A need for speed (c)

 

      

 The Quantum Effects                                         of an                               Elastic-Solid Aether                         

                      by D.D. Birkhofer

               

 

                                                        

                            
                A need for speed
( c )

 

A Quantum Aether Theory (QAT)

                (Version 3.1)

Copyright © 2008 D. D. Birkhofer

                                             ISBN  1441401326

                                        EAN-13  9781441401328       

 


              Quantum Aether Theory

Table of Contents

Preface – A need for speed ( c )….…………..………….…..……………………..….5             Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….........9  Chapter 1 – Aether History Overview………………..……....……………..………..10 Chapter 2 – Why Bring Back Aether? …………………….………..….……....….…23       Dilemmas of Modern Physics……….….……………….………………..…...28 Chapter 3 – Aether Basics – concepts and definitions for discussing QAT…..….30

 Quantum  Aether  Theory  Hypothesis [QAT]………………...….….…..35

Chapter 4 – Waves are waves, particles are particles at all times…..….……...…37 Chapter 5 – Quantum aether theory applied……….…….…………….….….…..…40 Structure………………………………………………………….……...………40 Speed of Light………………………………………………….……….……....42 Gravity…………………………………………………...………..….….………43 Mass…………………………………………………………….…..…………...46 Photon………………………………………………………….…..……………47 Energy decay as 1/distance squared……….…………….…................……49     The Atom……………………….……………………………….………….……53     The Particle Zoo……………….……………………………….………….……60 Thermodynamics………….………………………………………………..…..61 Polarization……….………………..………..………….……….….……….….62 Chapter 6 – Wave-particle Dualism Revisited……………………………...….……63 Chapter 7 – Big Bang Concepts………………….……………………………….…..69   1] the primordial pea……………………………………….…………….….….70     2] cosmic background radiation (CBR)………. ……………………….….…70          3] outward expansion of the universe…………………….……………..……71 4] General Relativity concerns…………………………….……………..……71             5] red shift as a Doppler effect…………………………………………..……74 Chapter 8 – Acceptance of QAT………………………………………………..…….76 Chapter 9 – QAT areas of intrigue………………………………….………...…..…..79           Lorentz Electron Force Equation……………………………...…………..….79      Quantum Leaps……………………………………………………...……..…..80             Sunspots……………….…………………………………………..….…….…..81            Poisson’s Magnetic Intensity   &  also Bell’s Theorem…..….…….….....…82 Chapter 10 – Closing Statement……………...…………………..……………..…...83 Appendix A – Simultaneousness: Absolute Space and Absolute Time……….….85 Appendix B – Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction……………………….................…...97            References in preparing this book, alphabetically by author………………99         World wide web links and references..................…………………………103            Index of  book references by author.………….………………………….. .104   Index of main subjects and scientists………………………………………105      Video graphic URL links……………………………………………………..108



Preface - A need for speed ( c  )

 

“the ether has dropped out of science, not because scientists as a whole formed a reasonable judgment that no such thing exists, but because they find they can describe all the phenomena of nature quite perfectly without it.  It merely cumbers the picture, so they leave it out.  If at some future time they find they need it, they will put it back again.” (James Jeans, Fellow of the Royal Society, The Universe Around Us, 1930, page 329)(Author’s emphasis).

 

My first plea to the reader is “don’t shoot the messenger” – it’s not the author’s fault that the aether is there and has been overlooked.  And it’s not the fault of anyone who is presently living, especially scientists who have been indoctrinated to “forget” the aether as unnecessary [see chapter two] since everything “works” well without aether.  Except as we shall see, everything doesn’t work, beginning with, “why is the speed of light the speed it is?”  In this book, aether and ether may be used interchangeably as the word defining the medium acting as the carrier of electromagnetic waves, a.k.a. radiant energy, a.k.a. light. [Light or EM as used from this point on, which may be read as electromagnetism or electromagnetic.]  The author shall use the spelling, aether, in recognition of Sir Edmund Whittaker, author of the exceptional and, in this author’s opinion, unparalleled, A History of Aether and Electromagnetism, Volumes I and II, and will reserve the ether spelling for when it is used in quotes from other references.

Within this text, the reader may find the author in disagreement with or critical of the conclusions of past physicists, including Albert Einstein, generally all Big Bang theorists, structural atomists, and anyone who believes electrons are not particles all the time.  The author would want the reader to understand that the author has the greatest respect for all of these individuals who worked for the most part long before many of our modern day concepts and tools existed or who were otherwise indoctrinated by relativity theory.  Although the author will be critical of Einstein, Albert Einstein remained one of the strongest proponents of causality [see Eureka! by Michael MacCrone, “God does not play dice,” pages 105 -107] and, the author believes, Einstein might also support reestablishment of cause and effect, which quantum aether theory does.

