study of hydrodynamics that, if that body has a mass density equal to that of the liquid, it seems weightless owing to buoyancy, but there is an apparent increase in mass when a sphere is accelerated as if that mass is half of the true mass of the body.
We proceed by accepting that this analogy applies to the problem of the aether and so our lattice particles will exhibit an effective mass in their orbits of radius r of: m₀ = q²/3bc² ……………………………… (7.4)
The lattice particles, the quons, mutually repel by their Coulomb interaction. As in the formation of crystal structure within matter, we may then expect some kind of cubic or hexagonal lattice to form. This is the minimum energy structure that applies in the circumstances, but those circumstances as they exist in matter are quite different from the situation in the aether, because the minimum energy criterion in matter usually results in what is an overall negative energy density. This is because the omnipresent aether has a slightly positive energy density and so it can permit matter to exist in a crystal structure that the aether is denied owing to the fact that its minimum energy density attributable to electrical interaction has to be positive.
I then found, from my analysis of the aether, that if minimum energy conditions were applied to the space medium and negative energy density were to be permitted, then the aether lattice particles would all be at rest at neutral positions in that charge continuum, each quon sitting in its own cell and in a structure that was body-centred cubic, as in iron. There would be no motion. Our universe would be dead and lifeless. The aether would have no character relating to time and the exercise of exploring its properties would be meaningless.
However, by assuming that the lattice particles of the aether would form in a structure which involves the least possible electrical interaction energy consistent with it being everywhere positive, then, Eureka, everything fell into place. The aether lattice structure had to be simple cubic in form. There had to be displacement of the particles from the centres to which they were drawn by electrostatic action and, to keep that displacement, they had to move in orbit in synchronism with one another and so the aether became a clock which keeps perfect time, even though it ticks at the very high frequency we associate with electron creation.
It has been shown in chapter 6 that the charge displacement distance is 2r, where r is the radius of the orbits involved, and that the angular speed Ω in orbit is c/2r. Presenting again the electrostatic force expression (6.1) of that chapter and equating it to m₀(Ω)²r, we have: m₀(Ω)²r = (4πσq)D ………………………… (7.5) where D is 2r, which gives us an energy term: m₀c² = 32πσqr²………………………….. (7.6)
Since the space medium is electrically neutral: q = σd³ ……………………………….. (7.7) This brings us very close to obtaining a value of the quon mass in terms of r/d and the unitary charge e of the electron, presuming that q is equal to e, and so the onward task now is to determine the value of r/d.
The Aether’s r/d Factor
This ratio r/d, as the orbital radius r of the rhythmic quantum jitter motion of the aether in terms of the aether lattice cell dimension d, is determined as being very slightly greater than the r/d value at which the charge q interacts with the continuum charge density σ to have zero electric interaction potential. Accordingly, the governing equation is: E = ∑∑( q²/2x) – ∑∫ ( qσ/x)dV + ∫ ∫ ( σ²/2x)dVdV ………….. (7.8) The factors 2 in the denominators are introduced because each interaction if counted twice in the double summation and double integration. The summations and integrations extend over the whole volume of space but as we shall see it suffices to limit the range to just a few lattice spacings d. To simplify the presentation we regard d as unity in the stages of integration and summation. Boundary conditions are of little consequence. Electric interaction energies, when reduced to local energy density terms, can in no way depend upon remote boundary conditions. The lattice condition assumed need not hold as a rigid perfect lattice throughout space. It can be distorted, but we do not expect the synchronous character of the lattice particle motion to hold beyond the range of the boundaries of vast space domains of the aether, domain size being a matter of analysis in chapter 8.
The next step in our analysis is to differentiate E of this equation (7.8) with respect to σ, after recognizing that ∑∫ ( qσ/x)dV incorporates an offset term 2πσq(2r)² to allow for the 2r displacement. The object of this is to eliminate the σ-σ interaction by determining the minimal energy condition by equating the result to zero. Then we shall know that distance 2r.
Differentiating (7.8) with respect to σ, equating to zero and then multiplying by σ, we obtain: ∑∫ ( qσ/x)dV = ∫ ∫ ( σ²/x)dVdV ……………. (7.9) From (7.8) and (7.9) we then find that: E = ∑∑( q²/2x) – ∑∫ ( qσ/2x)dV ……….. (7.10) Since E is zero the factor 2 is not important as we now evaluate the relevant terms in five stages and consolidate the results in a sixth stage.
Stage 1: ∑( q²/x) between one quon and surrounding quons
Still regarding d as unit distance, the coordinates of all surrounding quons in a cubic lattice are given by l, m, n, where l, m, n may have any value in the series 0, and plus or minus 1, 2, 3, etc. with the co-ordinate 0,0,0 excluded. Consider concentric cubic shells of surrounding quons. The first shell has 3³-1 particles, the second 5³-3³, the third 7³-5³, etc. Any shell is formed by a combination of quons such that, if z is the order of one shell, at least one of the co-ordinates l, m, n is equal to z and this value is equal to or greater than either of the other two co-ordinates. On this basis it is straightforward arithmetic to verify the following evaluations of this sequence of summations. Sz denotes the summation as applied to the z shell. S₁ = 19.10408 S₂ = 38.08313 S₃ = 57.12236 S₄ = 76.16268 S₅ = 95.20320
By way of example, S₂ is the sum of the six terms: 6%4 + 24/%5 + 24/%6 + 12/%8 + 24/%9 + 8/%12 and here 6+24+24+12+24+8 is equal to 5³- 3³.
Stage 2: The evaluation of ∫ ( qσ/x)dV in relation to Sz
The limits of a range of integration corresponding with the z shell lie between plus or minus coordinates (z -1/2) and plus or minus coordinates (z+1/2). An integral of qσ/x over these limits is denoted qσd²Iz where: Iz = 24z ∫ ( sinh⁻¹[1+y²]⁻¹/² )dy which, upon integration, is: Iz = 24z(cosh⁻¹2 – π/6) and which, upon evaluation, is: Iz = 19.040619058z ………………………. …… (7.11) Note that within I₁ there is a component I₀ for which z in this latter expression is effectively 1/8 so that: I₀ = 2.380077382 ……………………………….. (7.12)
Stage 3: ∫ ( qσ/x)dV for quon 2r displacement
As already indicated this component of the integral is given by: 2πσq(2r)² and this expression, in units of q²/d, with σ as q/d³ is, simply: 8π(r/d)² ……………………………………… (7.13) and so, once we merge the results of stage 1 and stage 2, we are close to determining the value of r/d from their difference.
Stage 4: Correction for quon charge volume
The stage 2 calculation did not allow for the physical displacement of σ charge owing to the finite size of the quon, which has a charge radius b. This correction term is the integral from 0 to b of σq/x as it applies within a spherical shell of area 4πx² and thickness δx. This is: 2π(b/d)²(q²/d) ……………………………….. (7.14) and, from (7.4) and (7.6), we know that: b/d = (d/r)²/96π ……………………………. (7.15) so that, in units of q²/d, the correction found by combining (7.14) and (7.15), is: (d/r)⁴/4608π ………………………………….. (7.16)
Stage 5: Combination of terms.
One very minor term is still needed to complete the analysis. This is because the quons, along with any particles of matter that sits in the E frame, will be moving relative to the charge continuum σ at the relative speed c and this must drive the σ charge out of their way and so compress σ to a moderate extent. It would seem appropriate to accept that the mutual repulsion within the σ charge owing to this compression will spread the effect over a relatively large region so as to minimize the energy needed, energy which will add in some measure to the σ-σ interaction. Because the volume of continuum charge displaced by the presence of a quon is very much greater than that displaced by protons and electrons, this consideration is a factor needing consideration only in respect of the quons. We proceed by estimating its significance in relative terms as referenced on the quantity defined by (7.16) as just derived. The charge displaced by the quon is 4πb³σ/3 and its displacement is to a mean distance kb, where kb can have a value approaching d/2 if the displaced charge is spread over much of the aether cell, would imply an energy term given by: 4πqσb³/3kb which is: (4π/3k)(b/d)²(q²/d) ……………………………. (7.17) This is 2/3k times (7.14) and so, since (7.16) was derived from (7.14), the result we seek is the factor 2/3k which must be small owing to the self-repulsion of σ but yet must not be less than 4b/3d.
