Author's Commentary

© Harold Aspden, 2006


It is now some 37 years since my book Physics without Einstein was published [1] and by year end 2006 my new book Creation: The Physical Truth will have been published [2].

In writing these and other works my object has been to convince the reader that our understanding of the fundamental scientific basis of the factors governing the energy activity of the quantum underworld is thwarted by too much reliance on Einstein doctrine. The aether must be seen as having an active rather than a passive role, active in the sense that it abounds in energy and can shed that energy to create matter.

We need to devise ways in which to tap that energy resource and Einstein's theory hinders technological progress in that direction. As shown on page 167 of my book Physics without Einstein the action of a radial electric field set up by a concentrated body of electric charge will, in its reaction with the underlying aether, induce rotation of the aether medium in that body, a state of spin that is powered by energy inflow owing to a phase-lock as between the quantum jitter motion of aether within and aether external to that body. See also the further explanation of this phenomenon at pages 162-163 of my 1980 book Physics Unified [3]. Aether rotation as applied to the Sun and the Earth is shown to explain their rate of spin when created.

Since I wrote those books I have become aware of claims made by a secluded community at Methernitha in Switzerland [4] that could well be relevant, their apparatus having a Wimshurst machine as a pulsating input voltage generator connected to a configuration of capacitors having concentric electrodes. Those claims, attributed to the research efforts of Paul Baumann, are that electrical energy is being generated in excess of that needed to operate the Wimshurst machine, meaning that the system is self-powered and is somehow tapping energy from the environment.

Such claims are classified under the heading of 'perpetual motion' and so tend to be ridiculed by those involved in university physics research. Where, one wonders, given our urgent need to discover a new source of energy to power our industries, is there a university research team looking to the aether as our future supplier of energy? Is the word 'aether' ever mentioned by those we rely on to develop future energy technology? Can it be that Einstein has become a ghost that frightens anyone from even thinking of venturing on that path to a new source of energy?

So, as my contribution, I offer insight into the reality of the aether medium that is our physical underworld and, recently, I have even filed a U.K. patent application that describes something that a university research team could build in probing such a possibility [5].

I mention this to put emphasis on the importance of resolving the 'aether' issue by down-sizing the relevance of Einstein's theory and showing how the aether offers a physical explanation for much of the mystery that pervades the physics teaching curriculum.

Such a suggestion may surprise orthodox physicists who concur with commentary such as that by Lord Rees, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge on page 149 of his book Our Final Century [6]. There, in three consecutive paragraphs, he highlights briefly three aspects of developments in physics.

Firstly, he quotes a statement by Stephen Hawking that, "It is a tribute to how far we have come in theoretical physics that it now takes enormous machines and a great deal of money to perform an experiment [on subatomic particles] whose result we cannot predict." Surely that is a statement that also conveys the message that physicists are lacking in ideas as to how to progress on the theoretical front and so they suggest bombarding whatever exists in space violently in the mere hope of discovering something interesting. That means making a convincing case to justify government funding of particle collider experiments and, incidentally, the need to suppress the competitive spirit within the physics community, such as might arise from an interest in aether energy, by urging unison in order to get such funding. The 'tribute' implied by the scale of government funding is, I suggest, no more than governmental awareness of the fact that the atomic bomb emerged from such research and, if there are to be further such dramatic discoveries, then those at the forefront of funding such effort are likely to have a winning advantage.

Secondly, Rees pays appropriate tribute to quantum theory, as vindicated by technological devices that rely on the use of lasers. Surely, therefore, this should tell us that developments based on quantum theory and not Einstein's differing picture of our universe should provide the solid foundation on which our understanding of physics can develop. Quantum theory is the obvious signature of the aetherial nature of the space medium.

Thirdly, however, Rees then seemingly contradicts this in the third paragraph by stressing the importance of what he describes as 'A new paradigm of twentieth-century science - another astonishing intellectual leap - Albert Einstein'. Rees tells us that Einstein's theory 'might have seemed arcane, but it is vindicated every time a truck or plane fixes its position via the global positioning satellite (GPS) system.'