The original intent was to determine through what mechanism light can travel at ~300,000 kilometers per second.  That was all that the writer wanted to know.  It became something more.  The intent of this book is to present a cohesive explanation of the structure of space in the simplest terms while adhering to the presently known data and empirically proven laws of physics, not necessarily all the presently accepted laws, or at least not with their present interpretations.  Some laws which had been accepted for centuries in the past appear to have been inappropriately dismissed.  The author is, of course, referring to Newton’s Laws of Absolute Time and Absolute Space.  Other concepts have been based on misinterpretations of experimental conclusions or the misunderstanding of limits of experimental design. (Michelson-Morley experiment on the existence of an aether wind, wave-particle dualism and Special Theory).   Another group appears to have been excessively extended to include areas which should not have been included based on empirical realities (Big Bang Theory and Special Theory).  Like Julius Robert von Mayer in his exposition of thermodynamic theory and Thomas Young in his presentation of the wave theory of light, the author is a physician, but with significantly less mathematical skills than the two giants listed above whose theories were initially rebuffed, ridiculed, and rejected, only to be enthusiastically embraced years later.   Unfortunately this author lacks the mathematical skills necessary to make quantum aether theory “whole” so to speak.  Therefore there exists an exceptional opportunity for someone with considerable math skills to complete the powerful concepts of quantum aether theory.  The aether theory presented here has the power to explain and define the previously unexplainable, such as the origin of mass, the cause of gravity, and a possible alternative meaning of quantum leap by electrons.   Although the author can show the way, he unfortunately cannot take the reader all the way there with respect to the mathematical solutions.  The author is extremely aware, having learned from experience, that because of their scientific indoctrination, modern physicists will feel the need to simultaneously object to and even aggressively attack any aether theory.  It appears to undermine the foundations of their lives’ work and to threaten all they have believed, at least since 1905.   The author felt it necessary to make the previous statement because if properly understood, quantum aether theory will seriously redefine the special theory of relativity exactly as its name implies, to a special and restricted theory.  Quantum aether theory is extremely unkind to Big Bang supporters.  However, that said, quantum aether theory has, like aether itself, the capacity to absorb and assimilate most of modern physics, including quantum theory, electromagnetic theory, and apparently physical chemistry, but it does so strictly on a mechanical basis with no action at a distance or strings attached, and especially no vacuums of empty anything.  Once the aether quantum concept is understood and embraced, its logic is not only irrefutable, but also unyielding... As Aristotle stated, “Nature abhors a vacuum” (Instant Physics: From Aristotle to Einstein, and Beyond, Rothman, page 11), and apparently he got it more right than modern physicists have been willing to admit.  And yet according to modern physics, space and vacuums are no longer considered empty space but are now referred to as Zero Point Fields of energy (ZPE), cold dark matter (CDM), and Higgs fields.  Even Einstein was quick to admit space was not physically empty as he discussed in his 1920 address to University of Leyden on “Ether and the Theory of Relativity”.  Of course, he goes on to argue that

“the ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical and electromagnetic events.”

This writer disagrees.  Aether is the preeminent source of causation and mechanics, and therefore must have mechanical and kinematical effects directly as the result of its inherent structure and motion.  If space and vacuums aren’t empty, then what are they filled with and how can it move EM at an incredible speed of ~300,000 kilometers per second?  Aether, it just needs to be better defined and better understood.  Even with the lack of support from the world of modern physics, the writer also knows from surfing the World Wide Web that there is a large and growing sector that recognizes the power of and the overwhelming need for the existence of a carrier for light waves.  In fact, during searches of the net and literature, the writer thought someone would have already suggested the model proposed here, but even with extensive searching over the last ten years, none have been found which explain exactly why light moves at speed ( c )!!  This is the key component and A need for speed (c) does (explain c on a mechanized basis).  It is also curious and somewhat of a mystery that Hendrik Lorentz did not propose an aether similar to what is shown here.  The author believes Lorentz had all the information and skills necessary but may have been distracted in a negative way by the controversies of his time over relativity and quantum theories.  It does not surprise the author that Maxwell was unable to come up with the proper model, although it would not have been too surprising if he had, since his ideas on aether models appear to be closest to the model presented in this text.  But Maxwell was at a great disadvantage relative to those of us with present scientific knowledge since the electron had not yet been defined nor had atomic structure been refined prior to 1880 as well as it has been now.  Maxwell also ignored or failed to recognize the requirement of symmetry necessary for such a model to succeed.  Yet, as far as the author can tell, Maxwell had everything else including the mandatory “idler arm” concept necessary for reversing the torque and direction of any rotating object (The Natural Philosophy of James Clerk Maxwell, Harman, pages 104-105).  There was one promising model proposed by Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson) who was, said Heaviside, “most intensely mechanical, and could not accept any ether unless he could make a model of it” (Whittaker, Vol. 1, page 145), but it lacked symmetry and failed to explain, c, the speed of light.

Based on Einstein’s declaration that a carrier of light was pointless [see Leyden Lecture excerpts - chapter two], modern physicists were left with what they believed were no necessity for and therefore no motivation to look for a carrier of EM waves.  Having established that modern physics had no carrier for light waves, the author decided he would have a go at it.  (At that time he had either not heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment, or if he ever had, he had totally forgotten what had been concluded in 1885).  The initial three resources used for QAT were Stephen Hawkings’ A Brief History of Time, School Physics by Elroy M. Avery, and Modern Physics, a high school physics text.  Although it probably helps to have a better understanding of mathematics, the last book is essentially all one needs to understand the basic concepts of aether as presented in this text.   Many more in-depth resources have been reviewed by the author since the initial design was determined.  An updated list can be viewed in the bibliography.

For anyone who still doubts the existence of aether, which in the author’s experience is almost everyone, the author suggests that for the short time of reading this book to adopt the primary philosophical premise of Rene Descartes, who by coincidence would be one of the fathers of modern aether theory.  Descartes would declare initially: “doubt everything.”  This includes, of course, that one doubt what one presently holds to be true.  Relativity is wrong or at least doubt that relativity exists. From this premise that nothing is valid or real but “armed” with some limited knowledge of standards of physical measurement and empirical data, let us proceed to build the universe.   Of course, telling one to doubt everything can be a two edged sword since it means one must also doubt this book, but only after it has been completely read and only after the reader has adequately explained how he can move light at 300,000 km per sec.  Then, the writer may doubt it (this aether design) also.  As noted later in the text when the structure of aether is discussed, the author is willing to compromise on spherical size but is unwilling to compromise on the geometry.  Show me the speed (of c), otherwise read on.  [Since it is understood that no direct measurements are used for size and speed values presented here, uncertainty values would be meaningless and are not used in this text. (All values being estimates unless quoted from an outside source). The theoretical formulas and concepts are valid based on known empirical data of qualities of light and atoms.]