Stage 6: Consolidation of results
We now need to find the difference between the summation of the S terms and the summation of the I terms. Their convergence is self-evident. Ignoring I₀ for the moment, the successive terms differ by a summation of the terms: 0.06346 + 0.00189 + 0.00050 + 0.00020 + 0.00010 …. and, to sum the series, we match it to: 0.01350[1/3³ + 1/4³ + 1/5³ + 1/6³ …….] or: 0.00050 + 0.00021 + 0.00011 +0.00006 ….. for terms from z = 3 onwards. This yields the summation 0.00105, which upon adding 0.06346 and 0.00189, gives 0.0664 to subtract from the I₀ quantity of (7.12) to obtain 2.31368. This value is the number of units of energy q²/d that we derive per quon from the first two stages of this analysis. The third, fourth and fifth stage components are now combined to give the net zero energy quantity and leave us with the equation: 8π(r/d)² = 2.31368 – (1 – 2/3k)(d/r)⁴/4608π …….. (7.18) This is the equation we seek, because it allows us to obtain a very close estimate of the value of r/d. Ignoring the term involving k, r/d is found to be 0.302873. Now, before considering that k term, it is appropriate here to mention that I am indebted to certain independent initiatives taken by three individuals, including one in particular, who have put in a great deal of effort to verify the analysis I have presented here. The first such initiative was that of Peter N. McNeall, an Englishman living in USA, who drew my attention to a small numerical error in a version of this analysis presented in the 1966 edition of my book: ‘The Theory of Gravitation’. The second and most important contribution was that of another Englishman, Dr. D. M. Eagles, who, having seen my 1969 book: ‘Physics without Einstein’, met me to discuss what it claimed, whilst in U.K. between a relocation of his research employment in USA to the National Standards Laboratory in Australia. I mentioned him in chapter 2, when I referred to a table in a book by B. W. Petley where Petley had drawn attention to a paper which Dr. Eagles and I had jointly authored. This paper was the result of Dr. Eagles checking my manual efforts at analysis to compute r/d in the days when powerful computers were available only to scientists in major research facilities. With Dr. C. H. Burton’s assistance at that Australian laboratory he produced the definitive result of such a calculation by using such facilities and duly advised me that r/d obtained by such analysis was 0.302874. Precision here was very important owing to the implications this had for determining, with a high degree of confidence, a numerical quantity which seemed, by coincidence, to be close to the proton-electron mass ratio but yet was somewhat higher. I refer here to the number N that was introduced earlier. As to the third independent initiative, which has greatly impressed me, it is that of Bill Buick, of an address in Scotland, who went to the trouble of providing a computer program which anyone can run on a home computer to give the results of the calculations involved in deriving r/d. In summary, therefore, since the whole of this aether theory hinges on the calculation of this quantity, I am able to assure readers that the analysis is sound and meaningful. We can, therefore, now proceed to the more interesting features of this work by deriving that quantity N that is key to the three constants of Mother Nature that we are decoding.
Evaluating N
We define N as the ratio of the charge volume of the quon to that of the electron. We shall examine the proposition that N must be an odd integer, simply because the quon is not only the ultimate decay product of an electron but is, as we have seen in chapter 4, the seat of birth of the proton, which implies input of sufficient energy to create a number of electrons and positrons that can coalesce to form the proton by shedding a little energy. We can, therefore, expect N to be of the same order as, but higher than, the proton-electron mass ratio. If we focus attention now on the photon unit we described in chapter 6 and take note of a topic discussed separately in Appendix II, the picture before us is that of a 3x3x3 cubic section of aether lattice being able to spin within enveloping aether lattice. Here we have a kind of spinning crystal formed by 27 quons of which 24 account for the quantum of angular momentum. Referring now to Fig. 7.1 it will be seen that a circle is drawn to depict a sphere which encloses those 27 quons seated at the lattice sites in the cubic array there depicted. The radius of that circle is 2πr. Why is this? Well, we have just seen that r/d has a value of 0.302874, so 2π times r will be 1.903d, which is the basis on which the figure is drawn.
Fig. 7.1
From chapter 6, reproducing equation (6.20): I = 2h/πΩ …………………………………. (7.19) we know, because Ω is c/2r, that this term I, now representing a moment of inertia, is: I = 4hr/cπ ………………………………….. (7.20) The moment of inertia of the 3x3x3 lattice, as we see from inspection for spin about a 3-quon axis, is 36mod², because there are twelve quons distant d from the spin axis and 12 quons whose square of distance from that axis is 2d². Equating this result to I then gives: 36mod² = 4hr/cπ …………………………… (7.21)
Now, having regard to equations (7.6) and (7.7), we see that these combine to give: m₀c² = 32π(q²/d)(r/d)²……………………… (7.22) and we can here once again restate equation (6.15): r = h/4πmec ………………………………. (7.23) to give us three equations which, in combination, can, by a little algebra be seen to yield two further equations: hc/2πe² = 144π(r/d) ………………………….. (7.24) and: m₀/me = (4/9)(r/d)²………………………….. (7.25) Note that e, the unitary charge of the electron, now replaces q, as the two are identical. We are now ready to determine N because the ratio of the two masses in (7.25), as multiplied by 2, is the inverse ratio of the charge radii of the electron and quon. This factor 2 arises because the effective mass of the muon in its aether E frame orbits is half that determined from the Thomson energy equation. We then establish that N, as the ratio of the quon charge volume to that of the electron, is given, from (7.25), by: N = (9/8)³(d/r)⁶ ……………………………. (7.26) which, with r/d as 0.302874, gives N as approximately 1844.53. This, however, is not allowing for that stage 6 correction mentioned above, nor are we taking into account that requirement that N is an odd integer, integer because the quon has to be able to transform by energy addition into a group of electrons and positrons and odd because charge parity has to be conserved. From equation (7.18) we see that the effect of that term involving k is to increase r/d slightly. This will decrease N. We seem therefore to be looking at a definitive value of N that is 1843, but let us just explore this by working (7.18) backwards to see how large k must be to ensure that we do not slip below this 1843 threshold as an integer value. This is when r/d has the value 0.302916 and k is 8.34. We can now proceed by first noting that equation (7.24) represents one of the numbers we set out to decipher, namely the fine structure constant. You can then check that an approximate value of r/d of 0.302916 will give the constant as quite close to the measured value of 137.0359895(61). Then note that the value of b/d is known from equation (7.15) as: b/d = (d/r)²/96π which allows us to estimate the significance of that factor k. We find from the above value of r/d that b/d is 0.035 and so the distance kb, with k as large as 8.34, tells us that the charge displaced by the quon must move away from the quon centre by a mean distance of more than 0.29d in order for the energy conditions to be consistent with the 1843 value of N rather than a lower value of 1841. This seems an ideal requirement, given that the σ charge displaced in the continuum will try to spread itself owing to its self-repulsion, but yet must be confined within the boundaries of a cubic cell of side dimension d. Accordingly, we have now arrived at the conclusion that N is 1843 and, this being a key factor in this theory by which we decipher Nature’s coded messages, we have accomplished the main task of this work. The fine-structure constant, as expressed in reciprocal form by equation (2.10) in chapter 2, has been derived, as can be seen by combining equations (7.24) and (7.26) to eliminate the ratio r/d. One remaining task, before we embark on the quest to explain how stars are created, is to justify the value of the energy E₀ of a unit cell of space, this being the energy quantum we have assigned to the two virtual muons which live within each such cell.
The Unit Energy Quantum of the Aether
The relevant equation is that presented in the early paragraphs of this chapter, namely equation (7.3), which is: E₀ = (1/2π)q²d³/b⁴ This, plus the equation (7.15) just quoted above, combine to give: E₀ = (1/2π)(96π)³(r/d)⁶q²/b …………………….. (7.27) From (7.26) this becomes: E₀ = (3/4π)(108π)³(1/N)(2q²/3b) …………….. (7.28) which presents this energy quantum in units of the quon mass-energy according to the Thomson formula. The latter is the electron rest-mass energy divided by the cube root of N and so we obtain: E₀ = (3/4π)(108π)³(1/N)⁴/³mₑc²……………………. (7.29) from which we find, with N as 1843, that this energy quantum becomes: 412.6658 electron rest-mass energy units. Here, then, is the energy quantum that is regarded as the virtual muon pair, the occupants of each cubic cell of aether.
