THE STRUGGLE FOR ACCEPTANCE
Having now completed what I intend to be my final book updating my efforts on fundamental physics, I intend to add here a chronological commentary on my perception of onward developments and reactions to what my work has contributed to the field of science.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
16 April, 2003
I appreciate being notified on 8 April, 2003 by Patrick Bailey's E-Mail message, of a new experimental discovery concerning 'Electrostatic Rotation' and feel the subject deserves the special comment which opens this new section of my website.
A news release issued on April 8, 2003 by the University of California, Riverside claimed the discovery of a new physical phenomenon - electrostatic spin. An electric charge sitting stationary on conducting metal spheres can cause rotation of the spheres.
"The scientists who have discovered electrostatic rotation are Anders Wilstrom, Ph.D. and Armik Khachatourian, Ph.D. Their work has been published in both the Journal of Mathematical Physics and Applied Physics Letters and shows that when a direct current voltage is applied to three metal spheres suspended without friction, the spheres begin to rotate. This newly documented phenomenon has been named 'electrostatic rotation'.
This was a surprise and could not be explained by available theory."
Yet, as to theory, I can quote the following words from a lecture paper entitled 'Space, Energy and Creation' that I delivered to the Physics Department at Cardiff Universty in Wales, some 26 years ago, in 1977.
"We know that when an astronomical body is first created it has an electric charge given by G1/2 times its mass, where G is the constant of gravitation. As explained already, this charge will then develop a vacuum spin and we can formulate a mathematical relationship between this speed of rotation and the mass density of the body, involving only the value of G and a density parameter of the vacuum."
Preceding these words, on the same page 8 of the printed version of the Lecture paper, one reads:
"One way of developing a charge distribution is by a strong electric discharge. The fast moving electrons will be drawn together by the pinch effect, so generating a radial electric field centred on the axis of the discharge. If the vacuum medium reacts to develop a compensating effect then it will absorb the field energy to sustain a vacuum spin about the discharge axis. This spin may be shared by the air surrounding the discharge with the result that the tornado angular momentum becomes explicable."
I had introduced the subject by reference to how the tornado owes its existence to the repeated lightning discharges which find an easy flow path through the funnel of the tornado and the opinion of experts that, somehow, that lightning might induce the enormous speed of rotation of air in that funnel. I was here explaining how a radial electric field might be created, regarding the electrostatic field, rather than any magnetic field, as the factor relevant to inducing the spin.
Now, 17 years prior to this 1977 Lecture, I had, in my 1960 printed booklet: The Theory of Gravitation, presented the mathematical basis of vacuum spin, or rather, aether spin and shown how it accounts for the Earth's magnetic field, both qualitatively and quantitatively, given an aether coextensive with body Earth and sharing the Earth's rotation, but subject, as my later work explains, to a relative precession which accounts for the movement of the geomagnetic poles relative to the Earth's N and S poles.
In these circumstances I can but suggest that 'Electrostatic Rotation' or 'electrostatic spin' should really be seen as aether spin induced by electrostatic charge - a phenomenon I termed 'aether spin' or 'vacuum spin' long ago.
Hopefully the experimental breakthrough that has emerged from U.C., Riverside will endorse and lead to acceptance of my theory on this subject, which in its latest updated version appeared on my website www.aspden.org on April 12th, 2003 in the form of a new book entitled The Physics of Creation. Chapter 8 pertains to the electrostatic spin phenomenon but the last part of Chapter 9, under the title Our Future Energy Source: The Vacuum shows how the phenomenon may contribute something of real importance in the world of technology. In a sense, I am merely reviving the research findings of Dr. Henry Moray, who needed an electrostatic atmospheric input of high voltage to prime the operation of his apparatus, but I am suggesting that his apparatus set up a radial electrostatic field which, owing to charge oscillation developing between two concentric-plate capacitors, generated 'aether spin' in a pulsating mode which imports energy steadily from the aether itself.
I can but hope that this timely discovery by Winstrom and Khachatourian will receive the credit it deserves and that it may help my cause as well in my own struggle for acceptance.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
15 May, 2003
Having completed the draft version of my book 'The Physics of Creation', I have begun to scan through my earlier work as I begin to consolidate what is presented in these web pages. My Energy Science Report No. 5 entitled 'Power from Water: Cold Fusion', published in 1994, deserves special attention. It warrants close review by anyone interested in what I have said about proton creation in my new book. It is now included amongst the papers section on this web site 1994d. I mention it now because reading it aroused my creative spirit and set me wondering about a theme that I have not previously considered. I do not intend to put in the effort needed to take the idea forward but here I will introduce it in the hope that physics students having research ambitions in fundamental theory might be attracted to the problem.
The Composition of the Air we Breathe
There will be many theoretical physicists who read what I have said in my book about proton creation and about my way of deriving the Hubble constant who, in spite of that common factor of nine simultaneous or sequential target 'hits' of the quon by muons, still need more proof to find my theory convincing. The energy of nine muons is enough to create a proton and we have seen in chapter 4 of that book how the heavy lepton, the taon, which has a mass-energy of the order of that of two protons, is also created by the same process.
I will not try further to influence the minds of those who might be disposed to decipher the mystery I now introduce. Instead I will simply present the problem which I address to young students of physics, a problem that might even be of interest to a 17 year old still at school.