So we are told that Einstein's theory stands supreme, but where, I ask, is the physics theory that tells us what determines the basic quantum of action in quantum theory and connects this with an account of the physics determining the value of G, the constant of gravitation, and governs also the mass of the basic matter form, the proton? As my book Creation: The Physical Truth explains, that can only come from physics that probes the structure of the aether, the quantum underworld of space, and brushes aside Einstein's doctrinaire principles. Hopefully, there will be those who will now read my new book Creation: The Physical Truth with these thoughts in mind.

Should the reader need to be first convinced that Einstein's theory can be challenged I now raise the topic of the speed of propagation of gravitational action.

A Dilemma confronting Einstein's Theory

When I wrote my 1969 book Physics without Einstein my object was to show that the aether determined Planck's constant and regulated gravity, rather than a questionable set of equations devised by Albert Einstein. Einstein seems to have derived great credit for his explanation of the anomalous component of motion of the perihelion of planet Mercury. This was even though that had been explained by Levy [7] in terms of Riemann's electrodynamic law as long ago as 1890, some 25 years before Einstein introduced his theory of general relativity.

In discussing this subject at pages 83-87 in my book Physics without Einstein I presented a different explanation for the anomaly, one based on the intrusion of a fluctuating aether-related angular momentum term owing to the non-circular orbital motion of the planet. This did not depend upon gravitation being a force subject to retardation owing to speed of light limitations, as did the 1890 explanation by Levy or that suggested by Einstein. Keep in mind that the anomalous advance of the perihelion of the planet Mercury was explained in terms of the gravitation force between two bodies in motion being related in some way to electrodynamic interaction, the formulations of which introduced the factor c, the speed of light. The later efforts of Einstein did not explain what it is that generates the force of gravity. He merely supposed that space is distorted by the presence of matter and wove the speed of light factor c into his space-time formulation of that distortion. Whittaker [8] on page 208 of his book tells us that Tisserand's adoption of Weber's law of electrodynamics, based on the speed of light retardation factor, would account for a 14" perihelion advance per century for planet Mercury. This was only about one third of the anomalous excess measured but, as Whittaker then states, much of this excess could be explained by replacing Weber's law with Riemann's electrodynamic law and a suitable combination of both laws could give an exact result.

I was influenced by all this when I came to write my 1980 book Physics Unified. I had seen that planetary motion at speed v introduces a factor (v/c)2 in the energy term formulation and G, the constant of gravitation as it applies in Newton's law of Gravitation, is enhanced by this factor. However, I also saw that, owing to conservation of angular momentum, this made the related formulation involving r, the orbital radius, inversely proportional to r3, and, in turn, this meant that differentiation of the energy equation to obtain a force expression would increase that anomalous perihelion term by the needed factor 3. So all that was needed was to correct Tisserand's analysis by appropriate insight into the dynamics of the planetary system, given the effect of conservation of angular momentum upon the retardation term. So in Physics Unified I opted for this as the basis of Mercury's perihelion anomaly.

I was wrong and should have realized that the latter account could not be justified so long as the former explanation, the one I had presented in Physics without Einstein, was not refuted.

I now know the answer to this dilemma. That (v/c) term becomes negligible if c, in denoting speed as a factor involved in gravitational retardation, is far greater than the speed of light. Gravitational interaction is virtually instantaneous as is electric, as opposed to electromagnetic interaction, in the context of quantum theory. That denies scope for gravitational retardation as a factor regulating planetary motion. On that basis Einstein's modification of the equations governing the motion of planets fails. One needs an alternative explanation for the perihelion motion of planet Mercury and I have presented that in my book Physics without Einstein.

The realization of this has caused me to pay attention to what Tom Van Flandern has to say in the 1993 edition of his book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets [9]. He makes it very clear that the speed of propagation of gravity is at least of the order of 1010 times the speed of light. Indeed, he gives eight reasons to justify this between pages 43 and 52 of his book.

So, given that Einstein is deemed to be a genius for giving us a special insight into what governs where gravity is concerned, and given that his theory relies so much on retardation by speed of light propagation of the gravity force, but tells us nothing that enables us to account for what determines G, the constant of gravity, or to link gravitation with quantum theory, the time has surely come for rejecting Einstein doctrine.