A Supplementary Note
My object in this chapter 7 has been to present the analysis by which I did, during a period in the latter part of the 1950s, work out what had to be the necessary structure of the space medium, the aether, in order for it to determine the processes we refer to as quantum theory and gravitation. I did not in those early years have an adequate insight into the details underlying the creation of the proton or the graviton, but their basis of existence was clear and the picture came fully into focus with the passage of time, the g-graviton emerging first, in the mid 1960s and the proton by the mid 1970s. Admittedly, however, there remain unanswered questions, questions that may elude us for many generations to come, some forever. There is scope for others to address these problems and add to our enlightenment. A typical question is: “How can it be that a fundamental particle having an electric charge e confined within a sphere does not expand indefinitely owing to the self-repulsion of its electrostatic charge?” Can the answer lie in the rhetorical question: “Well, owing to its spherical symmetry, it has a centre and, since that is also its centre of mass, if it were to expand and shed energy, meaning what can only be kinetic energy, then what would determine the direction in which that centre of mass would move?” Should we beg the question, as it were, by arguing that the charge is stable because it cannot move of its own accord and allow its energy to become kinetic energy? Another such question is: “What is it in Nature that tells an electric charge it is positive or negative?” Here, the answer could be in our awareness that electric charge forms tend to be created in pairs and with two fundamental particles of opposite charge one can visualise one expanding as the other contracts so that energy is exchanged between them without having to convert into kinetic energy. This is a picture of mutual stability enhancing particle lifetime, and suggesting a well-known saying that there is ‘safety in numbers’. The idea thus seeded is the notion that all electric charged particles are oscillating in their charge radius at a common very high frequency, probably that of the quantum motion of the E and G frames of the aether, and that whether a charge is positive or negative really depends solely on its phase of oscillation. To accept that you must accept that time, as set by the rhythm of the quantum underworld, is universal and governed by motion that is synchronized as if there is no retardation in the action. That may seem a debatable proposition, but it makes sense for conditions where there is no need for long range energy transfer. Before concluding this supplementary note to chapter 7, I will now raise and seek to answer three questions which may already have occurred to astute readers. Why is it that it is so important for the electrostatic interaction energy of the aether not to fall below zero, given that when two electric charges of opposite polarity do interact there has to be a negative energy component offsetting the self-energy of each charge? The answer lies, I believe, in the lack of reciprocity in the charge interaction combined with the fact that no vector direction is defined that can give scope for kinetic energy. If two charges of different electrical polarity but identical form interact then energy exchange can occur and even if of different form there is a line between their charge centres along which the charges can move apart as any surplus energy is shed to become kinetic energy. This is not the case for those quons sitting in a charge continuum σ. It is just as well, because if the quons were to move to sites of minimum electrostatic interaction energy, meaning a negative energy density as offset by the self-energy of the quons, then the aether would be a solid devoid of any motion and we would not exist. The second question arises when we note how precise the aether analysis has been in defining numerical relationships but see an approximation in taking E₀ as the total energy of a cubic cell of the aether, as if the quon is part of the virtual muon pair when it comes to using E₀ as in the calculation of the proton-electron mass ratio in chapter 4. I answer this by saying, or rather hoping, that the ongoing creation and decay of those muons as they deploy from position to position in the aether will occur as if they have just such a spacing as to account for a negative interaction energy that exactly matches the positive energy of the quon and its equal measure of associated graviton energy. However, there may well be another answer, one bearing upon the inseparability of the quon charge from its counterpart continuum charge of opposite polarity. The quon with its matching unit of continuum charge is the most degenerate state that electric charge can adopt. Hence the quon, unlike the electron, may find that its electric field energy is somehow merged with and perhaps accounts for energy that represents the presence of that continuum. Note that the theory assumes the continuum proper has zero energy. We should not therefore expect the inertial properties of the quon to be the same as those of the electron, as implied by use of the Thomson mass-energy formulation E = 2e²/3a. Now here I have in mind what I wrote at pages 104-105 of my 1969 book: Physics Unified. I argued by reference to Appendix I of that book that the pressure in the medium enveloping the quons would be equal to that set up within the body of charge e, which I calculated as being given by the formula e²/4πa⁴. From this, by multiplying by the volume of a sphere of radius a, one can obtain a measure of the energy as e²/3a, which is half that given by the Thomson formula. A little intuition then leads to the appealing suggestion that the continuum counterpart to such a quantity as applied to the quon might then account for an equal amount of energy, so bringing their combination to the energy quantum that would apply to the quon by use of the Thomson formula. The latter concern may point to a weakness in the theory but only in the sense that one surely cannot expect the universe to yield all its secrets and be self-explanatory in every detail to fit within the pattern of this one sweeping account of Creation. One can but probe the aether step by step and I must admit that I have no idea how to explain or justify the existence of the continuum of charge density σ, nor can I say what electric charge actually is other than by describing its action and effect on other charge. This gives rise to the third question. What happens if, instead of the charge continuum yielding to compression owing to the motion through it of quons and matter at a relative speed c, it resists compression and stays uniform, but the quons are compressed to match exactly the volume of space taken up locally by the particles of matter? This would eliminate the need for that factor k in stage 5 above and ensure that the presence of matter does not distort the continuum charge distribution as a function of the volume of matter particles involved, meaning that gravitational interaction is exclusively that of the related graviton presence. The results of our analysis speak for themselves, but I do not have the slightest notion of how electric charge can spread itself to fill space in a uniform way, short of imagining that in its microcosmic form it is like a gas which somehow disperses uniformly in its pressure balance. We can, however, build on what has been discovered concerning the aether and this takes us into chapter 8 where we will see how stars are created.
The underworld of space, that invisible medium which pervades what we call the ‘vacuum’, but which we are here bold enough to refer to by its proper name, the ‘aether’, is the seat of quantum activity, the physical forum in which energy is packaged into quanta which have interplay with matter at the atomic level.
The best known energy quantum in physics is that denoted hνo, where h is Planck’s constant of action and νo is the Compton electron frequency. Tables of physical data usually list the measured value of the Compton electron wavelength as 2.42631058(22)x10-10 cm, along with the speed of light 2.99792458×1010 cm/sec, from which one calculates that νo is 1.2356×1020 per second.
That energy quantum hνo is equal to the rest-mass energy mec2 of the electron and so the aether is the stage on which the electron and its partner the positron are created, perform and then may die by mutual annihilation. The aether is a world seething with energy, but energy that is, in the main, held in a state of equilibrium, with a very small proportion of it involved in fluctuations as it searches for a stable home in the vastness of space.
Now, much of this chapter will merely repeat what I have disclosed in chapters 6 and 7 of my book ‘Physics Unified’ published in 1980, where I began by explaining that in 1932 Dirac delivered his Nobel prize lecture under the title: ‘The Theory of Electrons and Positrons’ in which he said:
‘It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small amplitude superimposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency is so high and the amplitude so small.’
I then noted in that work, on p.87, that:
‘Similar proposals had been made earlier by both Einstein and Schroedinger. Einstein imagined the electron as belonging to a Galilean reference frame oscillating at a frequency determined from the electron rest mass energy and the Planck relationship, and being everywhere synchronous.’
Now, for my part, I cannot accept that electrons can share such a concerted rhythmic motion unless there is something that makes it energetically desirable for them to keep in step, as it were. That something has to be electrical in character but electrically neutral overall and it must be omnipresent, all-pervading and uniform through space. It is, of course, the presence in the aether of that lattice system of charges referred to in chapter 3 as quons and our task now is to explore the form of that aether and discuss the part it plays in governing wave mechanical processes.
Our Aether
Remembering what was said about Earnshaw’s theorem in chapter 1, our aether must comprise a uniform continuum of electric charge density σ which is populated by a uniform cubic-structured array of aether lattice particles of unitary charge, here denoted q, and of charge polarity opposite to that of the continuum.
We can set up an electric field in a vacuum, so how might the presence of such a field of uniform strength V affect the aether? It will displace those charges q through a distance D relative to the continuum charge σ. Each charge will move through that distance D as from a point on one side of a planar slice of the continuum to a point on the other side of this planar slice.
Since the relative spacing between those charges q will be unchanged by this collective displacement there will be no change in the Coulomb force on any particle due to the action of its neighbours. They move in register with one another locally and remote actions balance anyway owing to the large scale distortions of the lattice structure governed by the charge producing V and boundary conditions.
By Gauss’ theorem a planar slice of charge density σ and thickness D has a total normal electric field density of 4πσD of which half is directed one way and the other half the opposite way. Hence 4πσD is the change in field density experienced by a lattice particle in going from O to P owing to the action of the field V. The restoring force on q is therefore:
4πσqD ……………………………………. (6.1)
This is equal to Vq. The energy stored by this displacement per charge q is:
(4πσq)D2/2 ……………………………….. (6.2)
because the restoring force rate is linear with displacement. The energy density represented by (6.2) is then found by multiplying by σ/q since the space medium is electrically neutral and there are just as many particles of charge q in unit volume as are needed to balance σ. Thus the energy density is given by:
4πσ2D2/2 …………………………………. (6.3)
But, since Vq equals (6.1), we know that D is V/4πσ. Putting this in (6.2) gives the energy density:
V2/8π …………………………………….. (6.4)
This is the formula for energy stored by the electric field of intensity V. Its derivation in this way means that the aether as the medium subjected to the action of a system of charge is able to deploy energy from the field of that charge and store that energy by the displacement of those charges q, the quons which form the structured lattice system set in that background continuum of charge density σ. Here then is the basis for the displacement currents we associate with Maxwell’s theory. As to the magnetic field properties of the aether, which Maxwell attributes as the accompaniment of the field energy of propagating electromagnetic waves, one should really think instead in terms of the kinetic energy associated with oscillations of the quon lattice system represented by those waves.
Now consider the aether with no externally applied electric field presence and ask yourself whether our basic aether devoid of matter has an energy density. Consider first the energy we associate with electrostatic interaction between σ and the lattice charges q and also that between the q charges themselves and that of the self-interaction of the continuum charge σ. Without engaging in this analytical exercise, which is deferred for the moment, it can be reasoned that each q charge sits in its own cubic cell of charge density σ and that it will be attracted electrostatically towards the centre of that cell. Each such cell together with its q charge forms an electrically neutral unit and so there should be very little electrostatic energy owing to mutual interaction between such cells. What this means is that the net electrostatic energy density of the aether would be negative if such a condition prevailed.
Since it does not seem feasible for the space medium itself to have a state of negative energy density, especially as that state is one where each of those charges q sits rigidly at the centre of each space cell, meaning no motion and no time rhythm, we must, if we are to make any sense of involving the aether in this account of physics, accept that Mother Nature will not allow a negative interaction energy condition to prevail. The fact that we can tolerate negative energy conditions, as exemplified by the force of gravity and electrodynamic potential where matter is involved, does not affect this argument because these actions are set in what must be a slightly positive energy density background of the aether itself. The positive energy density condition must prevail overall.
A crucial example of this emerges from our later derivation of that factor N as the odd integer 1843 as we come to formulate the theoretical value of the fine structure constant.
What all this means is that those aether lattice charges q are all displaced in unison from the centres of those cubic cells of continuum charge, displaced just enough to assure a positive, rather than a negative overall interaction energy density state. The restoring force involved in this can be set in balance with the centrifugal forces of the q charges, given that they each have mass mo. This gives us the link between frequency, the timing of their orbital motion around those centres and the radius r of those orbits. We are then well on the way to establishing the role the aether plays in quantum theory.
The aether has become a charge system sustaining the cyclical motion of the system of the aether charges q in circular orbits with the continuum charge and its associated graviton population moving in dynamic balance also in circular orbits. Since the mass density of both the graviton system and the aether lattice charge system is the same, for space devoid of matter, we know that both systems describe circular orbits of the same radius, the radius being designated by the symbol r.
In my book ‘Physics Unified’ at page 91, and also in what follows below, I prove this equality of mass density on the basis that the combined kinetic energy of these two systems in their orbital motion is a maximum, consistent with electrostatic interaction energy being a minimum.