I merely quote from a typical school level physics book, one published in 1950. Its reference data are of no relevance as the quotation I now present is a matter of general knowledge anyway:
"In the case of atmospheric air, the chief constituents (apart from variable amounts of water vapour and carbon dioxide) are nitrogen (78 per cent by volume), oxygen (21 per cent by volume), argon (1 per cent by volume), and small amounts of other inert gases neon, helium, krypton and xenon."
So there you are - a fact of science - the air we breathe, for some reason determined by Mother Nature, is primarily composed of nitrogen and oxygen - something every young student learns as general knowledge in science. Ask the question "What determines the ratio of nitrogen and oxygen?" and the wisdom of your physics teacher in responding to that question would suggest the ratio comes about by chance and is not something one can calculate by theory.
All I ask is that you weigh the odds of your teacher being right or wrong, in the light of what I now describe.
I draw attention to a relevant mathematical relationship. Given that the Earth's atmosphere has existed for many hundreds of millions of years, might it not be that some kind of equilibrium has been established as between oxygen and nitrogen? For the nuclear charge of an atom of oxygen to turn into an atom of nitrogen, one of its eight protons must be shed, whereas, for an atom of nitrogen to turn into oxygen, its seven protons must be joined by influx of an eighth proton. The scenario concerns proton decay and proton creation and chapter 4 in my book The Physics of Creation has explained how protons are created from muons by a statistical factor that involved the ninth power.
I must also mention that my Energy Science Report No. 5 included a discussion as to how the third isotope of hydrogen is created, tritium, the nucleus of which is termed the triton, and this concerned the creation of a nucleon which added the extra unit of mass to the deuteron as needed to increase its mass from 2 to 3 in nucleon terms. That process, however, involved creation from muons by a statistical factor that involved the eighth power.
If I now formulate the expression (7/8)n and suggest that this is the atomic ratio as between oxygen and nitrogen of the equilibrium state of our atmosphere, what, for an appropriate integer value of n, would then be the ratio by volume of oxygen to nitrogen and how would this compare with that of our atmosphere?
You may verify that the answer, for a composition that is 99% nitrogen plus oxygen, is that 78.38 per cent by volume would be nitrogen and 20.62 percent would be oxygen, a quite remarkable result, given that our Earth's atmosphere has, to a nearest integer percentage approximation, 78 per cent nitrogen and 21 per cent oxygen. Can this be coincidence or are we looking here at an algorithm in physics that has real physical significance? Decide for yourself and, if sufficiently interested, ponder on the question of how to decipher the message as to the true physics which that algorithm conveys. I leave that task to others, as it is now time for others to advance the theory based on the foundations I have laid.
To verify my mathematical analysis, note that (7/8)10 has the value 0.263075576 and this is taken as the ratio of oxygen atoms to nitrogen atoms. Owing to the molecular forms of oxygen and nitrogen being similar and the implications of the Avodgadro Hypothesis this ratio is the relevant gas composition volume ratio of oxygen and nitrogen for the equilibrium state under consideration.
Add 0.263075576 to unity and evaluate the reciprical and then multiply by 0.99 and 0.263075576 and so obtain the 20.62 oxygen percentage, which then, allowing for that one percent component of inert gas, gives a 78.38 nitrogen percentage.
Why n should be 10 for this particular nuclear transition process, but 8 for the nuclear transmutation of the deuteron into a triton and 9 for the basic process of proton creation in the aether is, I submit a fascinating problem. I have justified the 8 and 9 factors in my published work and now wonder if someone, somewhere, can find an answer to this puzzle, assuming it is not merely a matter of numerical coincidence. If so, I would be delighted as it would surely aid me in my struggle for acceptance.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
21 May, 2003
My book 'The Physics of Creation' does reveal how the proton is created, but does not expand on that theme to explain how Mother Nature contrives the build the spectrum of the many atoms that constitute matter. I have, however, stated in the foregoing note, by reference to Energy Science Report No. 5, that my theory does explain how the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium are formed. Thus the first three members by atomic weight in the periodic table of atoms have theoretical justification. Also in the foregoing note I have, I hope, given students of physics a little food for thought, but, owing to a question posed by E. R. Margis in an E-Mail communication accompanying a book order I have just received, another challenging topic concerning the creation of atoms has emerged.
Why is Uranium the Heaviest Stable Atom?
Readers might be interested in my reply to this question. It was that, essentially, one needs to accept that the structure of an atomic nucleus is inter-locked with the cubic structure of the aether itself, meaning that the aether is like a fluid crystal which assumes structural form owing to the field effects of electrical charge components of the atom, but which can dissolve as needed so as not to preclude free motion of the atom through space.
There was a time in physics when the research based on Moseley's law led to Moseley diagrams which were the first indication that elements were missing from the periodic system at Z values of 43, 61, 72, 75, 85 and 87. That was back in 1922, but over the following years the atoms at 72, 75 and 87 put in an appearance, but a book by Shankland on Atomic and Nuclear Physics dated 1955 tells me that Z = 43, 61 and 85 do not occur naturally, as they are radioactive and have relatively short lives. They were, Shankland states, not identified until they were artificially produced in the cyclotron and nuclear reactor, thereby filling the last gaps below Z = 92 in Moseley's scheme. However, in the meantime the Z = 85 did reveal itself in normal form as the relative abundance of its isotopes is presented in a 1967 Handbook of Physics that I have.