Even though this is mostly a book about physics, a physicist could not have written this book.  Throughout the 20th century, text after text put forth the obvious fact that aether was in no uncertain terms a dead subject.  On page 12 of his 1950 text, The Nature of Physical Reality: A Philosophy of Modern Physics, Henry Margenau, while discussing reality, stated, “it is well known that scientists, at least in those fields which we call the exact sciences, agree on matters falling in their specific domain but hold widely differing views with regard to reality.  Some, like Planck and Einstein, are critical realists, others notably Eddington and Weyl, are moderate idealists, while Bohr and Heisenberg vaguely display the colors of positivism and rest somewhat indifferent toward our problem. Yet they would all hold that electrons are real and that the luminiferous aether is not.”   If these six prominent 20th century physicists know that aether is dead, what is the chance that any other mainstream physicist would believe otherwise?  This paragraph will be further validated in chapter two.  Not being a physicist allowed the author to focus on what appears to have been a major oversight by 20th century scientists to abandon the search for a carrier of light.  But not being a physicist, the author knows it will take physicists and mathematicians to bring out the full potential of quantum aether theory and consequently, this is also a “call to arms” for physicists to reclaim causality by “putting back the aether” as advised above by Sir James Jeans and emerge from the fog of relativity and probability.

As noted in the table of contents, a review of aether history will be presented in the first chapter followed by the author’s understanding of the reasons which led to the inappropriate exile of the aether medium.  A brief discussion of guidelines for working with QAT is given in chapter three, ending the chapter with the quantum aether theory hypothesis.  Chapter four begins to explore a concept not supported by QAT, the paradox of waves acting like particles and particles allegedly becoming waves, which will be dealt with more thoroughly in chapter six.   Chapter five is the main event which expounds the author’s understanding of how quantum aether theory would explain the previously unexplainable: action at a distance (gravity), mass, empty atoms and the particle zoo, among others.  Although some readers may view these conclusions with skepticism, the concepts presented in chapter five have solid empirical evidence or logical extension of known qualities of matter to support the assertions given in this chapter.  Chapter seven will be controversial since in the author’s opinion Big Bang Theory is incompatible with quantum aether theory.  Ideas for proving or disproving the QAT hypothesis will be presented in chapter eight while more speculative ideas of where QAT might prove valuable are presented in the ninth chapter.  Conclusions and summary are covered in the final chapter.  Perhaps the most controversial subject, if there can be a “most controversial” in a book about aether, is the topic of Simultaneity.  Because of the complexity of this issue, the author has chosen to place it in two appendices at the end of the text.  It is not necessary for understanding of aether theory.  Since Einstein’s main attack on aether was founded on the special theory of relativity, the author felt it necessary at least to show that this subject had been considered.

The author hopes you enjoy reading about QAT and hopes that enough interest can be generated by these concepts to stimulate the scientific community to take a serious look at reinstating a carrier of light medium.

 

           

            Acknowledgments  

I would like to thank my wife, Jan, and good friends, Bob Beverage and Dorle Vawter, for their time, support, and great assistance in helping to complete this book.

 


Chapter 1 - Aether History Overview

Aether: See ether.

Ether (Phys): a hypothetical non-material entity supposed to fill all space whether ‘empty’ or occupied by matter.  The theory that electromagnetic waves need such a medium for propagation is no longer tenable. (The Wordsworth Dictionary of Science and Technology, pages 16 and 316)

The author would expect anyone choosing to read this book to have a basic knowledge of qualities of light.  But if one does not, the author hopes the following discussion will expand on the reader’s understanding of light movement concepts.  To be crystal clear, what is being sought is a medium to serve as the wave carrier of light and to move EM at speed c, much in the same way that particles, molecules and atoms, serve as the medium for the movement of sound wave energy through space.  Many of the early aether theorists focused on the similarities of sound and light movement through space as waves.  This chapter will provide an abbreviated, yet hopefully adequate, review of the history of aether in order to inform any reader who might not have a clear idea of the purpose and requirements of aether proposed by early scientists.  For those who would like a more complete history of aether, the author would recommend Sir Edmund Whittaker’s remarkable book (presently out of print), History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity*The Classical Theories, [all “Whittaker” references refer to this edition], published by Philosophical Library, Inc. in 1951 or its earlier 1910 rendering as A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, from the age of Descartes to the close of the nineteenth century.  Because of significant development of physics concepts after 1900, Whittaker added a second volume in 1953, A History of the Theories of Aether & Electricity*Volume II: The Modern Theories 1900-1926, [all “Whittaker2” references apply to this text].  Although the author considers Sir Edmund’s earlier work the definitive work on aether history, a complementary modern work by Kenneth F. Schaffner, Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories, published in 1972, is also an excellent resource on aether’s “checkered” past.  Bold type will be used for areas which will need to be reexamined and accounted for when the final considerations for aether quantum design are made.

Major contributors and antagonists to modern aether theory (The author apologizes in advance if he has left out any whom any reader feels should have been included).