The displacement distance between the q lattice system, which we define as the E-frame, and the system of the continuum charge σ, which we define as the G-frame, is 2r and, from the restoring force expression (6.1), this allows us to write:
4πσq(2r) = moΩ2r ………………………….. (6.5)
by equating that force to the centrifugal force. Here Ω is the angular velocity 2πνo.
So we have two frames moving as if they are diametrically opposed to each other in circular orbit of radius r and, by accepting that matter, if present, such as an electron, shares the motion of the E-frame, we can see that all matter has an intrinsic state of jitter at that frequency νo.
In his 1929 book ‘The Nature of the Physical World’, Eddington wrote on p. 220:
‘A particle may have position or it may have velocity but it cannot in any exact sense have both.’
This was his way of saying that, when probing in the physical underworld to locate an electron, say, we cannot pinpoint its exact position because it has a high frequency jitter, but here Eddington was referring to the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty of quantum mechanics. The experimental support for quantum theory indicated that, for the electron, the product of uncertainty of momentum and uncertainty of position is h/2π, h being Planck’s constant.
So an electron moving in those circular orbits with the E-frame will have an uncertainty of position by as much as 2r and an uncertainty of momentum of 2meΩr, the product of which should be h/2π. This gives us insight into how the aether determines Planck’s constant.
If we now ask how the aether determines a characteristic speed c it is fairly evident that a likely candidate is the relative velocity between the E-frame and the G-frame, meaning the quantity Ω(2r) and so we derive the relationship:
r = h/4πmec ………………………………… (6.6)
This is an important step which gives physical foundation for Dirac’s surmise concerning the oscillatory jitter motion of the electron, but we now have the quantum underworld of the aether in our sights and the stage is set for detailed analysis of its electrical form.
The Aether: Solid or Fluid?
Historically at the time when the aether was accepted without question, physicists nevertheless pondered on whether it had a kind of solid form or fluid form. Although we cannot sense any resistance to motion through the aether, its property in determining the speed of light was seen in the context of an analogy with the way in which the speed of light through glass or water is a function of the physical structure of those media.
There was a property of the electromagnetic wave that required a feature characteristic of propagation through a crystalline solid and yet our freedom of motion through the aether implied it could only be a fluid, a fluid of extremely low mass density.
Now, instead of trying to force the aether into the mould which we see applies to our material world, we should piece together the clues and accept the aether for what it is. It is a sea of energy with nowhere to go because that energy fills all space, almost all of it having found equilibrium and settled in a state of order, but, thankfully, as mankind would not otherwise exist, there being the ripples and fluctuations occasioned by creation and decay of certain electrical charge components of that aether which keep the aether alive with activity.
It is logical in physical terms for the aether to develop its own crystalline form because that is an optimum energy condition and, as already indicated, it must avoid a negative energy density state and so sustain a state of motion confined to that Heisenberg jitter activity. It must therefore exhibit in some measure the properties we associate with a solid. This does not preclude motion of material objects present in the aether because those objects may nucleate their own crystalline aether territory, meaning that the aether picture before us is one of a solid moving through a solid. Is that really possible?
The answer is surely “Yes” because we are not here suggesting that energy can move through energy. The energy density of the aether devoid of matter is uniform and we can have two regions of a liquid medium of uniform mass density incorporating a crystal formation, with those crystal formations having relative motion. A laboratory analogy, were we to build it, would be a liquid crystal substance in which the liquid is crystallized by two extraneous electric fields (signifying the presence of matter) moving towards one another. It is not the liquid which moves but rather the factors which determine whether or not it is optimum in energy terms for it to adopt the crystal form. At the collision boundaries the energy would redeploy into other form but its density would remain constant.
There is nothing to be gained by speculating as to the details of such a process. All we need concern ourselves with is the evidence that emerges from the theory. Undoubtedly, at collision boundaries the ubiquitous muons have a way of absorbing energy resulting from mutual annihilation of a corresponding amount of continuum charge and the quons involved in the collision, whereas the ubiquitous muons at the separation boundaries can create new quons and add continuum charge as needed. That assumes that the continuum charge shares any translational motion of the quon lattice. If that assumption does not hold and the continuum charge is truly at rest in an absolute frame of reference, then the muons themselves have to share in the charge balance at those boundaries. The only consideration of relevance here is the fact that energy density of the aether medium remains uniform, whereas the aether lattice inertia is balanced by the inertia of the muons that provide a balance by migrating slowly in the opposite direction.
We will come back to this latter topic of aether lattice particle motion in chapter 9 in the context of the Michelson-Morley experiment and merely mention here that a reader interested in the formulating the speed of light in terms of aether lattice structure could refer to pp. 102-104 of the author’s book ‘Physics without Einstein’, published in 1969.
Electron theory as applied to solids gives a formulation of the refractive index of a substance in terms of its atomic structure, the number of atoms per unit volume and the natural oscillation frequencies involved. A version of the formula is:
(c/v)2 = 1 + ϕ ……………………………… (6.7)
where ϕ is an expression involving parameters specific to that substance. Here v is the speed of light through the solid, which is of course smaller than c. However, if we ignore the presence of that solid material substance by writing ϕ as zero, then that unity term in equation (6.7) can be said to be the corresponding ϕ formulation of aether parameters.
There is no escape from the fact that the aether must have structure, which is why our insight into the exception to Earnshaw’s theorem, as discussed in chapter 1, meaning the need for that uniform background charge continuum σ is so important.
Planck’s Law
Whereas, in deriving (6.4), we were concerned with the effects of the field V set up by an intruding presence of charge disturbing the aether, we now need to consider the dynamics and energy properties of the undisturbed aether. The charges q move in synchronism circular orbits of radius r governed by a balance of centrifugal force and the restoring force attributable to their displacement relative to the continuum charge of density σ. This gives:
4πσqx = moΩ2r …………………………… (6.8)
from (6.1). Here x is the separation distance between the σ continuum and the q charge, mo is the mass of the quon and Ω is the angular frequency of the aether’s rhythmic activity. Thus the expression (x-r) is the orbital radius of the cyclic motion of the graviton and σ continuum system. The σ continuum and the gravitons are best regarded as an integral system statistically smeared into a uniform whole as far as interaction with the q system is concerned. Since the gravitons are deemed to be relatively massive, they need only have a sparse population compared with the lattice particles, the quons. Let mg denote the mass of the continuum-graviton system per lattice particle. Then:
moΩ2r = mg Ω2(x-r) ……………………….. (6.9)
The kinetic energy density of these E and G frame constituents of the aether is proportional to:
mor2 + mg (x-r)2 ………………………… (6.10)
because the aether frequency Ω is constant. We may then expect the electrical potential energy of such a system to have minimized, so determining x, and the rest mass energy to have been deployed between mo and mg to maximize (6.10), inasmuch as kinetic energy is drawn from a source of potential energy and, with energy conservation, minimization of the latter means maximization of the former.
Write M as mo+ mg to obtain from (6.9):
x – r = (mo/M)x and r = (mg/M)x ………………… (6.11)
Put these in (6.10) to obtain:
mo(1 – mo/M)x2 ……………………………. (6.12)
Since M and x are constant, we may now differentiate this energy expression with respect to mo to find its maximum value by equating the differential to zero. This gives:
1 – 2mo/M = 0 …………………………… (6.13)
from which we deduce that mo and mg are equal and, from (6.11) that x equals 2r.
The E frame and the G frame describe orbits of equal radius r. As their relative velocity is c, they move at speed c/2 in orbit. As the aether frequency is, by assumption, deemed to be the Compton electron frequency at which quantum theory tells us that electrons and positrons are created, namely mec2/h, the value of Ω is given by:
Ω = 2πmec2/h …………………………… (6.14)
The radius r is then known, because Ωr is c/2. Thus, again, as for equation (6.6) we find that:
r = h/4πmec ………………………………. (6.15)
What has been said above about the electron in the context of Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty does imply that the electron has an intrinsic motion when at rest in the E frame. Its own angular momentum is mecr/2 but there is a connected angular momentum due to the dynamic balance afforded by the G frame. Thus the total angular momentum intrinsic to the electron and due to the underlying jitter motion of the aether is mecr, which, from (6.15), if h/4π. This is the well known quantity associated with so-called ‘electron spin’.
Curiously, this is not the quantum of angular momentum that is paramount in governing the orbital motion of an electron in an atom, Bohr’s quantum unit, which is double the spin quantum. To understand this we need to address the problem of the photon, as it is this, rather than the electron, which is the regulator of action between aether and matter. The photon is not an elemental form of matter intruding into the aether. It is a feature of the aether itself which arises from a disturbance, albeit by the intrusion of an electrical charge, and we need next to examine the theory of the photon.
Photon Theory
Apart from deciphering Nature’s coded messages and providing what surely is a comprehensive unified field theory, we will in this work come to see how an electric field can induce what I refer to as a state of ‘aether spin’. If there is to be a spin-off of practical, technological importance, from this theoretical study, I feel sure it will be the cyclical induction of aether spin aimed at inducing the inflow of aether energy which we can utilize in our efforts to secure a sustainable pollution-free environment while meeting our escalating energy needs.
‘Aether spin’ exists, both on a grand scale, within our stars and planets, and on a microscopic scale as the photon.