As to technetium (Z = 43) and promethium (Z = 61), I pointed out that the fourth paper of mine in the Appendix of Aether Science Papers, (one of the books ordered by E.R Margis), explained why these atoms are so scarce. It is owing to excessive dynamic interference between the aether structure and the innermost electrons moving around the atomic nucleus.
Regarding that as a kind of 'proof' that the aether plays a role in regulating the existence of atoms, the question about what limits the size of an atom reminds me of something I wrote at page 142 in my 1972 book Modern Aether Science, (also ordered). If one thinks of Z charges +e merging to form a sphere of charge Ze and assume the volume of that charge sphere is Z times the charge volume of the electron or positron, one will, by the use of the Thomson formula discussed in Physics Unified, (also ordered), see that the mass of this Ze charge should, in electron rest mass terms, be Z raised to the power 5/3. Now, I have built my aether theory on the notion that the vacuum medium has structure owing to there being charges sitting in a crystal-like array, those charges having a volume which I find by rigorous analysis is 1843 times the volume of the electron charge. So I find it intriguing that Z charges +e which merge to occupy that particular volume of space would, by that formula, be limited to Z = 91. 91 raised to the power 5/3 is 1841.05. So if the aether lattice charge is -e and it is obliterated to make way for an atomic nucleus this would leave a balancing aether charge of +e owing to the charge of the continuum background and by adding that critical number of +e charges to take up the space vacated one arrives at a limiting value of Z of 92 for stable atom existence. This identifies uranium as the largest stable element.
As to atomic mass, this arises I believe from antiprotons replacing the charges at the enveloping sites in the aether, to create an electrically-neutral unit centred on the Ze charge. Pages 140 and 141 of Modern Aether Science are then relevant in explaining how atomic mass is related to Z.
In replying to E. R. Margis, I admitted that I had not thought about this for years and years, having taken the view that the story of the aether is only made more confusing if one tries to explain everything and ventures too far into the territory of the nuclear physicist. I added that it seems best to concentrate on the theory as now described in my work 'The Physics of Creation' that I have just put on my website www.aspden.org in PDF form. I also mentioned that that takes a while to download and noted that at this time I am revising it in a form which needs far fewer bytes, meaning far less download time.
Having just referred to the my 1987 Hadronic Journal paper concerning the missing atoms technetium and promethium, the fourth paper of the Appendix in Aether Science Papers, this is an appropriate place to make an important comment. Until I came to write The Physics of Creation I had complete faith in the standard belief that the force of gravity is somehow a force set up by electrodynamic interaction. I had identified the graviton system of the aether and all the right numbers emerged to give what seemed to be a very convincing derivation of G, the constant of gravitation. It was natural then, at the time I wrote that Hadronic Journal paper, to ponder on the possibility that setting up an electromagnetic oscillation at a high frequency that could resonate in some way with that of the graviton motion in the aether might lead to anomalous supergravitational or anti-gravitational effects, possibly leading to discovery of practical importance. With the new interpretation of the physics of the graviton, still giving that same theoretical derivation of G, but as what I may term a 'pseudo-negative electrostatic interaction', that prospect seems to vanish. One is still left with the prospect of gravitational anomalies arising from severance of the dynamic coupling between the mass of a body and its graviton accompaniment, and possibly some weak effects where electric field effects intrude, but any thought that future generations might find a way of harnessing gravity for long range space travel by devising some future electrodynamic machine has, it seems, now to be dismissed.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
29 May, 2003
It is quite fortuitous, but after having compiled the above note several days ago I received on May 26 an E-Mail from a person named 'Jameske' which declared: "after enjoying a very technical and involved set of chapters on your aether theory I was intrigued to read something about neodymium in relation to gravity". This was a reference to my book 'Aether Science Papers' and specifically its Epilogue on pp. 60-62. The message went on to quote what I had said there in the context of anti-gravity or super-gravity, by reference to technetium and promethium, which, though in the middle regions of the periodic table of atomic elements, are completely missing from the spectrum of stable atoms. The question was then posed "How is neodymium wrapped up with gravity and how do I envisage its use?" This biographical note is my answer to this enquiry by Jameske.
The Missing Atoms and the Gravity Question
In my earlier writings I have suggested that the fact that certain atomic elements, notably technetium (Z = 43) and promethium (Z = 61) are missing from the list of stable elements is attributable to a kind of resonance associated with the phenomenon of gravitation. Those atoms could be subject to an enormous gravitational effect which, depending upon the phase of that resonance, might even be anti-gravitational. Either way, any such atoms if existing in a stable state on Earth would either have been pulled down into the Earth's core or expelled into outer space and so are not seen in the normal abundance data for the Earth's surface composition.
When I wrote about this I was convinced that here was evidence supporting my theory of gravity, which, as an electrodynamic force action was attributable to the parallel flow of current seated in graviton motion, the latter providing dynamic balance for matter owing to its motion at the Heisenberg jitter frequency, the Compton electron frequency, relative to matter sitting in the electromagnetic frame of reference.
So now my revised theory as presented in my book The Physics of Creation, in changing the G-determining gravitational action from being electrodynamic to become 'negative' electrostatic, seems to have upset that argument.
Now, I say 'seems to' because I wish now to defend the case for electrodynamic action still being of relevance.