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) French Philosopher-Mathematician

Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) French Philosopher-Mathematician

Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665) French Mathematician

Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695) Dutch Physicist-Mathematician-Astronomer

Robert Hooke (1635-1703) English Mathematician

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) English Physicist-Mathematician

Olaf Roemer (1644-1710) Danish Astronomer

James Bradley (16920-1762) English Astronomer

Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) Swiss Mathematician-Physicist

Thomas Young (1773-1829) English Physician-Mathematician

Augustin Fresnel (1788-1827) French Physicist

Augustine-Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) French Mathematician

Michael Faraday (1791-1867) English Chemist-Physicist

George Green (1793-1841) British Mathematician-Physicist

James MacCullagh (1809-1847) Irish Mathematician

Sir George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) British Mathematician-Physicist

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (1824-1907) Irish Mathematician-Physicist

James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) Scottish Mathematician-Physicist

Edward Morley (1838-1923) American Scientist-Chemist

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English Electrical Engineer-Mathematician-Physicist

George Francis Fitzgerald (1851-1901) Irish Physicist

Albert Michelson (1852-1931) Prussian-American Physicist

Hendrik Lorentz (1853-1928) Dutch Physicist

Joseph Larmor (1857-1942) Irish Physicist-Mathematician

Max Planck (1858-1947) German Physicist

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) German Theoretical Physicist

Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger (1887-1961) Austrian Irish Physicist

Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) German Theoretical Physicist

Aether – the poetic personification of the clear upper air breathed by Olympians (American Heritage Dictionary, 1991)

Earliest Greek scientists theorized that light was something streaming from our eyes, which easily explained why we could only see in the direction we are facing but failed to explain lack of vision in the dark (The Strange Story of the Quantum, Banesh Hoffman, page 3).  Greek scientists, known as atomists, believed light to move by tiny particles emitted by sources of light, but this was not the position of Aristotle, who declared light to be some sort of action in a medium filling the space between the observer’s eye and the object being viewed.  So even as far back as 350 B.C., the corpuscular theorists versus wave supporters were at opposite ends of the spectrum of understanding light movement.  The word aether comes from the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who used the word aether to represent the perfectly transparent ‘eternal element of the heavens’ as the space between all the stars and planets.  It wasn’t until the 17th century that the French philosopher, Rene Descartes, as the first ‘modern’ analyst, employed aether in the concept that space was occupied by a medium.  Descartes used this medium to explain how forces could act through distance between objects which were not in direct contact with each other, such as magnets or the moon’s effects on the tides.  Descartes initially used the word ‘plenum’ for this substance, as a medium occupying space as opposed to the empty space of a vacuum.  And as the Greeks had used aether to represent blue sky or upper air, so Descartes adopted the word aether for his medium and adapted it to be able to transmit force and exert effects on material bodies immersed in it.  According to Whittaker, Descartes assumed that the aether particles were in constant motion.  Before Descartes (and after Einstein), aether had merely existed as a filler of some part of space, but now Descartes postulated that it had mechanical properties, and “in his view, it was to be regarded as the solitary tenant of the universe, save for the infinitesimal fraction of space which is occupied by ordinary matter.” (Whittaker, page 6).  It would be helpful to include Whittaker’s take on the failure of Descartes’ aether theory as he states in the following paragraph.

“In putting forward an all-embracing theory of the universe before he had studied any of its processes in detail, Descartes was continuing the tradition of the Greeks, rather than treading in the new paths struck out by Tycho, Kepler and Galileo: he never really grasped the principle that true knowledge can only be acquired piecemeal, by the patient interrogation of nature.  A further weakness in his system was involved in the assumption that force cannot be communicated except by actual pressure or impact, a principle which compelled him to provide an explicit mechanism in order to account for each of the known forces of nature.  This task is evidently much more difficult than that which lies before those who are willing to admit action at a distance as an ultimate property of matter.”  (Whittaker, page 6)

Should one really reflect seriously on ‘action at a distance,’ one could state that such a concept is equivalent to saying ‘it just does.’  Which is comparable to the present day explanation of why the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec: it just is.  As is fairly evident from the above quote, science appears more ready to accept, ‘it just does’ than to take on the more difficult task of explaining the mechanism.  As we proceed, we will get closer and closer to the mechanism, the aether.  In Descartes’ world, the aether was made of very small yet finite spheres and was to move all these forces around with great ‘vortices’, and owing to great centrifugal force, globules are pressed in contact with each other ‘although they do not actually move’!  It appears to the writer that Descartes had it mostly right as his definition includes some of the aspects which define a wave, since in wave transfer of energy the average position of particles remains unchanged after movement of the wave through its carrier.  The vortex spin and spherical nature of the aether will certainly be apparent when the final definition of the aether structure is presented.  In any case, Whittaker points out that many defects in Descartes’ method led to the abandoning of his ideas in less than a century, mostly due to Newton’s overwhelming influence.

In the mid 1600’s, Fermat introduced the principle of least time for the movement of light rays, which described how light travels the route which takes the least time during reflection or refraction.  This is an extremely important principle which comes into play when later discussing the ability of gravity to ‘bend’ light waves.

About the same time and to the detriment of the Cartesian concepts of a light carrier, a French professor at the College de France in Paris, Pierre Gassendi, introduced an aether that neither required vortices nor carrier medium but rather an atomistic view of particles moving through mostly empty space.  This was the view which would later be the foundation for part of Sir Isaac Newton’s concept of light movement.

In 1675, Ole Roemer was able to calculate the speed of light by studying the transit times of the moons of Jupiter as they passed behind the planet and reappeared.  This finally established a finite speed for light.  It was extremely fast with an initial calculated value of 225,000 kilometers per second.  Modern measurements have reset the maximum speed of light in a vacuum on Earth to be 299,792 km/sec.

Next appeared Robert Hooke who in the late 1600’s declared light is actual motion (as opposed to Descartes who had expressed light as a tendency of motion).  From his observation, Hooke declared light motion to be of a vibratory nature and ‘exceedingly quick’; Whittaker presents Hooke’s theory of light as follows:

‘First, that it must be a body susceptible and impartible of this motion that it will deserve the name of a Transparent; and next, the parts of such a body must be homogeneous, or of the same kind.

‘Thirdly, that the constitution and motion of the parts must be such that the appulse of the luminous body may be communicated or propagated through it to the greatest imaginable distance through the least imaginable time, though I see no reason to assume that it must be in an instant.

‘Fourthly, that the motion is propagated every way through a Homogeneous medium by direct or straight lines extended in every way like Rays from the center of a Sphere.