So this commentary supplements what I have proposed in my book Creation: The Physical Truth, but there is another item I must mention. It is one that pleases me for the simple reason that, in developing new theory one is ever struggling with the testing and rejection of ideas, until a result emerges with the ring of truth. Yet, here, as a mere afterthought following the reading of the proofs of my new book Creation: The Physical Truth was an idea that, as it were, spoke for itself.

Dark Matter: What is it?

Whether it was the title of Tom Van Flandern's book or reading Chapter 1 of the book by John Vacca, The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems, [10] that stirred my interest in 'dark matter', I do not know. It may have been the fact that I do not have a way of checking the statement on page 13 of the Vacca book that 'scientists in this field [dark matter] indicate that 96% of most galaxies (including our own) in the observable universe are made out of dark matter.' Or it may have been on June 26th 2006, when I read a report by Mark Henderson, Science Editor of The Times newspaper in U.K. [11], that very soon now highly sensitive detectors in U.S. and Germany will be able to sense gravity waves arising from events such as supernovas and collisions between black holes in far-off space. He states:

"The first step towards gravitational wave astronomy has been taken, at last allowing us to observe the 96 percent of our universe hidden to us up to now. We are opening a wholly new chapter in the long history of astronomy with the direct observation of the 'dark side' of our universe - black holes, dark matter and the reverberations of the Big Bang."

It was that 96 per cent factor that aroused my curiosity. I had written a book purporting to explain how the universe was created and had not discussed the dark matter issue. Is it really important? That book entitled The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems was published by Prentice Hall in USA in 2005. Its 669 pages concerned the major problems that now confront scientists in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, biology, paleontology, neuroscience, geology, chemistry and energy.

Of these problems, it is the energy topic, the last item listed on its book cover, that is surely the one of greatest importance, given our rapidly-diminishing oil reserves and the impact this will have on our methods of transportation in the years ahead. The key scientific question is whether we can find a way of tapping energy from the quantum underworld of space that governs scientific phenomena at a fundamental level. That was the topic of the 19th of those 'unsolved problems', whereas the first problem, in contrast, was somewhat academic and seemingly removed from reality. It was raised on page 13 under the heading: The Invisible Universe: How Important is it?

Then followed the statement that 'scientists in this field indicate that 96% of most galaxies (including our own) in the observable universe are made out of dark matter' and the question: 'How do you know for sure that dark matter is out there?'

So we are told that there is scientific evidence pointing to the existence of much more energy in space than we can see as constituting the stars which form those galaxies.

Sadly, however, the scientists who reach these conclusions from the study of far-off galactic space are not the scientists who confront our energy needs on the home front and there is need for an understanding of how energy is shed by the underworld of space in creating stars and the protons which account for most of the matter in those stars. Such is my contribution as I record in my new book Creation: The Physical Truth.

The key message that has to be accepted is that our quantum underworld of space is constantly, and everywhere, trying to create matter as protons, but it only succeeds to the extent that there is energy surplus to its equilibrium condition, energy drawn from space domain boundaries along with angular momentum. To the extent that it fails in such effort there exists throughout space a quasi-matter form of proton that can be identified as dark matter. In the book just mentioned I did show on page 135 why the mass density of such quasi-matter is 5x10-28 gm/cc and, by deriving the volume of a space domain having a size equal to the cube of side dimension 4.86x1020 cm, corresponding to it being the seat of creation of a star having the sun's mass 2x1033 gm, it can be seen that the mean mass density of stellar matter is 1.74x10-29 gm/cc. This is only 0.0336 times the combined mass density of stellar matter plus quasi-matter and so here is the answer to that first of The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems. More than 96% of the matter in our universe is 'dark matter', protons devoid of electrons not having become atomic nuclei able to radiate energy by merger into stellar form. When I discovered what it was that determined the existence of quasi-matter in space and so derived that 5x10-28 gm/cc mass density value, it was only with the object of then showing how this quasi-matter was effective in attenuating the frequency of electromagnetic waves according to distance travelled. My book shows then how this determines the Hubble constant and thereby disproves the notion of an expanding universe with its Big Bang creation feature.

Accordingly, even I am surprised that so soon after the final editing stage of my new book I can point to something there disclosed that explains that 96% dark matter mass anomaly that was the first of those 'unsolved problems'. I had explained that mystery without knowing it existed! I would certainly have included in my book what has just been disclosed above had I seen this numerical link earlier.