The precise theoretical determination of G, the constant of gravitation, requires those gravitons and the physical form of an aether which the author has pointed to for half a century. The electrodynamic interaction of gravitons at a frequency equal to the rhythmic frequency of that aether would give gravitational attraction were it not for the fact, now realised, that the absence of relative velocity, essential to the derivation of the Neumann Potential, nullifies the case. However, one can still have the rare situation, where, if only one can generate, by electrodynamic action, frequencies that equal and so resonate with the Compton electron frequency of the aether, then there is prospect of generating an enormous anomalous gravitational action independent of the normal G-determined constraints.
The only place we can look for such action is within the atom, where electrons move at ultra high frequencies and could be subject to harmonics which enhance those frequencies by integer factors. Here it is not a question of graviton-to-graviton interaction, but graviton-to-electron interaction.
So the missing atom scenario still applies and I face that question posed by Jameske as to: "How is neodymium wrapped up with gravity and how do I envisage its use?".
The answer here is that in my published work, notably in my book Aether Science Papers, which is posted for access via this website, both in that Epilogue chapter and in the fourth paper in its Appendix, I explained how promethium (Z = 61) resonates electrodynamically with the gravitons of the aether and so has gone 'missing'. Now one can hardly contemplate building a practical flying device which harnesses this substance if phase-controlled for anti-gravitational operation, unless one has a supply source for promethium and that does not exist because the element has already either flown away on its own or dug deep into the Earth and buried itself beyond recovery. One can, however, at least contemplate taking the two adjacent atoms in the periodic table, namely neodymium and samarium, and, perhaps by alloying them in some way, hope that the resulting composition might, albeit with external electrical control, be modulated in such a way as to set up a controlled electrodynamic interaction with those gravitons.
Incidentally, in saying that ultra-high frequency electrical oscillations might play a role in setting up gravitational forces and suggesting that those oscillations originate within a metal alloy, there will be those who would say this cannot be owing to eddy-current screening. Rather than digressing to answer this in terms of electrical induction theory, it seems sufficient here to point out that the holy grail of physicists is the unification of electromagnetism and gravity. That being the case, how can it be that so many physicists look to electromagnetism in some special characteristic form as a prospective gravitational action, if electromagnetism as such, albeit having that special characteristic, cannot penetrate metal as does the action of gravity?
Now, as to having a substance amenable to control of its gravitational properties, it would need far more insight than I can offer at this stage in my life to say whether or not such a notion could ever offer promise technologically. All I can say is that, given the insight my theory does provide into the true nature of gravity, then at least that is a start on the potential pathway to harnessing that force. Before my theory one had no direction in which one could even look. If gravity arises because space is curved, as Einstein implies, then, O.K. find someone who can tell you how to alter the curvature of space. Otherwise, if I am right, at least I can point future physicists in a direction that has some bedrock as a foundation.
As to technetium, here I am now less sure that gravity is a factor in its abundance. It may simply be that its K-shell electron has a cavity resonance, which I know has an orbital radius slightly greater than half the Compton electron wavelength and that boundary radius, in clashing with the nucleus, might make its electron presence in the technetium atom unstable. The theory of this is bound up with the electron g-factor.
I mention this because the E-Mail from Jameske also posed the question as to whether the two elements either side of technetium, molybdenum and ruthenium, might have some use with regard to gravity. That I see as a less likely possibility than the neodymium-samarium partnership centred on promethium, but, please note, there is really no point in speculating too far along those lines pending general acceptance of the underlying theory. Yes, I realise that physicists in general are not impressed by theories which require backtracking by challenging what has been accepted, but I also realise that there can be a way forward if, on the horizon, there is something of practical technological importance that might emerge. An understanding of gravity will, hopefully, be followed by technology to harness gravity. It is mere hope but hope having a foundation that did not exist before.
This note, therefore, is simply a message I offer in my ongoing struggle for acceptance.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
12 June, 2003
Bearing in mind the reference to Hyperons at the end of chapter 4 of my book 'The Physics of Creation', I cannot, after just reading an item in Physics World, resist entering the following Note on my website
A CHARMING PUZZLE?
The June 2003 issue of Physics World, the U.K. Institute of Physics member’s monthly journal, in its ‘Post-Deadline’ section on page 3 included an item headed ‘Charmed particle puzzles theorists’. The ‘puzzle’ arises from the discovery of a new sub-atomic particle named Ds(2317) which, it is said, ‘could force researchers to rethink their theories about quark interactions’. This discovery of an unexpected energy resonance peak at 2.32 GeV emerges from the BaBar experiment at Stanford in U.S. Also mentioned in this account is the confirmation of that discovery by researchers at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring in New York State along with their discovery of a new peak at about 2.46 GeV. In conclusion it is said that ‘these findings could provide insights into the force that binds quarks, indeed gluons, together.’
It seems highly relevant to note that at the end of chapter 4 of my book ‘The Physics of Creation’, I presented the theoretical basis and included a tabulation showing how the particle resonances of record at 1.381 GeV and 1.527 GeV emerged as short-lived by-products from the processes governing proton creation. Given that the proton itself has a rest-mass energy of 0.938 GeV, it is indeed interesting to note that 1.381 GeV plus 0.938 GeV is 2.319 GeV, whereas 1.527 GeV plus 0.938 GeV is 2.465 GeV.
