Acting on the advice of scientists interested in particle physics some quite large sums of money are being spent by government agencies in collaborating internationally to build large energy-consuming particle reactors to probe the space medium in search of new particle forms. The only purpose of this effort is human satisfaction at discovering something new which scientists can then ponder over as they are duly recognized academically for their achievement. For example, suppose a new short-lived particle having 135 times the mass of the proton were to be created by such a high energy experiment and so ‘discovered', why would that be important? How could it affect our existence? Surely it would be just another numerical entry in the particle catalogue. If it were of significance in a material sense it would surely have revealed itself already in performing whatever function Nature had assigned to its existence. If it is merely the by-product of a high-energy experiment and has no natural existence, then it does not warrant the waste of time devoted to its creation.
So, if the reader of these words is a young would-be physicist, he or she would be wise not to get involved with particle physics. Just go into a university library and look at the periodicals on the book shelves devoted to publishing papers on particle physics. They are numerous and are nothing but page upon page of mathematical formulations of no interest to anyone but the author and the journal referees.
That said, however, it must be emphasized that it is extremely important that we know about and understand the few primary particles that do dominate our physical existence, namely the proton, the deuteron and the electron along with just a very few particles having a ghost-like existence in the underworld of space, which are the muon, the tau-particle, the graviton and the particle form of lowest energy, the quon. The latter particle is the one that does warrant experimental effort to prove its existence as it is likely to hold the key to our ability to tap the energy resource that powers the quantum underworld of the space medium, and so is our future provider of non-nuclear energy when our oil, gas and coal reserves have been exhausted. However, it is at the low end of the particle spectrum and particle physicists are looking only at the high energy spectrum.
In this pursuit, and bearing in mind that the proton has revealed its existence as the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, I will here first seek to enlighten you as to how the proton is created. We begin by a lesson in mathematics, an exercise to test your skill in dealing with a mathematical formulation. The question I ask is ‘Can you evaluate the numerical factor N in the following equation?'
How, you may now ask, does that mathematical relationship relate to the question of proton creation?
Well, let me explain how I came to formulate the above equation. In my early study of physics, going back to when I was 17 years of age, having won the school's physics prize in that year 1945, and then becoming a university undergraduate, I bought a book entitled Modern Physics authored by H. A. Wilson. In this book there was a section headed Relation of the Mass of an Electron to its Charge. It was explained that if the charge e of the electron was merely assumed to be uniformly distributed over the surface of a sphere of radius a, then its electrical energy when at rest is e2/2a (here using cgs units) but that, assuming something counteracted the electrostatic repulsion to ensure that the energy density within that radius a was the same as at the charge surface, that would add energy of e2/6a and so the mass-energy of the electron could be formulated as:
Now here I think it relevant to say that my later Ph.D. research years were spent at Trinity College, Cambridge and so I was influenced by that book by H. A. Wilson who had been a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. That may explain why, in browsing through an second hand section of a bookshop I decided to buy a book also by a Fellow of Trinity College, named W. C. D. Whetham entitled The Recent Development of Physical Science. That book was dated 1904, the pre-Einstein era, and there on page 283 was the formula:
Accordingly, the notion that E = Mc2 is implicit in this analysis and we may as well forget Einstein as the discoverer of that formula, given that it was evident from pre-1904 research.
My contribution to the onward development of particle physics, based on such foundation, is simply that of saying that the above formulation as the energy of an electric particle of charge e applies to the muon, the so-called heavy electron, and even to the proton, given that the charge radius has to be adjusted accordingly.
Now, as to the muon, the mu-meson, physicists see this as the ‘heavy electron'. Pairs of muons of opposite charge can annihilate one another and the energy is deemed to vanish into space, pending reincarnation of such a particle-antiparticle charge pair somewhere else. But how can it make any sense for electric charge just to vanish to leave energy having no electrical form or character in a medium that is deemed to be the nothingness of space devoid of matter? Those who teach physics refuse to revive belief in a real aether medium and expect their students to believe in nothing. Only a very few such students stay with the subject long enough to become even more confused by their eventual introduction to ‘something', Einstein's concept of four-space as wrapped up in mathematical mumbo-jumbo but offering a mystical basis for the formulation E = Mc2. They are not even told that that formulation coupled with its account of why an electron's mass increases with speed was textbook knowledge at Cambridge as long ago as 1904 and before anyone had heard of Einstein's theory. Indeed, one must wonder if that fact is known to the modern era of professors and lecturers who teach physics today.