The universal rhythmic motion of the aether at the angular frequency Ω defines a fixed direction in space. A direction anisotropy in the properties of space is not in evidence so far, though one wonders if researchers have really been looking for such a phenomenon. When we come to study the large-scale rotation of the aether medium, as with body Earth, it will then be seen that the Earth’s magnetic field indicates that the axes appropriate to Ω are approximately normal to the plane in which the planets move around the Sun. It is probable from this that the circular motion of the E frame and G frame of the aether, though Ω has the same magnitude throughout all space, may be directed in different, possibly opposite, directions in the environment of different and widely spaced stellar bodies. There may be space domains measured in dimensions of many light years and within which Ω is unidirectional. Yet its direction may vary from one domain to the next.
I did, in my earlier pursuit of this theory, think that this, being linked to an electrodynamic action, might account for the force of gravity not being effective across the boundaries separating adjacent space domains, thereby limiting the range of gravity to action between matter in a common space domain. As we proceed, however, it will be seen when we come to discuss space domains and evaluate their size along with the creation of stars, that the essential difference between two adjacent space domains is the fact that in one the proton has a positive charge and the electron a negative charge, with the continuum charge positive and the quon charge negative, whereas these charge polarities are all reversed in the other space domain. In a sense, we can say that we have here the picture of space and anti-space together with matter and antimatter. This would also mean that gravity, as an electrostatic force phenomenon, could not be deemed to act across space domain boundaries.
Possibly, for interaction between matter in adjacent domains, there could be a repulsive gravitational interaction, the long range effect of which, as scaled over many space domains, would mean that gravitational potential within a particular domain arises, in effect, solely from the presence of matter located within that domain. This proposition is supported by the explanation of the cosmic background temperature already introduced.
A further point of very special relevance concerns a theme we shall discuss in chapter 9 by reference to the Neumann potential. There are strong reasons which confine what we regard as electrodynamic forces to action as between leptonic currents in the sense that electric current flow in the circuits we use to produce magnetic fields or to detect such fields involves electrons active in a quantum-electrodynamic pair creation and decay process. Such electrons may be those active in atoms, where their apparent orbital motion about an atomic nucleus is really a quantum relocation as a newly created electron-positron pair in the path ahead of an electron involves the positron in annihilating that electron to leave the newly-created electron in a forward position. In any event, the point at issue is that the aether itself devoid of the presence of matter is not subject to electrodynamic activity. In spite of Clerk Maxwell’s interpretation of electromagnetic waves as comprising components of electric field energy and magnetic field energy, one can just as easily argue that the electric field energy which is seated in oscillating charge displacement has an associated kinetic energy and that accounts for what Maxwell regarded as magnetic field energy. Accordingly, our onward analysis will address the aether and its properties as if magnetic properties do not exist and so confine the energy analysis to its electric field and kinetic energies. Concerning Earth’s magnetic field, this is a clue to the most important feature of the aether, which is that a state of spin, as of a large spherical bulk of the aether, will induce electric charge displacement radial from the axis of spin. So if Earth sits in a coextensive aether that spins, there will be an electric charge density belonging to the aether that is neutralized by a compensating displacement of electron charge in body Earth. We cannot sense the presence of that charge by its electric action but we can sense it by the geomagnetic field it produces. In determining the geomagnetic moment much then depends upon the angle subtended by the Earth’s spin axis in relation to the aether spin axis and the vector direction of that underlying quantum jitter motion at angular frequency Ω. We will come back to this topic in chapter 8 but keep in mind that aether spin implies electric charge induction and vice versa and also the point that the vector direction of Ω is of no significance to the analysis in this and the next chapter. The aether behaves as an isotropic medium in its quantum mechanical interactions with the atom. An electromagnetic wave is a propagated disturbance of the aether particle lattice formed by those charges q, the quons. The lattice can be disturbed if a discrete non-spherical unit of it rotates and so sets up radial pulsations. This will rotate if an intruding electric charge is present along with a quantum of energy activity that is being shed or absorbed by that charge. The aether spin thus suggested will be the smallest possible symmetrical cubic unit of aether that has the ability to disturb surrounding aether lattice and that has to be a unit of 3x3x3 lattice particles.
Referring to this cubic unit as a ‘photon’, seen as an event when such a group of 24 quons spins about a central axis defined by 3 quons, our task now is to relate this spin to the frequency of the propagating disturbance which it causes. We will defer the detailed explanation of why it spins until chapter 8 but note here that a radial electric field acting from its centre or near-centre will so displace the superimposed E-frame orbits of the quons as to cause them to lose synchronism with Ω unless their centres of those orbits are slightly displaced and they move transversely in a rotational sense about the charge inducing that radial field.
It is a simple exercise in mathematics to show that the moment of inertia of such a 3x3x3 unit is independent of the axis about which it spins [see page 94 of my book ‘Physics Unified’] and one can see that the pulsating disturbance of surrounding lattice will be at four times the frequency of that state of spin. The point of interest then arises if one wonders about the effects of a high spin speed which is such that the frequency of the pulsating disturbance is at or close to the frequency Ω/2π. In a sense one can imagine that the latter is a more likely circumstance, given the quantum rhythmic motion of the aether lattice at that high frequency. Then one might consider a circumstance where a slight modification in the photon spin frequency can set up electromagnetic wave propagation at the difference frequency ν. In the context of electrons in atomic orbit I have explored this notion on the assumption that a pair of such photon units, one seated with the nucleus, spin in opposite sense but cooperate in propagating electromagnetic wave radiation. That, however, goes beyond the scope of this work on Creation and I can but give reference to this theme as pp. 70-73 of my book ‘Physics without Einstein’.
We will proceed by terming a photon unit spinning at Ω/4 as a ‘standard photon unit’. Now when an energy quantum E is added to the dynamic state of the aether it will, as with any linear oscillator, be shared equally between the potential energy and the kinetic energy. With the constant angular frequency Ω, this means that E/2 is added to the kinetic energy. That is:
E/2 = HΩ/2 …………………………….. (6.16)
where H is the corresponding quantum of angular momentum. Thus even though the energy E may become dispersed throughout the aether medium it introduces a related angular momentum given by:
H = E/Ω ………………………………. (6.17)
We believe that angular momentum is conserved, which means that this event cannot occur without there being a reaction, and so our photon must be characterized by such a relationship linking an energy quantum and angular momentum.
The space medium, whether one refers to it as the vacuum or the aether, is known to react critically to certain energy quanta related to the mass of the electron or positron at rest. It somehow permits the creation of electrons and positrons at these exact energy levels, as if there is some kind of resonance at the characteristic frequency of the space medium. It seems essential to connect this phenomenon with the standard photon unit, especially so in view of the clear connection evident from equation (6.14). The standard photon unit must be associated with this energy quantum mec2. Thus, from (6.17), H is mec2/Ω, which, from (6.14), is:
H = h/2π ……………………………….. (6.18)
Denoting I as the moment of inertia of the standard photon unit, H is given by:
H = I(Ω/4) …………………………….. (6.19)
which, from (6.18), gives:
I = 2h/πΩ …………………………….. (6.20)
Taking now a photon unit rotating at a much lower angular speed ω, this is related to the frequency radiated by:
4ω = 2πν ……………………………….. (6.21)
and since the angular momentum H of this photon unit is Iω, which (6.20) plus (6.21) show to be:
Iω = hν/Ω …………………………….. (6.22)
we find, from (6.17) that:
E = hν ………………………………… (6.23)
which is Planck’s radiation law.
At the outset of this work we set our sights on decoding three basic messages from Mother Nature. One of these was that hidden by the numerical quantity referred to as the fine-structure constant, this being 2πe2/hc, the reciprocal of which is 137.0359.
It is self-evident that we cannot decipher the meaning of this quantity without first understanding the physical basis for the existence of the photon and so that has been our task in this chapter. The problem ahead is to exploit this insight into the 3x3x3 quon structure of the photon and its relationship with Ω by moving on to the real numbers that factor into the relationships between the various components of the aether, the continuum charge density, the muons, the quons and their charges and masses, as well as that angular frequency Ω and c, the relative speed of the G and E frames. The electron is not present in the basic make-up of the aether but its properties provide a basis of reference in our material world. Our analysis in the next chapter has to be rigorous, as we seek to decipher the primary numerical quantities, the proton-electron mass ratio and the fine-structure constant to part per million degree of accuracy.
Here in this chapter we will revert to a consideration of the phenomenon of gravitation as it is seen from the perspective of orthodox physicists. They do not have insight into the processes by which Mother Nature develops the force of gravity and have no way of regulating its action, which means that there is little they can do, apart from measuring the laboratory value of G and observing gravity’s action in the astronomical arena.
Having, as this work shows, spent many years developing and publishing accounts of the theory which forms the subject of this work, this author can but be a little depressed upon reading something concerning gravity and published in the British press during the days when this chapter is written.
The TIMES newspaper dated January 9, 2003 highlighted a feature as ‘News’ under the heading: ‘Einstein vindicated at Newton’s expense’. It would seem that at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Association the results will be announced which ‘show that Einstein was right’. The ‘speed of gravity’ has been measured at 1.06 times the speed of light, with a margin of error of plus or minus 0.21 and ‘since the speed of light is the only possibility for the speed of gravity that falls within that range’, so gravity complies with Einstein’s prediction. Newton suffers defeat! His theory has failed because Newton deemed the force of gravity to be an instantaneous action-at-a-distance.
Quotations
The TIMES article was authored by Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent. It included as aside remarks the following statements:
“General theory of relativity: Einstein’s most famous work, which accounts for the nature of the cosmos, was proved in 1919 by the British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington, who showed that light from distant stars was bent by the Sun during a solar eclipse.
Quantum theory: Einstein’s other great work remains the best model that physicists have for understanding the forces that govern the interior of atoms, matter’s building blocks. But it does not incorporate gravity, and scientists are still seeking a “grand theory of everything” that unites relativity and quantum mechanics, knitting together every aspect of physics.”