‘Fifthly, in an Homogeneous medium this motion is propagated every way with equal velocity, whence necessarily every pulse or vibration of the luminous body will generate a Sphere, which will continually increase, and grow bigger, just after the same manner (though indefinitely swifter) as waves or rings on the surface of the water do swell into bigger and bigger circles about a point of it, where by the sinking of a Stone the motion was begun, whence it necessarily follows, that all the parts of the these Spheres undulated through an Homogeneous medium cut the Rays at right angles.’ (Whittaker, page 14)

This was a big improvement on the Cartesian concept which expressed light as a statistical pressure versus Hooke’s wave of rapid vibratory motion of small amplitude.  Hooke, as others before him, recognized that light moved differently through different substances.  But Hooke’s wave-based theory was in competition with supporters of Sir Isaac Newton, who favored light movement by particles, which soon became the dominant position.  Wave theory lacked the logic to explain the apparent rectilinear propagation (straight line movement) of light and double refraction (now known as polarization).  And Newton’s success at explaining that white light was a mixture of every variety of color, in addition to his gravitational theory and contribution to calculus gave him the needed influence for general adoption of the particle theory of light, which would dominate as the lead theory through the 18th century.  Whittaker summarizes Newton’s concepts as follows:

“All space is permeated by an elastic medium or aether, which is capable of propagating vibrations in the same way as the air propagates the vibrations of sound, but with far greater velocity…

This aether pervades the pores of all material bodies, and is the cause of their cohesion; its density varies from one body to another, being greatest in the free interplanetary spaces..

The vibrations of the aether cannot, for the reasons already mentioned, be supposed in themselves to constitute light.  Light is therefore taken to be ‘something of a different kind, propagated from lucid bodies.  They, that will, may suppose it an aggregate of various peripatetic qualities.  Others may suppose it multitudes of unimaginable small and swift corpuscles of various sizes, …But they, that like not this, may suppose light any other corporeal emanation, or any impulse or motion of any other medium or aethereal spirit diffused through the main body of the aether, what else they can imagine proper for this purpose.  To avoid dispute, and make this hypothesis general, let every man here take his fancy; only whatever light may be, I suppose it consists of rays differing from one another in contingent circumstances, as bigness, form or vigour.”  (From Whittaker, page 19 –footnote 2– Royal Society, 9 Dec. 1675 (Birch iii p. 255)

As noted near the end of the above paragraph, Newton does leave the door open for a wave alternative.  However, since Newton did not allow for the vibration of the aether actually to constitute light, it was the logical conclusion shared by most of Newton’s supporters, for light to be streams of particles or corpuscles which from their motion would cause the aether medium to vibrate.  Newton referred to this concept as comparing the motion of ‘the curves of bodies (as in planetary motion) which are extremely like the curves of rays.’  (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in Great Books of the Western World series #34, page 155,)  As Newton was aware of the finite nature of light as confirmed by Olaf Roemer’s explanation of the variance of time of the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter, Sir Isaac was at considerable advantage over Descartes who did not have this information at the time of formulating his theory of aether pressure.  Even with Newton’s rise in prominence, the corpuscular theory did not fully displace wave theory until the early 1700’s but then would last well into the 1800’s.  Before the corpuscular theory would take full hold, Christiaan Huygens would make a very strong statement in favor of the wave carrier theory of light.  Published in 1690, Huygens work emphasized light as motion, and as a Cartesian supporter, believed all phenomena could be explained through mechanical action. In deciding between the conflicting theories of corpuscles versus waves, Huygens favored the wave theory as the ‘only tenable one, since the beams of light proceeding in directions inclined to each other do not interfere with each other in any way,’ [which particles would be expected to do.]   And since ‘light is transmitted as readily through a vacuum as through air’ Huygens also felt the medium must fill all space in which light movement occurs.

“Light, therefore, consists of disturbances, propagated with great velocity, in a highly elastic medium composed of very subtle matter.” (Whittaker, pg 24)

The concept of wave front was first attributed to Huygens and with it he was able to move beyond Hooke and explain refraction and reflection successfully with a wave theory basis.  He also was more successful in explaining movement of light in bi-refringent crystals, by recognizing that the light was moving in two wave fronts of different velocity, one in the aether embedded in the crystal and another slower wave in the crystal molecules. (Treatise on Light in Great Books of the Western World series #34, page 583-584)  While this concept appeared to be additional support for the wave theorists, it also complicated their hypothesis since it became apparent that polarization required a wave movement of transverse nature or sideways, unlike the then well-known forward-directed longitudinal compression waves of sound.  Huygens extended the theory in an attempt to explain gravity by the use of Cartesian-like vortices within the aether, which through rapid rotation would displace terrestrial objects toward the center of the earth.  On the other hand, Newton, as emphasized by Whittaker, took pains in avoiding explanations of his concepts and referring to his law of gravitation to “be nothing more….than it provided the necessary instrument for mathematical prediction, and he pointed out that it did not touch on the question of the mechanism of gravity.  As to this, he conjectured that the density of the aether might vary from place to place, and that the bodies might tend to move from the denser parts of the medium toward the rarer; but whether this were the true explanation or not, at any rate, to suppose ‘that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else,. . . . is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking can ever fall into.” (Whittaker, page 28)(Author’s emphasis).

Because of the above deficiencies of wave theory with respect to polarization, coupled with the overwhelming success of Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, Newton’s followers in the early 1700’s took up the corpuscular theory as the “true” movement of light.  This would remain the dominant theory for most of the next century.  