That school physics prize of mine mentioned above was a book by S. G. Starling and it contains an Appendix B on its final page 618 headed ‘see p. 508' together with Mesons or Mesotrons. That page 508 introduced cosmic rays and stated: ‘There is little doubt that the cosmic rays are in part photons and in part electric particles.' It is explained that the photons involved must have about 100 times the penetrating power of electrons and that, whereas such high energy had been found in other experiments, it was vastly greater than that required by the electrons having velocities observed. Then comes the statement: ‘electric particles (electrons or positrons) must be present to account for the latitude effect and the East-West effect, which were both due to the magnetic field of the earth'. Reverting then to that Appendix, it was there stated that the cosmic ray problem had been solved ‘by considering the hard component to consist of particles intermediate in mass between the electron and the proton.' ‘By measurement of the curvature in the magnetic field ... it is concluded that the mass lies somewhere between 110 and 350 times the mass of an electron.' Then followed the words: ‘The meson is very unstable, having a life of the order of 2x10-6 seconds. ..' So here I had, in 1945, the basic evidence that the muon, a charged particle having a mass intermediate the electron and the proton, existed in the background of the space medium.
It was not until about ten years later, around 1955, that it occurred to me to confine the notion of the photon to energy states commensurate with the rest-mass of the electron. The neutral energy quantum of much higher energy had to be that of a merger of two oppositely-charged particles such as a meson pair. Consider then that formula 2e2/3a as applying generally to those mesons, with the radius a being reduced in inverse proportion to mass. Instead of annihilating one another to leave an energy quantum with no physical character, a ‘little Bang' in the nothingness of space that is a mere void, I imagined the two charges coming into contact and retaining their individual charge form but with one contracting just enough to conserve their overall energy. The close interaction of a positive and negative charge implies a negative quantity of electric field energy, just enough to balance the increase of energy of the contracted particle form. Mathematically, with a of one charge replaced by a/2 of the other charge, the total energy becomes:
So, you now see that a particle-antiparticle pair can appear to vanish in an electrical sense whilst conserving their energy in an electrically-neutral two-body unit, one that could easily be mistaken for that hard component of cosmic radiation that led to the discovery of the mu-meson.
Eventually, with this picture in mind I asked myself what would happen if the particle of smaller radius retained its form whilst the other then expanded until the particle pair reached a minimal energy state. Rewrite the above expression with b replacing a/2 of the particle of smaller radius:
Now, bearing in mind that (2e2/3b) is 2(2e2/3a), this means that the minimal energy neutral combination formed from two muons has a mass that is 1.898979484 times that of the muon.
So just imagine the situation if we live in a space medium which is alive with the energy activity of such a basic particle form that has the rest-mass energy Eo and that this energy quantum is that of a particle of electric charge e or the anti-particle version -e. I have assumed this energy quantum to be that of what I refer to as the ‘virtual muon', because, as explained below, its value is slightly less than that of the muon form that is of record in the particle listing. A little consideration will show that the existence of such particles in close proximity with one another can have a degree of stability if their combined charge volume is conserved, meaning that if one expands a little the other can contract with energy exchange from one to the other. This implies an oscillation frequency for the radius dimension of the charge and in any group, independent of the charge polarity, one half of the particles must be expanding as the other half contract in charge radius. Furthermore, should such a positive and a negative charge become so close that their negative interaction energy overwhelms the equilibrium of this energy exchange process, then they can either be deemed to annihilate one another and shed energy devoid of electric charge into surrounding space or by coming into contact with one contracting to half its original radius whereby they could form an electrically neutral combination with no loss of energy, as the first formulation above shows. However, that would reduce the volume of space occupied by the combination of the two charges by an amount equal to the volume of 7/8 of that of the basic charge form. The occurrence of 16 such reactions would make room for the creation of 7 of the basic positive positive charge forms together with 7 of the basic negative charge forms, thereby deploying energy already shed by charge pair annihilation into the creation of 7 new particle pairs.
By such hypothesis or speculation one can picture a space medium alive with activity in the creation and decay of particle-antiparticle pairs, such as is in evidence experimentally as the phenomenon exhibited by leptons, whether electrons and positrons or mu-meson forms. Implicit in this scenario of particle activity is the recognition that matter in electrical particle form together with the electrical charge forms that populate the underworld of space itself give basis for quantum theory that conforms in its transmutations with three conservation principles, conservation of electric charge, conservation of energy and conservation of the volume of space occupied by electric charge in its fundamental particle form.