So, there you are, Einstein’s theory is ‘proved’ and to move forward to achieve the ultimate target of all physicists one must seek a way of uniting relativity and quantum mechanics.
Well, the aether theory on offer in this work does unite quantum mechanics with gravity but ignores Einstein’s doctrinaire distortions of a four-dimensional space medium that physicists refer to as ‘space-time’. Those scientists who follow the Einstein track can never, ever, reach their Holy Grail, that ‘grand theory’, without getting off that track and setting off on ground first trod by Sir Arthur Eddington and confronting with an open mind the task of deciphering the significance of Nature’s physical constants.
The TIMES article tells us that the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light has:
‘never been anything more than an assumption and has always been impossible to test. ………….. The experiment to measure gravity’s speed was conceived by Ed Fomalont, of the National Radio astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Sergei Kopeikin, Professor of Theoretical Physics of the University of Missouri-Columbia.’
That experiment involved the use of radio telescopes to measure the effect of planet Jupiter in traversing across the path of the radio waves we receive from a very bright quasar named JO842-1835 and, owing to Jupiter’s gravitational field, thereby deflecting the path of those signals so that the quasar’s position appeared displaced.
The Debate
The reference to the ‘speed of gravity’ is itself something that needs definition. If one considers the speed of light, at least one can interrupt the light beam at a distance from the point of measurement and so relate time and distance as needed to make the measurement. Gravity as a force exists given the existence of a source body and we really have no way of turning that force on and off. All we can do is to move the body itself and then the question arises as to whether the gravitational field shares that motion as if rigid (instantaneous action) or adjusts to the motion with a time delay.
Keep in mind that there is a world of difference in physics as between the notional retardation of the action of a force such as gravity and the delay involved in gravitational potential energy redeploying in the field system which envelops the mass involved. The reader, in yielding to theoretical notions, has to decide whether to think in terms of force or in terms of energy, whereas Mother Nature does not ‘think’ but simply ‘acts’ by a process of adjusting the distribution of the energy in the system to optimise action leading to a minimum energy potential state.
If the motion of a planet around the sun were truly a circular motion with the planet’s orbit having a constant radius, then the mutual gravitational energy potential between sun and planet would surely be constant as no energy is being transferred to cater for changes of kinetic energy by the two interacting bodies. If, however, there were to be a cyclical change of that radius, as applies for elliptical orbital motion of the planet, then there would be energy transfer to and from the planet drawing on, or replenishing, that gravitational potential resource. Now, in the context of this situation, what is meant by ‘speed of gravity’? Gravity does not move, so are we referring to the speed of energy that is traversing between planet and the gravitational field system? Then one must ask where that potential energy is seated as it can hardly be that it sits at the Sun’s centre and to apply the proposition that the energy we associate with gravity travels at the speed of light we need to know where it sets out from in its journey in order to reach the planet and resettle as it adds to the kinetic energy of that planet.
As to the basic orbital component of circular motion, the radius is determined by a balance of centrifugal force and the force of gravity. The balance is an unchanging quantity and if ‘gravity has a speed’ is this something that was only a factor when the solar system was first created or is it somehow something that affects the planet’s motion on an ongoing basis?
The history of this subject tells us that, if we assume the circular component of orbital motion is not affected by the ‘speed of gravity’ but the radial component of motion is so affected, then the radial period of the oscillations will be slightly retarded in relation to the orbital period. This explains why the orbit is subject to a slow progressive advance of its perihelion, something observed and particularly noticeable in the case of planet Mercury.
Indeed, to get the theory to fit what is observed, namely the 43 seconds of arc anomalous advance of perihelion per century, the speed of that radial gravitational retardation effect has to be deemed to involve the speed of light. Gerber in 1898 (Zeitschrift f. Math. u, Phys., 43, 93), in explaining this 43 second of arc advance per century, assumed the gravitational action to have that speed of light limitation.
Readers who regard Einstein as the genius who discovered why the planet Mercury has such an anomalous motion should take note that Gerber’s paper was published 18 years before that of Einstein. Gerber’s formula for the anomaly was exactly that which later appeared in Einstein’s paper. Gerber’s paper was entitled: ‘The Space and Time Propagation of Gravitation’ and, though not published until after Gerber’s decease, a second paper repeating and expanding on Gerber’s analysis appeared in January 1917 in Gerber’s name in the same German scientific periodical: Ann. d. Phys. in which Einstein’s 1916 paper had appeared. It was obvious that there was concern that Gerber’s contribution had been ignored and there was then onward debate as Seelinger drew attention to a mathematical flaw in Gerber’s analysis. Oppenheim responded, stressing that the issue of finite speed was still open, but Seelinger reasserted his position to ensure that his arguments were not eroded by Oppenheim’s views. (See: Ann. d. Phys., 52, 415; 1917: 53, 31 & 163; 1917 and 54, 38; 1917).
That debate revealed the difficulties of picturing how gravitational action asserts a retarded effect, given that one can hardly expect the flow of energy to be along a pencil thin line drawn between Sun and planet and given that point above that one is not even sure where the energy that is fed to the planet is seated before it sets off on that journey. However, one can be certain that somehow the speed of light is a governing factor and that what was needed was the proper interpretation of that observed 43 arc-second value to gain insight into the physical action.
Since physics involves matching assumptions with observations to verify those assumptions we then have a kind of chicken and egg argument. If the measurement is made before the assumption is recorded then that is not regarded as proving the theory, but if the assumption is made and duly found to be consistent with later measurement that is said to prove the theory. Such is the illogical arena in which the contests between theoreticians are staged. One must, it seems, predict what is later verified by experiment in order to be applauded by acceptance of one’s theory. To explain by theory what is already known is not a respectable pursuit.
In the case of the anomalous perihelion motion of Mercury the measurement antedated the theory, but in the case of gravitational bending of light Einstein’s theory predated the measurement by the eclipse expedition in which Eddington was involved.
Thus one may wonder how one can ever explain why gravitation deflects a ray of light, except by Einstein’s argument, given Eddington’s assertion that this latter phenomenon is ‘proof’ of Einstein’s theory.
Well, light-energy quanta, photons, supposedly travel at the speed of light and energy E has mass E/c², in accordance with classical electron theory, so those light-quanta, in moving past an astronomical body, are subject to the pull of gravity. Since, as light from a distant star, they do not travel around that body in a circular orbit, their distance from the body is changing constantly and so energy transfer should be occurring. Now here there is a real problem. How can those photons change their energy, energy surely gained by them as they approach the deflecting body and lost later on receding from it? Does the light frequency change during passage? Do they travel faster in their close transit past that body? If so then their deflection would be away from the body rather that towards it. Alternatively, maybe we should be thinking in terms of electromagnetic wave theory, rather than photon theory. Maybe we should be wondering how the gravitational action of that body affects the refractive index of the aether and thereby the speed of light through that aether which becomes a function of that refractive index.
That TIMES article, in telling us about the ‘speed of gravity’ does not provide any answers. I believe that photons, the product of quantum theory, do not in fact travel at the speed of light. Photons are events at localities in the aether where energy shed by matter is absorbed into the aether or energy shed by aether is absorbed by matter. A photon is deemed to travel between two such localities but in reality all that travels is an electromagnetic signal which is a mere ripple of energy already present in the aether, a ripple characterised by direction and frequency. Such hypothesis is not tested by the quasar radio wave deflection observations. However, if you think of photons as energy quanta travelling at the speed of light as part of a ray in close transit past the Sun, then, since energy has mass, but yet photons seem to have no mass, you confront a conflicting situation, one made all the worse by the fact that, owing to the gravity, a mass quantum, as just indicated, should go faster in its transit past the Sun and that means that, as a part of a ray of light, that ray will surely be deflected away from the Sun rather than towards it, contrary to what is found by observation.
Do be assured, therefore, that a ray of light cannot be the flow of a train of photons and so seek instead to understand how gravity affects the refractive index of the medium that pervades all space. To base one’s arguments on vague terminology, the expression ‘speed of gravity’, is only a way of raising more unanswerable questions rather than explaining unanswered questions!
The Way Forward
To reach a position on common ground with that of physicists familiar with Einstein’s theory I will proceed by making an assumption and I will show how this leads directly to the formulation of Einstein’s law of gravitation. This should be seen as verification of that assumption. Then I will show by separate aether-based theory that the formulation governing light ray deflection arises from the effect of gravity upon the refractive index of the aether. The inference is that, whereas Einstein’s theory explains the perihelion anomaly and light ray deflection by the same modification of the Newton’s law of gravitation, the physics of gravitation requires two separate theoretical foundations for these two phenomena, because there is no analogy between planetary mass and the electromagnetic wave.
I note, however, that before leaving this chapter I will discuss the fascinating topic of whether gravity is an electrodynamic phenomenon, as assumed so far by those who seek a unified field theory, or an electrostatic phenomenon as implied earlier in this work.
The assumption is that the gravitational potential energy GMm/R that arises between two bodies of rest-mass M and m, respectively, having their mass centres spaced at a distance R is enhanced by the factor:
(v/c)² ……………………………………….. (5.1)
if there is relative motion at velocity v between the two bodies, c being the speed of light.
For Sun and planet v will, in the main, comprise a component of motion tangential to the orbit of the planet as supplemented by a radial lesser component of motion in that orbit. Such motion is, by standard physical principles rooted in Newtonian mechanics, subject to conservation of angular momentum and v being very small in relation to c. One can therefore, by close approximation, write h as vR, assuming the mass m to be constant.