As to the second of The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems, this was How did the Universe Begin?, the issue of creation. Well, my new book having 'Creation' in its title, surely should answer that question. However, having just mentioned that the universe could not have begun in a so-called Big Bang, I can further assure the reader that it did not originate in the scenario suggested on page 41 of that work, namely: 'by creation from the collision of two three-dimensional worlds moving along a hidden extra dimension'. No, we just cannot ever know how the vastness of space and its energy in electrical form originated, and all we can do is decipher how optimization and deployment of its energy gave basis for a structured medium comprising large space domains that shed a commensurate amount of matter and angular momentum as needed to create the stars. We surely live in a three-dimensional space medium having time regulated by the quantum underworld. Stars are what we see and it is their creation that can be fully explained, once we understand also how protons and electrons come into existence.

What I did not see in that book The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems was reference to the three most important problems in physics, namely what it is that determines the precise value of the fine-structure constant, the proton-electron mass ratio and the constant of gravitation. These should have been recognized as the greatest unsolved problems in physical science as it is still taught at school and university, but hopefully, upon reading my new book Creation: The Physical Truth there will be enlightenment on this subject. It is important because the physics involved explains how stars acquired their rotation and that is a pointer to a route for tapping energy from the space medium. That surely is our greatest challenge in the future of science. It is a subject on which you will find a commentary of mine in the 19th Chapter of that book The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems but it depends upon the physics disclosed in my book Creation: The Physical Truth.

As to that dark matter issue, one can but wonder how cosmologists have already derived that figure of 96% if, as Mark Henderson says, it is not based on something already observed. However, one must not question the wisdom of those who guide us in these matters and so I am left to wonder how my new book, which is bold enough to clarify how matter is created as protons having 1836.152 times the mass of their electron partners might be received.

As just stated, the spin-off from such research is an indication of how space releases energy to cause stars to spin, as if deriving their angular momentum from nowhere, nowhere being the space medium itself. That is a pointer to a way in which we can tap energy from space itself but how, one wonders, are we to convince those skilled in matters scientific who are content to look only into the darkness for evidence of energy release in far-off space?

The Electrodynamic Dilemma

It may seem that the way I have attacked belief in Einstein's theory by dismissing the notion that gravitation is not subject to speed of light retardation and by challenging the link between gravitation and electrodynamic law is too far- reaching. To meet such criticism I need to enlarge on the account I present concerning gravity in my book Creation: The Physical Truth. Electrodynamic action does have a role to play, a very interesting role, where gravity is concerned but not in the way one expects and I believe what I outline below will interest research students who seek deeper understanding of the subject.

My Ph.D. research (1950-53) at Trinity College, Cambridge, being concerned with magnetism, meant that I was familiar with teaching pertaining to the law of electrodynamic interaction. I therefore knew that two electrons, for example, moving along parallel paths in side-by-side relationship would experience a mutual force of attraction owing to electrodynamic interaction. It is a force that acts directly along the line joining the two electrons and one which varies with inverse-square of separation distance, as does electrostatic interaction force, and so the attraction would offset the mutual repulsion attributable to that electrostatic interaction. However, the electrodynamic interaction force applicable in the general case, given an arbitrary relative position of the two moving charges does not act directly between the charges, as does electrostatic interaction or gravitational interaction.

In formulating the electrodynamic action applicable between two moving charges, physicists invariably ignore any possible out-of-balance force that might be asserted by interaction with electric charge that is part of the aether background. The aether is ignored and yet the formula used by physicists for such interaction implies force imbalance in the general case.

It is a fact glaring at whoever reads the accepted formulated expression for the electrodynamic interaction force between two moving electric charges that the force is not one that acts directly between the charges. We are led to believe that the electrodynamic forces acting on moving charges are directed at right angles to their motion. Picture two charges moving with the same velocity, but one being slightly ahead of the other, and ask yourself how forces at right angles to charge motion can be in balance. You will see that the accepted theory tells you that something is asserting a turning couple on the system of matter defined by those two charges.