In 1728, James Bradley presented his theory to explain the previously unexplainable oddity that any given star would transit across the meridian more southerly in winter but would return to its original position over the next summer. He presented the concept that the motion of the earth relative to observing the starlight caused this effect, and through trigonometric comparison of the velocity of the earth to the velocity of light, he deduced the constant of aberration of light.  The approximate maximum value is 20”.48 (arc seconds). This constant is often used as an argument against the existence of aether since it was derived based on the assumption that the earth is moving through a fixed aether.  Its calculation obligates this condition, or at least appears to do so, a concept which will be revisited later.  One of the problems with aether theory in the early 1700’s was the existence of multiple aethers, one for light, one for heat, another for electrical and possibly another for magnetism.  But in 1760, Leonhard Euler promoted the concept that all these phenomena were propagated in a single aether, a matter which filled all space with light as vibrations (movement) of the aether particles (Whittaker, page 98).  Late in the 1700’s, support started to swing back to wave theory, mainly due to the work of Augustine Fresnel and Thomas Young.  Young was able to explain the superior power of wave theory over particle theory in explaining reflection and refraction, since corpuscles would somehow have to be split when striking a refracting-reflecting surface.  Sound waves’ partial reflection by clouds had already shown the ability of an undulating theory to do so.  Young then went on to describe what would become the law of interference of light.  Whenever two separate waves of light are mixed, “the light becomes most intense when the difference of routes is a multiple of a certain length, and least intense in the intermediate state of the interfering portions.”(Whittaker, page 103)  Young also used the interference concept to explain satisfactorily fringes of shadows along surface edges and went on to use the undulatory theory (wave theory) to explain double refractive crystals by posing that these substances were in some way more compressible or deformable in one direction than in a perpendicular direction.  This, too, had been demonstrated for sound waves by Chladni who had shown that Scottish fir was capable of transmitting sound in a ratio of 4:5 in directions at 90 degrees to one another.  In 1815, the French civil engineer, Augustin Fresnel, used principles of Huygens and Young to explain diffraction based on wave theory.  With knowledge that aberration previously had been championed by corpuscular theory, he proposed that

“‘luminiferous aether pervades the substance of all material bodies with little or no resistance, as freely perhaps as the wind passes through a grove of trees.’… suppose the aether surrounding the earth to be at rest and unaffected by earth’s motion, the light wave will not partake of the motion of the telescope, and the image of the star will therefore be displaced from the central spider-line at the focus by a distance equal to that which the earth describes while the light is traveling through the telescope.  This agrees with what is actually observed.” (Whittaker, page 109)

Whittaker goes on with an in-depth analysis of the methods of Fresnel and Sir George Gabriel Stokes to show that the constant of aberration remains the same even if the telescope material exhibits a partial drag of the beam of light coming from the star but that refraction and reflection are unaffected by this effect.   To do so, Fresnel made the assumption that a moving body such as a telescope carries part of the aether along with its motion.

Up to this point in time, light waves were still considered analogous to sound waves, which were well known to be propagated by longitudinal compression-rarefaction waves of particles.  But this analogy repeatedly failed to explain polarization.  In 1817, Young proposed transverse wave motion in a direct line, comparing it to sideways motions in a cord swung side to side.  This would later become the foundation of elastic solid theorists of the 19th century.  Although this would successfully resolve polarization, it created possibly an even greater complication. Transverse waves were only known to be carried by solid substances; neither liquids nor air would be capable of transmitting such waves, even though it was quite evident that EM passes readily through air, liquids, and even vacuums.  To propose that vacuums are actually solid seems a bit of a stretch.  We are not there yet but we will be. 

One characteristic of solid bodies is the power to resist changes in their shape, which was straight away dealt with by Young and Fresnel by stating that the aether behaves as an elastic solid, and left it to their successors to explain what was meant by this explanation. 

“The elastic-solid theory meets with one obvious difficulty at the outset.  If the aether has the qualities of a solid, how is it that the planets in their orbital motions are able to journey through it at immense speeds without encountering any perceptible resistance? This objection was first satisfactorily answered by Sir George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903), who remarked that such substances as pitch and shoemaker’s wax, though so rigid as to be capable of elastic vibration, are yet sufficiently plastic to permit other bodies to pass slowly through them.  The aether, he suggested, may have this combination of qualities in an extreme degree, behaving like an elastic solid for vibrations as rapid as those for light, but yielding like a fluid to the much slower progressive motion of the planets.” (Whittaker, page 128).

The next 40 pages of Whittaker’s text are dedicated to aether as an elastic solid.  The main theories of interest include those of Augustine-Louis Cauchy, George Green, and James MacCullagh.  These theories involve complex differential equations and integrations which the author must leave for those with higher mathematics skills.  However, many of the applied concepts are accessible and should be considered.  From his analysis in 1830, Cauchy concluded that the vibrations in the aether must be subtended at 90 degrees to the plane of polarization, which was needed to explain reflection and refraction.  The goal of the early theorists was to take differential equations of solids and arrive at Fresnel’s equations of refraction and reflection which were well established by this time.  Depending on initial conditions, Cauchy proceeded over the next ten years to develop two distinct theories of crystal optics and three distinct theories of reflection, almost all yielding correct or nearly correct final outcomes, yet essentially incompatible with one another (Whittaker, page 137).  In trying to resolve some of these issues, MacCullagh and Neumann specified that the inertia of the aether was the same but that differences in its behavior in different compounds were due to changes in elasticity.  MacCullagh was somewhat disenchanted with his own results as Whittaker notes,

“If we are asked what reasons can be assigned for the hypotheses on which the preceding theory is founded, we are far from being able to give a satisfactory answer.  We are obliged to confess that, with the exception of the law of vis viva, the hypotheses are nothing more than fortunate conjectures.  These conjectures are very probably right, since they have led to elegant laws which are fully borne out by experiments; but this is all we can assert respecting them.  We cannot attempt to deduce them from first principles; because, in the theory of light, such principles are still sought for.  It is certain, indeed, that light is produced by undulations, propagated, with transversal vibrations, through a highly elastic aether; but the constitution of this aether, and the laws of its connection (if it has any connection) with the particles of bodies, are utterly unknown.”(Whittaker, pages 138-139)

Next on the scene was George Green, who proceeded to tackle one of the problems of the solid elastic theories, namely how to deal with longitudinal waves.  Green did so by choosing a very large resistance of the aether to compression relative to resistance to distortion, a quality seen in jelly.  However, his equations of the elastic solid were not fully compatible with crystal-optics.  In 1837 MacCullagh took Green’s concepts a step farther and presented dynamical laws for a new medium.  Whereas in an ordinary elastic solid, the potential energy of strain depends on the change in size and shape of the volume elements—on their compression and distortion, the potential energy of MacCullagh’s new medium depends only on the rotation of the volume elements (Whittaker, page 143) (Author’s emphasis).  This consideration also eliminated that nasty complication of longitudinal waves.