Surely this suggests that there is nothing to ‘puzzle’ over concerning those observed resonance peaks at 2.32 GeV and 2.46 GeV. Their existence, in being brought to attention at this time, merely adds weight to my theory as presented in ‘The Physics of Creation’. Hopefully this will serve as one more step forward in my struggle for acceptance, but only if those physicists who are allured by the ‘charm’ and ‘colour’ of these exotic particle forms are willing to risk entrancement by referring to what I have already published on the subject.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
3 October, 2003
On October 1st 2003 I was sent an E-Mail by Derek Gerlach, from a Stanford University Alumni E-Mail address, which raised a very pertinent question concerning my derivation of the law of electrodynamics in my book 'Physics Unified'. I wish here to record my appreciation for this communication, because it raises the kind of question that one needs if our understanding of the physics which governs our universe is to progress. I admit that had I received two years ago such a communication dealing with this specific aspect of my theory it would have been difficult to decide how to reply. The points raised warrant attention and my answer below will, I hope, prove of interest to those who may read this and perhaps add strength to my theory.
Concerning the Law of Electrodynamics
Derek Gerlach's comments concerned my derivation of the law of electrodynamics at the beginning of my book 'Physics Unified'. Before considering the points he raises I think it appropriate to explain that when I first recognized that the accepted law of electrodynamics had to be incorrect owing to its failure to account for the multiplicity of interactions between charges in motion, a limitation which rendered it valid only for actions stemming from a closed circuit current, my thoughts turned to gravity. By reinterpreting the experimental evidence and admitting energy exchanges involving the aether but precluding interactions that generate out-of-balance couples, i.e. the self-induction of rotation, I had seen how to formulate a law of electrodynamics which could give a basis for the force of gravity.
This law was based on the Neumann potential, according to which two parallel electrical current elements will mutually attract one another in conformity with the inverse square of distance law. It meant that by regarding matter as sharing a rhythmic motion as part of the quantum underworld of the aether, a motion accounting for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there was need for dynamic balance by graviton mass having its own rhythmic motion and the mutually parallel motion of those gravitons implied the electrodynamic action that we see as gravitation.
I must admit that what emerged from my theory, in allowing me to derive the constant of gravitation G by pure theory, plus the fact that physicists have taken it for granted that gravitation and electrodynamics would one day be connected by a unified field theory, seemed conclusive. Yet, quite recently, I began to see a problem. Originally I had accepted the Neumann potential as an empirical fact and developed my theory relying on that formulation. However, the day came eventually when I saw how to derive the Neumann potential starting from Coulomb's Law and that involved a step which I now see as destroying the case for the force of gravity being electrodynamic in origin.
One can see by reference to my paper: 'Instantaneous Electrodynamic Potential with Retarded Energy Transfer' (Hadronic Journal, 11, pp. 307-313, 1988, Paper No. 6 in the Appendix to my book: Aether Science Papers), that the step from equation (3) to equation (5) is critical so far as concerns an electrodynamic theory of gravity. The force corresponding to the Neumann potential, as defined by equation (5), though showing that two parallel current elements have the correct interaction, stems from equation (3) which says the force is proportional to the square of relative velocity of the electric charge. The synchronized motion of gravitons in the aether means no relative motion and so no force according to equation (3). Hence one cannot apply the Neumann potential to account for the force of gravity. However, the electrodynamic interaction of electrons, even if sharing parallel motion, is not so affected because the electron current is seen as arising from the quantum-electrodynamic countermotion of positive and negative electron-sized charges. The latter implies relative motion, whereas this quantum-electrodynamic feature is not deemed applicable to graviton motion in the aether.
It was this problem that caused me to treat graviton interaction as an action between electrostatic charge by regarding the gravitons as leptons which, in respect of positive and negative charge polarity, are equal in numbers, so that the residual force is one of mutual attraction owing to the charge they displace from the enveloping charge continuum. This is now explained in detail in my new book 'The Physics of Creation of record in these web pages.
So now I must address the problem raised by Derek Gerlach, bearing in mind that the physics involved relates specifically to electrodynamic interactions of the familiar kind as evident in experiments involving electric circuits and electric discharge apparatus.
Derek Gerlach's Questions
Question 1: On page 3 of 'Physics Unified' why is Force F directed along the vector r, and why is it mutual on q and Q?
My answer: I am seeking to determine the electromagnetic force acting between two charges q and Q separated by a vector distance r, which means that am taking the applicable electromagnetic reference frame as that in which the velocities v and V of q and Q, respectively, are measured. I assume, by hypothesis, that any electromagnetic action set up in that frame arises from a balanced primary interaction force directed along the line of charge separation, but intend to explore the dynamic factors which might involve secondary force components owing to inertial reaction.
Question 2: On page 4, before the last paragraph, if P points along V, should not equation (1) read (F.V)+(Z.V)+(P.V)=0 ?
My answer: I have in mind the charge Q moving to convey current in a situation where V is constant, corresponding to a steady flow of electric current. Collectively, Z and F, being attributable to the electromagnetic action must not do any work that can alter V. Indeed this is why Z is introduced by way of a secondary reaction induced by the effect of that force F. Hence the equation (F.V)+(Z.V)=0. However, owing to symmetry in the actions on q and Q one can infer the presence of a third reaction force P which must be cancelled by a counterpart force to the extent that it has a component directed along V. This 'counterpart force' can be assumed to be the force attributable to an EMF in the equivalent circuit of just the value needed to keep V, and so the current, constant. Note that this EMF is that of the electric field action local to the point where Q sits. To declare that (F.V)+(Z.V)+(P.V)=0 would be tantamount to assuming a priori that the net force acting on Q has to be at right angles to V, the standard assumption for interaction involving a closed current circuit, which I emphasize is not the two-charge case we are considering.