If you ignore the aether then, by your belief in standard physics teaching, you have forces exerted without there being something to account for that action and that is nonsense. So, does the aether really exert electrodynamic forces that cause matter to spin?

My approach was to examine how physicists have managed to live with this problem for so long, well over a century. I then discovered that they were quite content to accept a law of electrodynamics that gave the right answer when the force action was averaged for the case where one of the interacting charges described a closed circuital path. So, in practice, confining attention to what is measured by experiments, the problem is overcome by assuming integration of charge motion around a closed loop and so having a formula that works in situations where one considers that the force acting on a charge is subject to a magnetic field that is generated by cyclical motion of charge. This is the usual feature of technology dependent upon electromagnetic force action. Our world of electrical engineering is not concerned with moving charges that interact in isolation. It deals instead in terms of current flow around circuital paths and magnetic fields developed by the numerous electrons that carry such current flow. So to that limited extent theory does explain what is observed.

Accordingly our electrical engineers live in a world that ignores the aether, all because of an empirical short-cut that relied on charge interaction always involving at least one of the charges moving around a closed circuit. With a little enlightenment, not heeding that short-cut, the electrical engineers of the future could well find that their world offers access to a new energy resource that does not ignore the aether.

For the two-charge interaction in the general case it is an inescapable fact that the aether must contribute to the force action in some way. Thankfully, I became aware of certain experimental anomalies that crept into electrodynamic interaction as between moving charges that had different mass, as evidenced by the anomalous cathode reaction forces that appear where electron flow in the external part of the circuit loop is complemented by current carried by heavy ions in a discharge path between anode and cathode.

In solving this problem I developed a law of electrodynamics that had general applicability to this case where the mass-ratio of interacting charge became a factor [12]. This settled the choice as between two alternative versions of the law. Though not needing the mass ratio factor to be other than unity, I then used this chosen law in explaining the force of gravity in my book Physics without Einstein where my primary task was that of building a picture of the aether that would allow the theoretical determination of G, the constant of gravitation. The point of interest is that the formulation of the law of electrodynamics involves three terms, one of which cancels to zero for interaction as between two charges of the same mass if the force is averaged by one of the charges describing a closed circuit. So, in the empirical formulation of the interaction, being based solely on normal circuital current experimental foundation, it was arbitrary whether that particular term existed at all or had before it a plus or a minus sign. I note that I needed that minus sign to allow two of the three terms to cancel one another, thereby leaving the third term to account a balanced interaction force with no associated couple.

Such is the state of confusion that pervades the electrodynamic foundations of physics as we know it today. This has no connection with Einstein doctrine. It is merely a pointer to the fact that the Lorentz force law has its uses in the teaching of electrical engineering if we are content to harness technology that ignores the aether. However, if we seek to exploit what the aether offers as an explanation of the mystery of gravitation or as a potential energy source, there is purpose in recognizing that the true law of electrodynamics is not the one that asserts an out-of-balance couple owing to the aether being involved in the charge interaction.

Remember the point that the out-of-balance couple that accounts for aether spin and the related rotation of astronomical bodies such as the Sun and Earth, is attributable to the electrostatic interaction of a concentrated electric charge in setting up a radial electric field. This is not an electrodynamic interaction. A coupling with the aether that causes stars to spin is not the same as the force action that we classify as electrodynamics.

Readers of that 1969 book Physics without Einstein, who might compare the explanation of gravity with what is now stated in the 2006 book Creation: The Physical Truth, will therefore be puzzled to find that, in spite of this extensive interest in electrodynamics, I have now adopted the notion that gravity, as such, is really an electrostatic force arising from reaction to a repulsion force set up in the enveloping aether charge. Being based on the same graviton concept, the theory gives the exactly the same G value in terms of graviton mass but, seemingly, the electrodynamic effect is excluded. I must explain why I made this change.

To summarize, the Lorentz electrodynamic force law, though normally presented as a single vector product expression has a two-term equivalent version when in scalar product form. It needs a third such scalar product term, the one that integrates to zero for interaction averaged around a closed circuit, to represent the true electrodynamic interaction. This was the subject of my 1969 paper [12].