MacCullagh’s Elastic Solid Medium Equation

                                                                                    (Whittaker, page 144)

This is only one of two complex formulas that the author has chosen to include in this text.  As mentioned in the preface, the mathematicians would be shown the way to finish the aether mathematically.  The writer believes it may already have been done by MacCullagh and his contemporaries, but its verification and/or completion must be left to higher level mathematicians to connect it to the aether structure presented later.  Cauchy, Green, and MacCullagh used partial differential equations to explain wave motion in an elastic solid.  It appears to the author that the strain in these equations is the equivalent of a spherical torque or angular impulse ~ curl ~ EM forces.  Of course, a major concern which arises later from Maxwell’s equations is the fact that light can be described as electric-magnetic impulses propagated at right angles to one another.  On page 144 of his “Classical Theories”, Whittaker summarily dispenses with this concern in his footnote 1 “MacCullagh’s equations may readily be interpreted in the electromechanical theory of light… e corresponds to the magnetic force, u curl e to the electric force, and curl e to the electric displacement.  This interpretation is due to Heaviside, Electrician, xxvi (1891), p.360: Lord Kelvin had regarded rotation as analogue to magnetic force” (See also, Whittaker, page 286).  Once the electromagnetic theory established itself as the dominant theory in the mid to late 1860’s, supporters of the elastic solid concepts began to fall out of favor.  As an exiting gasp in 1987, Joseph Boussinesq presented elastic solid equations compatible with all space, both within and without ponderable bodies being occupied with one identical aether, the same everywhere in inertial quality and elasticity but which responded to two separate formulas: one for motion of the aether and one for interaction between matter and aether.

In the mid 1800’s Michael Faraday was a strong advocate of electrical and magnetic forces as an action carried by contiguous particles, communicated to a distance by the action of intervening particles.  Maxwell followed up on this with initially fervid support for a mechanical-based aether.  According to Maxwell, the medium must be in rotation about lines of magnetic force, each unit presenting as an isolated vortex.  Immediate objection arose, since adjacent vortices of similar spin would be disruptive.  Maxwell proceeded to advocate an “idler” wheel approach but did so by inserting a layer of particles different than the actual vortices, which did not allow for neighboring vortices to spin in identical directions.  Unfortunately his design effectively destroyed symmetrical considerations normally seen in light movement and also failed to deal with the speed of light.

In his following chapter, Whittaker presented multiple attempts to explain aether with models.  In 1878, George Frances FitzGerald elicited a model whose equations matched those of MacCullagh which were presented earlier.  This model was such that electric displacement was equal to the twist of the elements of volume of the aether with the charge expected to represent an intrinsic rotational strain, giving this aether the capability of representing optical, magnetic and electric interaction.  Sir J. Larmor added his view that matter, like electrons, are of the nature of structures in the aether, engulfed in an atmosphere of aethereal strain all around them; action at a distance is abolished (Whittaker, page 287).  Larmor goes on to state, “a rotational aether has the properties of a perfect fluid medium except where differentially rotational motions are concerned, and so would not react on the motion of any structure moving through it except after the manner of an apparent change in inertia.”  On the following page:

 

“Models in which magnetic force is represented by the velocity of aether are not, however, secure from objection.  It is necessary to suppose that the aether is flowing like a perfect fluid in irrotational motion (which would correspond to a steady magnetic field), and that it is at the same time endowed with the power (which is requisite for the explanation of electric phenomena) of resisting the rotation and any element of volume.” (Whittaker, page 288) 

Several models, including one by Maxwell in 1861, presented aether with parts represented by multiple constituents, included wheels and rolling particles forming vortices, and one of Fitzgerald in 1885, included wheels on fixed axes which allowed for rotation without strain as long as all had the same angular velocity.

 “Such a model is capable of transmitting vibrations analogous to those of light.  For if any group of wheels is suddenly set in rotation, those in the neighbourhood will be prevented by their inertia from immediately sharing in the motion; but presently the motion will be communicated to the adjacent wheels, which transmit it to their neighbours; so a wave motion will be propagated through the medium.  The motion constituting the vibration… is transverse.  The axes of rotation of the wheels are at right angles to the direction of the propagation of the waves, and the direction of polarization of the bands is at right angles to both of these directions.

The elastic bands may be replaced by lines of governor balls: if this is done, the energy of the system is entirely of the kinetic type.” (Whittaker, page 292)

A final model reviewed by Whittaker was that of the vortex-sponge theory of W. Thompson (Lord Kelvin) who according to Heaviside, (Thompson) was “most intensely mechanical, and could not accept any ether unless he could make a model of it” (As referenced in Whittaker, page 145, Heaviside’s Electromagnetic Theory, iii, p. 479).  Vortex sponge exhibited the suitable quality that vorticity in a perfect fluid cannot be created or destroyed.  Several vortex models involving rings and filaments were advocated and even hollow vortices were considered.  Please note in reviewing all of the previously discussed models, none of them address the speed of light.