However, though I know that this latter assumption is made in developing Einstein’s General Theory as applied to gravitation, I appeal to the relativistically-minded reader familiar with Einstein’s Special Theory and say that one could designate m as given by:
m = mo [1 – (v/c)²]⁻½ ……………………………. (5.2)
I then argue that retardation of the force of gravity GMm/R² at the speed c will be equivalent to its value having to be enhanced by a factor sufficient to account for the work done by m in moving a distance fT²/2 against such a force, f being the acceleration v²/R and T being R/c, the time taken to traverse distance R at speed c. That factor then becomes:
[1 + (v/c)²/2] ………………………………….. (5.3)
Taken collectively, the effect of (5.2) and (5.3) is, to a close approximation, equivalent to requiring the gravitational potential to increase by the factor (5.1) as a result of that planetary motion at velocity v, which then means that our ‘assumption’ has been derived by analysis based on standard physical logic founded on classical electron theory that recognizes increase of mass with speed.
As an aside remark I now stress here that, in quoting the ‘relativistic’ mass increase formula, I am in no way accepting Einstein’s doctrines. My reason is that that formula, as already noted in chapter 1, in no way requires use of Einstein’s theory, as I well know from textbook data of my student years.
Now, provided our expression for the gravitational potential is based on the rest-mass mo of the planet, we derive Einstein’s law of gravitation on the presumption that h, meaning vR, is constant by writing it as:
(GMmo /R)[1 + (v/c)²] ………………………… (5.4)
Replacing v by h/R, differentiate with respect to R to obtain, after reintroducing v by eliminating h as vR, the result that the gravitational force acting on the planet is:
(GMmo /R²)[1 + 3(v/c)²] …………………….. (5.5)
Note here that gravitational potential is a negative quantity, which explains why we avoided introducing a minus sign in deriving this force. Note also that energy is shed by the gravitational potential as R increases, which is consistent with the force being one of mutual attraction.
I now point out the fact that, by writing u as 1/R, and introducing polar coordinates based on an angle φ, the force can be equated to the dynamic pull of the planet in orbit to lead to an equation for that orbital motion:
d²u/dφ² + u = (GM)[1/h² + 3(u/c)²] ……………….. (5.6)
The corresponding Newtonian equation for planetary motion does not include that quantity 3(u/c)². Equation (5.6) is the law of gravitation derived from the General Theory of Relativity. That additional term which distinguishes it from Newton’s law corresponds to the progressive advance of the perihelion of the elliptical orbit of the planet.
It takes about 20 textbook pages of mathematical analysis that is beyond the comprehension of most students to progress to the above equation through the jungle of relativistic dogma. Here I refer to a book entitled ‘Modern Physics’ by H. A. Wilson that I purchased in 1946 when I was a university student. This is also the student textbook just mentioned above by reference to electron theory.
Starting from the doctrine of equivalence, one encounters ‘geodesics’ and ‘world lines’ as one enters the realm of ‘curvilinear co-ordinates’. Then one comes to the ‘curved Minkowski world’ and encounters ‘tensors’, where one is introduced to a ‘covariant’ form of tensor called ‘the fundamental tensor’, of which there are three. Next come the ‘Christoffel symbols’, one of which has particular importance, the ‘three-index symbol’. After that the next hurdle is ‘covariant differentiation’ which, once mastered, brings one to a second covariant derivative, developed in two forms, the difference of which has a special name: the ‘Riemann tensor’. This brings us in sight of ‘Einstein’s Law of Gravitation’, but only after we have digressed to calculate the values of a whole series of ‘three index symbols’ that apply to space surrounding a single heavy particle. To conclude the exercise we then have to introduce and formulate the path of an ‘infinitesimal particle’ to represent the planet that is to move in orbit around that heavy mass and finally, Lo and Behold, we arrive, after another page and a half, at that equation (5.6) above.
I cannot now resist the temptation of quoting a few words from the front page of a Newsletter that I have just received from the U.K. Institute of Physics South Central Branch (January, 2003). The Chairman, Howard Watson, tells us about his preparations to give a public talk on the subject of Physics Nobel Prize Winners and his perception that Einstein is usually about the only Nobel Laureate whose name is recognised by the so-called ‘man-in-the-street’. He goes on to say:
“The deliberations of the committees in Stockholm are not released for 50 years after the awards. They show, for example, that Einstein was vetoed many times before he finally received the award in 1921. One committee member resolved: ‘Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize even if the entire world demands it’. Part of the problem was that the physicists there could not get their head around the new relativity physics, regarding it as something almost evil and reflecting the undesirable changes that were taking place in the world generally at the time.”
So, with the slogan in mind: ‘Einstein is right; Newton is wrong’, but with that 20 pages of relativity physics still there to mystify the student, are we to accept that the paths of planets are determined and starlight is deflected thanks to Einstein’s relativistic doctrines or are we to come to terms with the simple fact that a little commonsense physics that the student can understand will suffice for our onward perception of the universe and its Creation?
That equation (5.6) does hold valid, but surely it must be derived in a different way, as by starting from that formulation of (5.4) and understanding its physical basis.
The Bending of Light by the Sun
Given Newton’s law of gravitation as a starting point, equation (5.6) without that term 3(u/c)², the solution for u is:
u = (GM/h²)(1 + e cosφ) ……………………… (5.7)
where e, being less than 1, signifies the eccentricity of an ellipse.
Since the additional term added by the Einstein formulation is very small it may then be shown, by a process of successive approximation based on the approximate solution of equation (5.7), that the result corresponds to a slow rotation of the major axis of the ellipse. We shall not work through that analysis here but one will find that the result, as applied to planet Mercury, gives the answer that the major axis of its orbit turns at the rate of 43 seconds of arc every 100 years.
Note that we are not involved in four-dimensional space once equation (5.6) is formulated. The answer applies to motion in space of three dimensions. It is, indeed, a trick of relativity to take one into a notional space of four dimensions to justify the distortion of Newton’s equation before converting the result back into the three-dimensional world of reality. It is surely so much better to stay in the world of reality and, by understanding the physics which accounts for the gravitational potential expression of (5.4), progress without reliance on the General Theory of Relativity.
Now, so far as the effect of gravitational potential on a ray of light is concerned, Einstein’s theory proceeds from the law of gravitation (5.6) and regards h as infinite, which is quite an assumption, one which I prefer to avoid. However, for the record, this leaves us with the equation:
d²u/dφ² + u = (GM)[3(u/c)²] …………………… (5.8)
compared with the corresponding expression based on Newton’s law of gravity:
d²u/dφ² + u = 0 ……………………………… (5.9)
The latter has a solution:
u = (1/p)cosθ …………………………….. (5.10)
which is the equation of a straight line, p being the perpendicular from the origin. This solution represents a first approximation that we can now substitute in (5.8) to obtain the equation:
d²u/dφ² + u = (3GM/p²c²)[1 + cos²φ]/2 ……….. (5.11)
a solution of which is:
u = (1/p)cosφ + (3GM/p²c²)[1 – (1/3) cos²φ]/2 ……… (5.12)
where the angle φ is measured from the point where u is a maximum, the point of closest transit.
The value of u has to be zero at a far distance and so, putting u as 0 in equation (5.12), with φ as π/2+ε or φ as -π/2-ε, ε being small, we obtain:
This parameter ε is the amount of deviation of a ray of light in transit from a far distance to the point of closest approach to the mass M. Therefore, since a similar further deviation occurs as the light ray continues on its way, the total deviation is 4GM/pc².
With the mass of the Sun as 2×10³³ gm, G as 6.67×10⁻⁸ dyne-cm² per gm squared, p as 7×10¹⁰ cm, the Sun’s radius, and c as 3×10¹⁰ cm per second, the total deflection is therefore indicated by the theory as being 8.47 micro-radians or 1.75 seconds of arc. Since this is consistent with the observation of the deflection of light from stars that grazes past the Sun during a total eclipse of the sun, it has been taken as verification of Einstein’s theory.
The reader will, however, have noticed that the mass mo has somehow dropped out of the equation, but, though its value does not affect the numerical result just obtained, its presence is essential to the formulation of the theory. Clearly, Einstein’s theory requires light, as a stream of photons, to be a ballistic phenomenon or, alternatively, requires energy that gravitates to be transported by the electromagnetic light wave. But here I stress that one must keep in mind that the ray of light cannot be deflected in the manner observed unless its components closer to the Sun travel more slowly than its components further removed from the Sun so we have to believe that the speed of light in vacuo need not be constant, given the presence of a nearby body. Furthermore, I again make the point that the energy or mass quanta that are conveyed by the light ray must somehow be slowed down, retarded, as they approach that body, whereas gravitation is supposed to attract and so accelerate such quanta because the gravitational potential is shedding energy and augmenting their kinetic energy.
This poses a dilemma, but relativists are not daunted by this, because it is assumed that such problems can be answered by looking into the fabric of four-dimensional space and, accepting that a constant speed in four-space means a variable speed in three-space, so that the resulting formulations override the normal physics encountered in the three-dimensional world of reality.
We reach then a position where the formula for ε derived above is seemingly valid but its derivation is questionable, whereas the law of gravitation according to equation (5.6) holds valid, because it does account for the anomalous advance of planet Mercury’s perihelion.
To add further confusion one can refer to authoritative works aimed at helping the student to better understand Einstein’s theory. Here I will quote two contrasting statements, one by Einstein himself in his final and fifteenth edition of his book ‘Relativity’ (Crown Publishers Inc, New York), where, in his Appendix III concerning experimental confirmation of his theory, he arrives at the 1.7/∆ arc-second value for light deflection by the Sun at a distance of ∆ solar radii from its centre:
‘It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun and the other half by the geometrical modification (“curvature”) of space caused by the Sun.’