Now, though developing my theory for three decades from 1955 on the basis that electrodynamic interaction is the primary agent in setting up gravitational forces, I encountered a problem when I later discovered how to derive that electrodynamic formula from really basic first-principles rather than as a combination of empirical plus aether considerations [13]. The electrokinetic energy of two moving charges is proportional to the square of their relative velocity. According to Whittaker [8], at page 206 of his book, this became known from the lectures of Riemann dating from 1861. However, it still needs something equivalent to Fechner's hypothesis, the assumption that electric charge in motion can be constituted by two counter-moving charges of opposite polarity, to derive an electrodynamic interaction force on such physical foundation. Though presuming that the aether might have the necessary inherent properties, given the success of my theory in accounting for gravitation, I have seen reason to for exploring this theme a little further and have now opted for what is surely the correct physical description of the relevant aether properties.

The system of matter is subject to a quantum jitter motion that is dynamically balanced by gravitons, a high energy lepton form, that shares the motion of the charge continuum of charge density σ esu/cc which features in my theory. There is no relative motion between those gravitons. By their presence they displace charge that has a repulsive interaction with charge enveloping other gravitons and, in thereby causing the electrostatic energy potential of that charge interaction to reduce, energy is shed commensurate with there being a force of mutual attraction as between the gravitons. So the force of gravity becomes a reaction to a repulsive electrostatic force set up within electric charge that constitutes the space medium, the aether.

This revision of what was disclosed in the earlier version of my theory gives the same numerical results for the formulation of G, the constant of gravitation, because the quantum jitter motion required matter dynamically balanced by the gravitons to move at a relative speed c, the ratio of emu to esu units of charge. So the revised theory that is the subject of my new book Creation: The Physical Truth, in linking gravitation with an electrostatic force, seemingly avoids the electrodynamic involvement. This, however, is not the case, because of the rather obvious question that a critic will raise, namely the question of why, if the presence of gravitons in that charge continuum can account for a gravitational attraction force, the presence of matter, which sits also in that charge continuum, does not further augment that gravitational attraction.

There is an interesting answer. It is because there is in this case motion of that matter at speed c relative to that charge medium, bearing in mind that the quantum jitter motion, whether that of the gravitons or matter, is motion at speed c/2 in circular orbit in the inertial frame of reference. The graviton system and matter move in juxtaposition in those orbits and so have a relative velocity that is twice c/2. This means that whatever constitutes the charge system that shares the motion of the gravitons has, when experiencing the transit of an element of matter, to be displaced laterally to make a pathway for whatever constitutes the matter form. Since matter is a composition of spherical charges it is as if spherical volumes of charge density are split apart by being pushed sideways and then returning sideways along a reverse path. These lateral displacements will, however, by their symmetry cancel so far as any electrodynamic effect as between two spaced elements of matter is concerned. This then leaves us with the interaction of two moving charges, corresponding to the space taken up by the two elements of matter, but both charges necessarily moving at the same velocity c relative to the elements of matter and so relative to the electromagnetic reference frame applicable to that matter. Accordingly, always provided the charge continuum medium itself has leptonic properties, in the sense that it electrodynamic action can be attributed to countermoving charge pairs of opposite charge polarity, as applies for normal electrodynamic interaction as between moving electrons, there will be an attractive interaction force set up within that charge continuum that exactly balances the repulsion that otherwise accounts for what would be gravitational attraction. In other words, the reaction to repulsive effects as between graviton-occupied voids in the continuum charge that accounts for gravitation is, so far as voids occupied by the presence of matter as such, itself fully balanced by the reaction to electrodynamic attractive effects as between the matter-occupied voids, so leaving the gravitons as the sole providers of the force of gravitation.

There is no net interaction force related to the volume the charged particles that constitute matter and gravitational action can only arise from the dynamic linkage with the associated gravitons that provide dynamic balance as a function of the mass involved. To understand the fundamental aspects of such electrodynamic action one needs to know how the Neumann potential is determined, meaning the physical process involved. This is fully explained in my paper entitled: Instantaneous Electrodynamic Potential with Retarded Energy Transfer that was published in Hadronic Journal, 11 pp. 307-313 (1988), which is of full record on my website as a paper also included in my 1996 book Aether Science Papers.

The Electric Charge Dilemma.

Since I have not in my writings discussed in any detail the fundamental nature of the form of that charge continuum of charge density σ esu/cc, it is appropriate here to comment on this subject.