What has become evident in recent years, but was certainly not included in the physics books I read as a student, is the fact that electric charge can exist in three different states, the particle forms we sense as real matter, the underlying electrical constituents of space itself, meaning the aether, and, thirdly, what is now termed ‘dark matter'. Dark matter is dispersed in space and it is said that it can amount to about 30 times that of the ordinary matter that constitutes stars, planets and our body forms. I see ‘dark matter' as Nature's attempts to create real matter, an ongoing activity that fails owing to very short-lived creation of protons and antiprotons, the failure being attributable to lack of an adequate source of angular momentum that would allow such created particles to join in the quantum rhythmic motion of the physical underworld that permeates all space. The reader may see this as just an expression of one's imagination, but I invite such a sceptic to then look up my book Creation: The Physical Truth, (ISBN 1 84624 050 6) available from The Book Guild Ltd, Pavilion View, 19 New Road, Brighton BN1 1UF, England. I there derive the mass density of that ‘dark matter' form, referred to in the book as ‘quasi-matter', and show on page 135 how it arises from the mu-meson, muon, activity of the space medium and then, on page 137, how it accounts for the attenuation of the frequency of electromagnetic waves in passage through that medium. The result that emerges is the evaluation of what has come to be known as the Hubble constant, but by theory that does not require acceptance that we are part of an ever-expanding universe with its so-called ‘Big Bang' birth as vast amounts of energy suddenly appear from nowhere.
As to the problem of how the proton is created, given the muon activity of the underworld of space, just consider the merger of two muons of opposite charge, combining first, as energy is conserved, by one contracting to halve its radius, and then the other shedding energy until the combination has a minimal energy state. This latter charge component will then have an enlarged radius that makes its volume 11 times that of the basic muon form. That can be verified from the above formulations and so here is the target for the 7 muons, 4 of positive charge and three of negative charge, as needed to transform that neutral two-muon combination into a proton.
Proton creation results from the addition of 7 muon mass-energy units to that minimal energy combination of two muons, the latter having, as we have seen, 1.898979484 units of mass Eo. This means that the proton has a mass 8.898979484 times the mass of the virtual muon. In terms of the electron mass my theory, the subject of my book Creation: The Physical Truth, does show on page 111 how the mass of the virtual muon is related to electron mass by a factor that is 206.3329 and so the proton/electron mass ratio is 1836.152.
Such analysis poses the question as to why the factor 7 governs the creation of a proton. Why not the factor 5 or 11, say? Also, of course, there is the question as to why the real muon observed experimentally differs in mass from the virtual muon as used to derive the proton/electron mass ratio. Is there something special about that factor 7, apart from that link with volume reduction of charge in contracting to half its radius, and thereby freeing a volume of space that could occupy a further 7 of such contracted charge forms? The answer is affirmative, as I will explain below.
First, it is appropriate to comment on the mass of the real muon as opposed to that of the virtual muon. When physicists perform experiments aimed at measuring particle properties they impose certain constraints on the particle form under test. These may involve accelerating the particle and subjecting it to a strong magnetic field that deflects its motion. Should the particle be a component of a combination of three charge forms, it may respond under such circumstances as if it is freed from that union with other charges. The result would be slight discrepancies as between physical quantities applicable at the truly fundamental level and such physical quantities in a test situation activated by a background of energized particles. To explain what I mean here I refer the reader to the section of my 1980 book Physics Unified which is of record in the book section of my website www.aspden.org in the section leading to page 136. I there show how ongoing reaction effects involving the virtual muon form in a proton creation environment can account for the mass of the real muon and, indeed, the pion. The theoretical value of the real muon/electron mass ratio deduced is 206.7688, which is there compared with the 1977 measurement of this quantity as being 206.76859(29).
Now, let us look again at that problem concerning that numerical factor 7 in accounting for the mass of the proton. I am writing this account under a heading worded The Deplorable State of Particle Physics. Why is it ‘deplorable'? Well, it is deplorable because the kind of physics that I am discussing concerning the creation of the proton is not in tune with the notions of those who play on the stage of modern particle physics. They are just not interested in the simple creative picture of the particle underworld of the space medium that I have presented. They remain silent and do not refer to what I have published, presumably because they would need to abandon some of the notions on which they have founded their own insight into particle physics.
So why am I writing this summary account? Well, it is my reaction to the recent rejection of something I offered for publication in Physics Letters. I had decided to show the scientific community how my above analysis of proton creation could be developed without building on the classical assumption implicit in that J. J. Thomson formulation 2e2/3a for the energy or mass of the electron, according to whether e is in electrostatic units or electromagnetic units, their ratio being the factor c.
The case I presented is that here documented under the title The Proton as a Unique Product of Muon Combination. See text appended below. I merely build on the theme that Nature has a way of determining the mass-energy ratio applicable to the creation of the proton in an active muon environment. All I rely on is the assumption that charge has a spherical form of radius related inversely to its energy and probing the energy spectrum above and below the level of the muon. It was in that way that I arrived at that rather unusual relationship presented above following the question: ‘Can you evaluate the numerical factor N in the following equation?' The result was that N had to be 7 and, as you can verify, that equation gives the proton/muon mass ratio that we have derived above using the Thomson basic formula. However, what is so impressive about the alternative derivation in the paper offered to Physics Letters is the proof that N has to be 7 if there can only be one particle form differing from the muon emerging from the reactions. That explains why the proton is unique as the dominant component of matter.