Question 3: On page 5, last paragraph, why must force P point along V and have zero perpendicular component?
My answer: Given that I recognize the existence of two reaction force components Z and P acting on Q, having in mind that P is compensated by an EMF, as in a wire conductor circuit, it is appropriate to say that P lies along a line defined by vector V. However, I did, in that referenced paragraph, point out that, whereas we are familiar with electrostatic potential tending to minimize, the corollary is that the energy shed tends to maximize and, since the latter feeds the kinetic energy we associate with inertia, I think it logical to infer that this is consistent with the reaction force acting along the line of motion of Q. However, one could argue that this is arbitrary, because I could equally say that Z and P combined are such that P is so directed along that line of motion, which leaves Z to represent any force on P lateral to that motion whilst both Z and P each have components directed in the line of that motion. In other words the analysis in chapter 1 of my book 'Physics Unified' would have been better presented had I begun by introducing P, as directed in the line of motion of Q, explaining that, together with any force on Q attributable to extraneous electric field induced or applied as circuit EMF, it amounted to zero net force, consistent with V being constant. The argument leading to the presence of the force Z would then proceed, as before, by contending that collectively the forces on Q and the counterpart forces on q can produce no turning couple attributable to the electromagnetic interaction force F.
Question 4: Referring to pages 4 to 6, is it true that forces Z and P would not be present if the experiment under consideration were performed in free space, rather than in the context of a material conducting wire? I am led to believe 'yes', based on paragraph 2 of page 6, which states Z and P are reaction forces.
My answer: Here I do have a problem. The constraint on Q set by the argument concerning the balance of P against a force arising from an electric field means that the analysis applies to circuit theory, where current in one wire circuit act on currents in another wire circuit. Then there is the case where q is part of a closed circuital current in wire but Q is a freely moving charge, as for example, an electron traversing the length of a cathode ray tube under the control of a magnetic field produced by that circuital current. Here we still find, from experiment, that the forces acting on Q conform with the form of electrodynamic law derived in my book. However, that closed circuit condition operates, upon integration for action where both q and Q charges are electrons, to eliminate any net force component acting along the path of Q, and so implies that P is zero. The fascinating practical question which then emerges concerns the effect of a closed circuital current involving electrons as the q charges but acting on freely moving Q charges that are heavy ions not themselves flowing all the way around that same closed circuit and so sharing the same current flow. This is the realm of plasma discharge devices, which do manifest force anomalies of a form which supports the theory I have presented. Keep in mind the fact that current flow in a copper conductor involves electrons in motion through positive ions that do not share that motion. Here there is no direct electrostatic force between two such systems and the electrodynamic action attributable to the Neumann potential then governs. If then one considers interaction by charges all of which move freely in space that force F is swamped by the normal electrostatic interaction force and the law of electrodynamics as I have formulated will not then apply. However, I am not aware of any experimental evidence that casts light on this situation. The atom as a charged nucleus surrounded by moving electrons qualifies as such a system but we do not see electrodynamic theory as such used in atomic theory to explain the atom's self-interaction. I tend, therefore, to think that, in such free space situations, the electrostatic interaction directed in the line of charge separation, as supplemented by the interaction according to the Neumann potential, acting also in that line, will be the sole force to set in balance with the mass-related inertial forces of the charge acted upon. I believe that much of the difficulty experienced by effort to fathom the mysteries of unified field theory by linking gravitation and electromagnetism arises from trying to make the empirical physics of electrodynamics, as founded on charge motion under constraint, fit the situation of free charge interaction in free space.
Question 5: Page 11, text following equation (14): If the answer to question No. 4 is 'yes', then why is it that equation (14) (which includes the effects of Z and P) is a general law of electrodynamics presumably valid in free space?
My answer: Here Derek Gerlach refers to a paragraph following equation (14) which reads:
'This is the complete and general law of electrodynamics to which we have been led by straightforward analysis. It will form the basis of the unified field approach presented in this work.'
I agree that in the light of the answers I have given above it is misleading to imply that the general law presented applies to free charge interaction in otherwise empty space. However, the case I developed was based on first formulating a general law that applies to the empirical evidence we have from experiments and then moving on to the situation in free space where graviton interaction is in issue. It just so happens that the mutually parallel motion of those gravitons means that two of the three component terms in the general law cancel to leave only the bare Neumann potential component. It now seems on reflection that one could justify this argument in favour of the Neumann potential as the sole governing factor for the free space electrodynamic interaction.
Question No. 6: On pages 7-10 why is the analysis of the interaction of q and Q indicative only of F? Since the net force on Q is Z+P+F, it seems as though the analysis should indicate the latter, since the text states that FQ is the general law of electrodynamics.
My answer: Here I think there is some confusion because I used the symbol F to signify a component only of the total force FQ which acts on Q. My object in pages 7 to 10 was to use an argument based on symmetry to derive the formula for the force F as attributable Neumann potential, rather than merely declaring I was using the Neumann potential formula of historical record. It was some years later that I made the onward step of proving that the Neumann potential arises from the Coulomb potential, assuming instantaneous action in the Coulomb gauge but retarded energy transfer in a zero-point energy background, the subject of the 1988 Hadronic Journal paper referenced above.
The above is my reply to Derek Gerlach's comments, but this is an appropriate place to mention an erroneous statement I made concerning the general law of electrodynamics I have derived in my book 'Physics Unified'.