I can but say that in forming a picture of the aether I presumed it to comprise electric charge and knew that I would be wasting my time if I just speculated that it was a kind of gas consisting of electric charges in random motion. There had to be order if the aether could determine the values of what we describe as physical constants. Electric charge being the essential composition it then seemed logical to regard one charge polarity as that of a background continuum with the other being that of charges of identical size. I could picture a cubic array owing to the latter charges repelling one another but sitting in a charge medium that neutralized the overall effect. Then a little analysis indicated that to be in stable positions those charges would need to be at rest in that background charge continuum but, overall, the aether would then need to have a negative electrostatic interaction energy. This seemed possible, given that the charges had energy in their own right but, if they were all at rest the aether would be a static system devoid of motion and motion is needed if we are to account for the physics underlying quantum theory.

So I decided to explore the condition for which that negative electrostatic interaction potential could be avoided by requiring those charges to be displaced just enough to assure a zero state of interaction energy. What then resulted was the vision of the quantum aether, the dynamical motion of which allowed me to explain the physics leading to the evaluation of the fine structure constant. Quantum theory became an aether phenomenon, but I had assumed that the background charge, the continuum to which I had assigned a charge density σ esu/cc was a uniformly charged medium.

That was just an assumption, but one that gave the right answers. I know that in considering charge distribution within an enclosing sphere, as for the electron, I found that the charge was not deployed in a uniform density form but rather a distribution that assured a uniform pressure within the bounding sphere. Accordingly, one can wonder why the charge distribution in the medium that constitutes the background continuum is deemed to be uniform rather than subject to the constraint of pressure.

I do not know how to answer this and all I can say is that the assumption that it is uniform gives answers that fit what we observe. Nor, indeed, can I or anyone else ever explain why electric charge can assert an action-at-a-distance force on another electric charge. We just happen to know that physics supports such a proposition.

As to the make-up of σ, I have wondered about its mass density and whether it accounts for the dynamic balance of the related quon charge and could speculate that it comprises a multiplicity of charged particles that are minute fractions of the unit proton charge e. However, I prefer not to indulge in such speculation. For some reason σ is uniform throughout a space domain and, though it may pose a dilemma, I can but say that it gives the right answers and so must be a correct interpretation of the physical underworld.

As a final comment on this subject I note that the mass density of the charge continuum could be very small indeed, which means that a graviton presence is then needed even in the absence of matter. Such are the questions we face in taking this theory forward, especially having regard to the explanation of the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation offered in my book Creation: The Physical Truth.

The Sun's Temperature

The above was written and placed on this website several months ago but in the intervening period there is one further, quite major advance, that needs to be put on record. This is the theoretical explanation of the temperature value of the Sun. It is so important that it warrants a separate web page

The Sun's Temperature


[1] H. Aspden, Physics without Einstein, Sabberton, ISBN 0 85056 001 2, (1969).

[2] H. Aspden, Creation: The Physical Truth, Book Guild Publishing, ISBN 1 84624 050 6, (2006).

[3] H. Aspden, Physics Unified, Sabberton, ISBN 0 85056 010 1, (1980),

[4] K. Tutt, The Search for Free Energy, Simon-Schuster, ISBN 0 684 86660 9, Chapter 5, (2001).

[5] H. Aspden, U.K. Patent Application No. GB0523690.6 see figure in web message (2006).

[6] M. Rees, Our Final Century, Arrow Books, ISBN 0 099 43686 8, p. 144 (2004).

[7] M. Levy, Comptes Rendus, cx, p. 545 (1890).

[8] E. Whittaker, A History of Theories of Aether and Electricity: The Classical Theories, Nelson (1951).

[9] T. Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books, ISBN 1 55643 268 2 (1993).

[10] J. Vacca, The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0 13 142643 5 (2005).

[11] M. Henderson, Astronomers reach out to find Einstein's waves, The Times, U.K., p. 26 (June 26th, 2006).

[12] H. Aspden, Journal of the Franklin Institute, 287, pp. 179-183 (1969).

[13] H. Aspden, Hadronic Journal, 11, pp. 307-313 (1988).

H. Aspden

20th July 2006