Yet the paper was rejected on May 17, 2007 by J. P. Blaizot, Editor of Physics Letters with the words: ‘Your paper has been examined. Unfortunately I have to inform you that it does not meet the scientific standards of novelty and broad interest that characterize publications in Physics Letters B. It cannot therefore be considered for publication.'
I find this deplorable. The scientific world is not, it seems, interested in knowing how the primary particle of all matter, the proton, is created! I can say no more.
Harold Aspden, 26th June 2007
A two-particle combination formed by the merger of an odd number of muons, is formulated by an equation having two solutions from which a unique particle form, identified as the proton, emerges.
More than 30 years have passed since a paper (1) sourced in the CSIRO National Measurement Laboratory in Australia suggested that a quantum of energy Qo that was approximately that of a pair of muons could account for the creation of matter in the form of protons. A footnote in that paper implied that such an energy quantum in each unit volume of space (there described as a lattice cell) could account for a pressure that kept a fundamental form of electrical charge e in such a cell from disintegrating. Based on such hypothesis and what was disclosed in an earlier paper (2) also sourced in the CSIRO National Measurement Laboratory, it was there shown how a proton mass equal to 1836.152 times that of the electron could be derived by simple physical theory.
Understandably, given the curious way in which particle physics has evolved in the 20th century, what was proposed in those two papers has not captured the attention of pioneer researchers in the relevant field. Therefore, as coauthor on each of those papers, I am here drawing attention to a simple connected proposition, the result of which will surely not be ignored.
The assumption is that there is a physical process in Nature that determines the mass-energy ratio R of associated charge pairs (e+ and e-) and that a fundamental charge form of mass-energy µ is involved in the creation of a fundamental particle of mass-energy P that is unique in the sense that the particular process involved has no dual solution resulting in particle creation other than in the P and µ forms.
Consider then the merger of µ+ and µ- to form a neutral combination in which a µ particle is paired with a particle of mass-energy Q of opposite charge, the combination being denoted (Q:µ).
Now suppose that, with Q retaining that mass-energy, the µ particle sheds energy by partial decay to a value for which the energy of the charge combination is a minimum. It can do this by its charge expanding somewhat, its energy being inversely proportional to the radius of that charge, assuming it to be spherical in form. This will mean that the magnitude of the negative interaction energy within that combination is greater than the energy of the expanded version of µ, the latter now being denoted K). The energy shed is denoted E, and so we have the process:
That particle energy ratio R as determined by the physical structure of those charge combinations can now be equated to the ratios P/Q, Q/K and K/E, which is the assumption on which this analysis is based, so that we find that:
To proceed, bearing in mind that P/Q is R, we now need to relate Q and µ. So we equate Q to kµ, where k is a ratio that we have to determine, and develop from (5) the equation:
The relevant equation is then:
Since R must have a positive value there can be no solution for N = 1 because, for R variable, the minimum value of expression (8) is 3.78. The values of R for higher N are then:
Here the solutions for N = 7 are presented to a higher degree of precision because this is the only case for which there is no dual solution resulting in particle creation other than P or µ. This is because the R = 0.5 value in equation (8), with P = QR = 2µR would require that P is equal to µ.
Evidently, therefore, the only possibility in respect of the creation of a particle of mass-energy P greater than µ by the process under consideration is for the particle to have a mass that is 2(4.4494897)µ. Note then that, this being the mass of the proton as 1836 electron mass units, the theory suggests that µ has a value a little greater than 206 electron mass units which identifies µ as the muon. This is quite remarkable because, contrary to the method used in deriving the proton mass in the referenced 1975 paper (1) no hypothesis as to the structure of the electric charge, whether muon or proton, has been postulated as the basis for analysis.
That 4.4494897 factor has been deduced as the solution to equation (8) above in merely requiring that factor N to be an odd integer, thereby implying a unique relationship affecting particle creation and so the stability of the created particles. The factor has not been specified in a formulated expression basic to the underlying physical theory. Yet it can be verified that the factor R is simply:
What is disclosed here in this independent but supporting account is of vital importance to our understanding of the physics that governs our universe. It supplements what was disclosed in the 1975 paper (1). There can be no doubt that there is an energy source in space that involves muons in a dominant and fundamental state, a source from which protons are created.
(1) H. Aspden and D. M. Eagles, Il Nuovo Cimento, 30A, 235 (1975).
(2) H. Aspden and D. M. Eagles, Physics Letters, 41A, 423 (1972).