The general form of law has three force components, two of which combine to give what physicists recognize as the Lorentz law and a third component which cancels to zero where the law is integrated to cater for one of the charges being part of a closed current circuit. This third component includes, in the case of my law, a mass ratio and is preceded by a minus sign. The general law, with the third component, was derived, subject to an assumption, by Clerk Maxwell, as I mention in my book. However, that version of the law contained no mass ratio factor. Maxwell used quarternions rather than vector notation and his terminology was different from that I have used, mine being based on the vector formulations of Sir Edmund Whittaker, whose book 'A History of Theories of Aether and Electricity', 1951 Edition, published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, discusses the subject at pp. 83 to 87 of the its first volume.
Both the Whittaker and the Maxwell versions of the general law opted for the assumption that action must balance reaction in a linear sense, but allowed imbalance of force in the rotational sense. I adopt the alternative assumption that one must preclude an out-of-balance couple owing to the interaction of the two charges but permit linear imbalance of action and reaction force, given that the two-charge system could never have acquired charge motion not directed along the line of their separation vector were it not for the presence of extraneous forces due to interaction of charges q and Q with other charges in the close environment. For the vector notation both Whittaker and Maxwell formulations require that third force component to be preceded by a plus sign, whereas my formulation requires a minus sign. Yet for the quarternion formulation of Maxwell with the different notation and style of expression a minus sign is used. In being guided erroneously by that minus sign in Maxwell's treatise, and in quoting from his treatise, I wrongly stated in 'Physics Unified', that my derived version of the general law of electrodynamics was the same as Maxwell's third version of the law. This was, of course, for actions between charges of equal mass.
One can but wonder how this subject of electrodynamic action might have developed during the 20th century had Maxwell realized that the assumption governing that third force component was crucial and that there was an alternative which implied out-of-balance linear force. Indeed, it is such out-of-balance that implies energy transfer to and from the two-charge system under study, a good starting point if one is confronted with anomalous energy conditions in experimental work. Do keep in mind that the Lorentz version of the force law denies electrodynamic force directed in the line of motion of the charge on which it acts, which means that the accepted law cannot account for energy transfer electrodynamically. This has obliged us to use empirical rules when considering electromagnetic induction and deprived us of the necessary insight into the true energy transfer processes involved.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
October 26, 2003
Three days ago I received an E-Mail from a scientist I will refer to as Ed. G. which included the comment "In checking your website I see you are still alive and well (which is my first consideration, of course)... " but then went on to remind me that I had not responded to an E-mail dated 1st May, 2003 which, he stated, was based on his "incomplete reading of The Physics of Creation", but which posed certain questions. The points raised are important and I cannot understand how I failed to reply at the time, but better late than never, and since I am still alive and in good health, considering my 75 years of age, here is my reply.
The Anisotropy of Space
The Question: In your model of the aether the cubic lattice moves as a unit at the speed of light with respect to the charge continuum, which I presume defines absolute rest. Is the foregoing statement basically accurate as a description of what you've postulated? Secondly, if so, how do you have any compelling theoretical justification for anisotropy other than the possible need of a moving lattice for reasons of stability? Why exactly can't you model the lattice as completely stationary (which from my point of view, would be preferable because of symmetry considerations)?
Now it so happens that I have just updated this website www.aspden.org by replacing the first draft edition of my book The Physics of Creation with an updated version, including an index, some minor corrections, but also a major addition concerning neutron stars at the end of chapter 8. I think what I have added there will add strength to what I have to say in reply to the above question and I see this as an opportune moment to put my response here on record.
First, I note that in his E-Mail of 23 October Ed. G. ended by saying:
What I seek is a succinct statement of your latest model of the aether. If you could direct me to your best article on this topic, I will give it high priority.
Here my answer is that I do not like the notion that my vision of the aether is a 'model', or that it has evolved in different 'versions'. The aether is a reality. It exists and my efforts have been to decipher its structure and form based on the facts confronting us in our knowledge of physics. The analysis of the aether, as presented in chapter 7 of The Physics of Creation, is, in its fundamentals, identical to that disclosed on pages 16-19 in chapter 2 of my 1960 book The Theory of Gravitation.
As to a 'succinct' statement, here I can but begin by quoting a few words from p. 11 of The Physics of Creation, after referring to Earnshaw's theorem:
There was something about this author's perception of the aether that made that theorem helpful rather than obstructive. Earnshaw had overstated his case. If the medium contains electric charges of like polarity governed by the inverse-square law then they can arrange themselves in a stable configuration, provided they are immersed in a uniform continuum of charge of opposite polarity. Conversely, one might say, if the evidence supports an aether having a structured form composed of electric charges governed by the inverse-square law, then with certainty, that aether must incorporate a background continuum of electric charge which envelops those charges.
Given the aether as a charge continuum permeated by a system of like charges of opposite polarity one can surely see that those charges form into a structured array, the lattice, and, given that electrostatic interaction energy as between those charges and the continuum cannot be a negative quantity for the aether, it is a mathematical exercise to evaluate their displacement and the dynamical criteria that govern stability. That is what chapter 7 in The Physics of Creation is about.
The result confirms what I saw as implied, albeit succinctly, but seemingly never onwardly developed at the time, by the words of Paul Dirac, as quoted on p. 80 of chapter 6 in my book The Physics of Creation. He declared in his Nobel prize lecture:
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 wich appears to us. As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the speed of light. This is a prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency is so high and the amplitude so small.