The other statement is quoted from a book by V. Fock (1964) entitled: ‘The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation’, (2nd. Ed., Pergamon Press, London), where, on p. 222, one reads:
‘The fictitious medium of refractive index n is optically more dense in the vicinity of the Sun than it is far away from it. Therefore, light waves will bend around the sun.’
This is said in relation to a formula for refractive index:
n = 1 + 2GM/Rc² ………………………….. (5.15)
where M is the mass of the Sun, and R here is distance from the centre of the Sun.
So, you see, Fock does not agree with Einstein on this aspect of Einstein’s own theory. Einstein thinks that the deflection of light by the Sun is half due to the pull of gravity acting on mass-energy of the light itself and half due to refraction by the space medium, whereas Fock finds that all of the deflection arises from that refraction. Also, the space medium has become ‘fictitious’ rather than ‘curved’.
I ask the reader what he or she, as a student, would learn from such enlightenment and note that the caption on the front cover of that book by Einstein (printed in 1961) reads:
‘A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE FAMOUS THEORY THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE ATOMIC AGE. With Only a High School Education The Reader Can Understand Albert Einstein’s Explanation of His Epoch-Making Theory’.
I submit, therefore, that since equation (5.15) gives the appropriate measure of the light deflection observed by starlight grazing past the Sun, we should seek to derive it without thinking it represents the action of gravity on mass moving at the speed of light, but rather as the action of gravity on the aether itself. The aether should not be regarded as a ‘fictitious’ medium but rather as a real medium, the properties of which are rather subtle and somewhat elusive until we probe to discover the answers we seek.
Introducing the E and G Frames of the Aether
The aether itself must be the seat of something in motion, something having a mass density and an energy density and so a characteristic that provides the relationship between energy and mass, which accounts for its light-speed determining property.
The aether must have a rhythmic motion, a frequency, by which it acts as a kind of clock which determines what we call time.
With this cursory introduction I will now present a formula for its kinetic energy density that appears on p. 82 of my book ‘Physics without Einstein’, published in 1969:
(2ρ)(c/2)²/2 ………………………………. (5.16)
This formula represents the kinetic energy density of the aether, on the assumption that it has two systems, each of mass-density ρ, moving at speed c/2, but having a relative velocity c. Because that motion is an orbital motion that is strictly harmonious, having a fixed frequency, ρ does not depend upon speed and so is not subject to ‘relativistic’ mass increase owing to the way in which energy is deployed in such a system. It is therefore correct to use the Newtonian expression for kinetic energy even though the speeds involved are c/2.
The reader may have already guessed that one of those systems is provided by the gravitons introduced in chapter 2, whereas the other system is that of mass for which those gravitons provide gravitational interaction. So, even with no matter present, the aether intrinsically does have a state regulated by gravitation.
Now, since ρ cannot exhibit the inertia of translational motion owing to the preservation of equilibrium within the aether, its self-gravitational interactions are merged with the electrostatic interactions of its electric charge properties and so the gravitational feature only reveals itself when matter is present.
Suppose that a material object of mass M exists and interacts gravitationally with the mass-density ρ. Then at a distance R from M, one can expect the gravitational potential energy density to be GMρ/R, which we denote as φρ. This will deplete the kinetic energy density of the aether, because gravitational potential is a negative quantity and its increase in magnitude sheds energy. So we expect the expression in (5.16) to be reduced, but with ρ remaining constant. Therefore c must itself be reduced in proportion to φ. One then finds that:
φρ = ρc(δc)/2 ……………………………… (5.17)
This means that the aether itself has a refractive index n, a quantity we formulate as:
n = c/(c – δc) …………………………….. (5.18)
which can be written as:
n = 1 + 2φ/c² …………………………….. (5.19)
or:
n = 1 + 2GM/Rc² ………………………. (5.20)
which is the above formula (5.15) said by Fock to be a result derived from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
However, we have derived it from aether theory. So, you see, the slowing down of light in its close passage past the Sun and its deviation as a result of the Sun’s mass and also, for radio waves, that deflection by the planet Jupiter in the recent observations reported at the start of this chapter, are aether-based phenomena.
It is the energy deployment that governs what is observed and, just to show that the aether interpretation can add further insight into this energy deployment process, we can go one step further by asking and answering the question: “If energy is shed by that mass M acting on ρ at a point distant R from the centre of that mass M, where does that energy go? All you have done is to tell us that the kinetic energy density of the aether has been depleted, but surely energy cannot just vanish.”
Well, the answer is that it does not vanish. It merely transfers into another kind of motion and is still held at that point. It has been shed by its ordered motion state in those rhythmic orbital cycles and has become kinetic energy associated with what we can regard as thermal vibrations, as if the aether lattice system that provides the mass density ρ has a temperature T. Owing to the fixed rhythm of time the motion involved has only two degrees of freedom, one radial to that orbital motion and one lateral to the plane of that motion. Thus we may well ask if the space here in cosmic regions close to Earth exhibits a temperature.
If so, what would that temperature tell us about ρ? The message would be that ρ consists of units of mass mo for which kT is equal to GMmo /R, where the gravitational potential here is that of the combined effect of the sun and body Earth, k being Boltzmann’s constant. Before we embark on the detailed analysis of the aether we already know therefore that the 2.7 K cosmic background temperature of local space can indicate the mass value of that lattice particle, the quon, depicted earlier in Fig. 3.1. Furthermore, once we have derived that mass value independently by theoretical analysis, then we can deduce the very important fact that gravitation has a limited range of action, because distant stars do not contribute much to the gravitational potential matching that mass value.
An astute reader will have noticed that in deriving equation (5.3) I assumed that the energy transit time T was R/c, which is tantamount to saying that the gravitational action travels the distance between the two interacting masses at the speed of light. Here there is an interesting analogy evident from analysis of the deployment of electrostatic interaction energy in the case of two interacting charges. It may be proved (H. Aspden, ‘The Spatial Energy Distribution for the Coulomb Interaction’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 25, 456; 1979) that if the distance between those charges is R, there is no net interaction energy within a sphere of space centred on either charge and of radius equal to R [See Appendix I]. It may also be shown that the interaction field energy in a spherical shell of radius greater than R does not change as R changes. This means that the field energy associated with that interaction, if it has to be deployed by transfer to or from the kinetic energy of either charge, must traverse exactly that distance R. In other words, if this analogy applies equally to the gravitational interaction, as seems to be the case, then the designation of that transit time T as R/c is fully justified if the energy involved travels at the speed of light. I further point out that, because we are considering an aether that has an underlying energy density, energy can be deployed at what may seem to be the speed of light but without actually moving at the speed of light, just as a tidal wave can travel across the ocean without the water it conveys actually moving at the speed of that wave.
As to the so-called E and G frames mentioned in the heading of this section, the G frame is that defined by the graviton system, whereas the E frame is that defined by the system of aether lattice particles. The onward discussion and analysis pertaining to these aether frames in the next chapter takes us into the world of quantum physics and so we now enter the more serious phase of this quest to probe the secrets of Creation. A final word on the subject of gravitation is, however, needed before concluding this chapter.
Gravity: An Electrostatic or Electrodynamic Phenomenon?
When we come to discuss the Neumann potential in chapter 9 it will be seen why the answer to this question favours electrostatic action. As just shown, since electrostatic action and gravitational action, both involving direct inverse-square of distance forces, this puts the emphasis on electrostatic action as the seat of gravitation. One finds from analysis based on the electrodynamic interaction that the distribution of interaction field energy in the field does not conform with that we relied on above to derive the factor (5.3). One then confronts the need for special assumptions in seeking to accommodate to the retardation time factors involved. Also, as we shall see in deriving the Neumann potential from Coulomb’s Law in chapter 9, I can no longer hold to a position I took in my earlier accounts of the theory of gravitation. This was that the gravitons, in moving with the G-frame at a speed c relative to that of the E-frame, were, in effect, interacting current elements (σV/c) moving mutually parallel at the same speed c relative to the electromagnetic frame of reference. To apply the Neumann potential to their mutual interaction can then be argued as giving an attractive force of (σV)² at unit distance, which admittedly implied this was a gravitational action, but this argument is now thwarted by the proof in chapter 9 that the basis of the Neumann potential is the relative velocity of the interacting charges and this is zero. This means that to sustain the argument that gravitation is an electrodynamic phenomenon, one loses the theoretical foundation for the Neumann potential or one has to wander into unacceptable territory by saying that the gravitons, in their motion with the G-frame, exist themselves as leptons by ongoing charge pair creation and annihilation at an enormously fast rate, far greater than that of the rhythmic G-frame motion at the Compton electron. These factors militate against gravity being an electromagnetic phenomenon and favour the electrostatic interpretation. Fortunately the quantitative aspects of the theory affecting the determination of G remain the same as that of the author’s earlier theory. Here, then, is the lesson that in developing theoretical accounts of physical phenomena one must persist in probing deeper to understand more and more and must be ready to change direction if Mother Nature guides one along a different path.
I therefore now hold firm to the position I took in chapter 2; gravitation is an electrostatic phenomenon or rather a negative electrostatic phenomenon in the sense that holes in the G-frame continuum charge of density σ mutually attract according to the inverse-square law. Those holes are filled by pairs of oppositely charged gravitons, the motion of which provides the dynamic balance for matter sharing the motion of the E-frame.