On that same page 80 of my book I quoted a paragraph from page 87 of my 1980 book Physics Unified which reads:
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 and the Planck relationship, and being everywhere synchronous.
So, you see, all I did, rather than 'postulating that the aether had a cubic lattice which moves as a unit at the speed of light with respect to the charge continuum', was to suggest that the aether provided that frame of reference, though I admit it was no easy task to undertake the mathematical analysis needed to probe the physics that governed this aether underworld. The breakthrough step was my decision that the aether could not be a system having negative electrostatic interaction energy, a step which, to me, means that energy rules, rather that ideal notions expressed as 'symmetry' or 'curvature of space'.
Now, as to that primary question: "Why exactly can't you model the lattice as completely stationary?", my answer is that if I did I would have no way of recognizing how the aether governs quantum theory by determining Planck's constant h and the related angular momentum quantum. The whole foundation of my theory is the discovery of the structured 3x3x3 aether lattice particle unit as having the quantum of angular momentum h/2π when spinning to set up electrical pulsations at the Compton electron frequency. Paul Dirac could see the need for that motion; a static aether devoid of that oscillatory jitter of the lattice particles relative to the continuum would have nothing to tell us about quantum theory and would lack the dimension of time.
Ed. G asks if I am saying that in my model of the aether the cubic lattice moves as a unit at the speed of light with respect to the charge continuum, which presumably defines absolute rest.
My answer here is "No!" because I see both the continuum and the aether charge lattice as separate systems displaced from one another about centres seated in an inertial frame of reference. That inertial frame can have translational motion, just as the inertial frame of the solar system has a cosmic motion through enveloping space. The two systems rotate in synchronism about those centres and at the frequency we refer to as the Compton electron frequency. The speed of light, as such, is not relevant here. The separate systems move in circular orbit at a speed s and so have relative motion at the speed 2s. It just so happens that, when we come to understand how electromagnetic disturbances propagate through the aether, the propagation speed is determined as a function of the structural properties of the lattice and those speeds s. It just happens to equal 2s.
How then do I account for the implied anisotropy of space? Well, I just do not regard space as being anisotropic. There is anisotropy evident in the cosmic radiation background, but that arises from observation made from a moving Earth, matter moving through the enveloping aether. That radiation comes from aether external to the Earth's ionosphere, from aether regions that can be said to be stationary, meaning that the centres of those circular orbits are stationary. So the question really concerns aether entrained by moving matter, as with body Earth.
Looking at aether within body Earth, I do not know whether or not the continuum charge shares the Earth's motion, but I believe the aether lattice within the Earth's matter will share the motion of that matter. That said, if the continuum moves as well, then where it crashes into the enveloping aether continuum of outer space it will need to dissolve, as by mutual charge annihilation including the lattice particles, whereby the energy released is deployed perhaps by creating virtual muon pairs which migrate through Earth from the forward aether boundaries to the rearward aether boundaries, where new continuum and lattice charges can appear to keep the balance of things and conserve inertia. If the continuum does not share the Earth's motion then we face the problem of lattice charge build-up at the forward aether boundaries, and since there is no evidence of this, then, quite logically, one has to accept that continuum and aether lattice charge move together with body Earth, meaning that their only relative motion is that quantum jitter at the Compton electron frequency.
Now, if this is too challenging a concept, let me now pose a question. What would happen if atoms other than hydrogen, meaning those supposedly containing neutrons, that is almost all the atomic content of body Earth, were really microcosmic aether structures in which antiprotons have replaced the lattice charges and some other lower-mass charge form became the centre of charge in the atomic nucleus? It then seems probable that the Earth's steady motion around the Sun combined with the cosmic motion of our solar system would entrain and so drag the Earth's aether along with body Earth. Would that not mean that we can forget the notion of an atom containing neutrons, as such, in that the neutron property of the atom was only invented to balance the charge books, given that the aether has been ignored?
How can it be that the free neutron, the particle that incorporates a proton together with an electron, judging by how it breaks up upon decay, only has a short lifetime, whereas the proton seemingly is stable? Surely the question is based on fiction, the fiction that the neutron, as something other than a proton or antiproton, can exist at all within the atom. The aether surely plays a role by virtue of an aether lattice particle vacating a lattice site and being replaced by an antiproton.
This then helps us to understand how the Earth drags its aether along with it, but I have more now to add. I did in chapter 9 in the first draft edition of The Physics of Creation indicate that maybe neutron stars were regions of aether in which the lattice charges had been replaced in the manner just suggested. Since that work was first presented on this web site, astrophysicists have actually, and for the first time, measured the magnetic field of a neutron star. Now, given that my aether theory explains the magnetic properties of astronomical bodies, it has been a tremendous step forward to find that what has been measured fits well with that theory. Accordingly I have hastened the update and revision of The Physics of Creation and I thereby invite Ed. G. to take note of the new pages concerning neutron stars now added to chapter 8 of the revised version.
I conclude by emphasizing that, whereas the notion of symmetry has appeal when dealing with physical models, one needs to be guided by the evidence telling us that there is a physical underworld we cannot see, the aether, that does have an inherent symmetry, symmetry retained even when matter is present, but which, owing to motion of that matter, can appear to lack symmetry if viewed from within an aether that does not share that motion.
Press 'The Physics of Creation' to go to its index page.
Press to return to the main site index.