“Towards the close of the nineteenth century, chiefly under the influence of Larmor, it came to be generally recognized that the aether is an immaterial medium, sui generis, not composed of identifiable elements having definite locations in absolute space.  The older view had supposed ‘the pressures and thrusts of the engineer, and the strain and stresses in the material structures by which he transmits them from one place to another, to be the archetype of the processes by which all mechanical effect is transmitted in nature.  This doctrine implies an expectation that we may ultimately discover something analogous to structure in the celestial spaces, by means of which the transmission of physical effect will be brought into line with the transmission of mechanical effect by material framework.’  [Larmor, Brit. Ass. Rep. (1900), p.618] Larmor urged on the contrary that ‘we should not be tempted towards explaining the simple group of relations which have been found to define the activity of the aether by treating them as mechanical consequences of concealed structure in that medium; we should rather rest satisfied with having attained to their exact dynamical correlation, just as geometry explores or correlates, without explaining, the descriptive and metric properties of space.’  This point of view enabled Larmor’s theory to withstand subsequent criticisms based on the principle of relativity, which shattered practically all rival concepts of the aether.”(Whittaker, page 303)

The reality of the last statement will become evident in the following chapter when sections of Einstein’s 1920 lecture at Leyden University, Ether and the Theory of Relativity are presented.

According to Bradley’s constant of aberration as noted earlier, an adjustment in the angle of a telescope looking at a star is required due to the earth’s movement through the aether.  It is believed that if the aether were “dragged” with the earth, a correction would not be necessary.  However, there were two competing theories, one by Fresnel and one by Stokes, on whether the aether was to pass freely through the earth [Fresnel] or whether some of the aether was entrained by the motion of the earth so that the velocity of the aether would be equal to that of the earth [Stokes].  The first theory often referred to as the “aether wind” became the dominant belief during the second half of the 19th century.  About this time in part due to the work of Albert Michelson, instruments to measure the speed of light became much more accurate by use of a device known as an inferometer.  It was believed that the modern inferometer would be capable of detecting an aether wind.  By comparing light beams moving parallel to earth’s movement to beams moving perpendicular, it was determined that a shift in wave fringes should be visible or a least detectable.  On repeated attempts of various experimental designs to detect the fringe shift, none could be found.  As one will see in Einstein’s analysis, the conclusion was reached that since no shift could be found, the aether must not be present.  The author won’t go into Stokes-vs-Fresnel competing theories but they can be found in multiple texts including Schaffner’s Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories.  In these references, there does not appear to be any overwhelming evidence to support one over the other, therefore, it remains a mystery why such strong support was given to Fresnel’s over Stokes’ theory.   Fresnel’s concept is echoed by Robert K. Adair in The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation, page 80, “If the ether were dragged along with the earth, the phenomena of aberration would not be observed. The light would be dragged along with the telescope no matter what the velocity of the earth…. The observation of aberration shows that the ether (if there is an ether) is not carried along with the earth….Yet the Michelson-Morley experiment showed the ether is carried along with the earth.  There is a paradox!  But with Stokes’ derivation of a partial aether drag, there is NO paradox.         

 

“Stokes assumed that the Earth completely dragged the aether along with it in its orbit, but that it did so only near its surface.  The velocity of the aether is, however, claimed to be identical at every point on the Earth’s surface and apparently equal to the absolute velocity of the Earth in the universe.  Out in space, however, ‘at no great distance’ from the Earth, the aether was supposed to be in a state of absolute rest…” (Schaffner, page 30)

 

Schaffner then presented Stokes’ equations supporting this position.  Even if the earth carried the aether at several hundred kilometers above its surface, a simple calculation of the aberration constant by making this adjustment to the speed of light gives only a difference of about 1 to 2/100th of an arc second, probably not enough to detect a difference. Since the constant of aberration range has been stated to vary from 20”.463 to 20”.511 (Whittaker, page 95), this variance may be in part due to fluctuations in the integrity of the entrained aether.  One of the arguments against aether is explaining how huge planets can move through it with no apparent drag effect.  In the 19th century when most of the work on aether theory as an elastic solid was done, little was known about the area above the earth.  It is now clearly understood there are multiple layers, troposphere (0-10 km), stratosphere (10-45 km), mesosphere (45-70 km), thermosphere (70-500), and exosphere (above 500).  At 140 kilometers altitude, the pressure is only one millionth of a millibar.  In addition to atmospheric layers, there is also the magnetosphere and ionosphere.  The writer believes this is more than enough evidence that the planets do not move through the aether without any impact.  As noted earlier from Whittaker, Maxwell and Larmor consider the following a defect of aether theory but it may actually be a confirmation of aether by planetary movement.  “Models in which magnetic force is represented by the velocity of aether are not, however, secure from objection.  It is necessary to suppose that the aether is flowing like a perfect fluid in irrotational motion (which would correspond to a steady magnetic field)”, (Whittaker, page 288).  This would seem to be consistent with earth’s magnetosphere which appears to be located above the entrained aether layer of Stokes.  At the end of the 19th century, the magnetosphere was yet to be discovered, and much like in the 18th century when the followers of Newton adopted the corpuscular theory as their preferred world view, aether wave theorists would receive another nearly fatal blow in the 20th century.


Chapter 2: Why bring back aether?

Perhaps the first question to answer before “why an aether?” is “why not?” In order to explain the lack of aether wind suggested by the Michelson-Morley racing light beams experiment, Fitzgerald hypothesized in 1892 that dimensions of moving objects shrink in the direction of movement relative to the aether.  He presented the now-famous contraction formula of length (L) times the square root of (1- v2/c2) which is the proposed amount of contraction in the direction of motion.  By applying this concept to Michelson-Morley’s results, the null result can be explained and the concept of the earth moving through the aether at 30 km/sec. can be retained.  Hendrik Lorentz would independently arrive at the same contraction formula as Fitzgerald’s, and in 1905, Albert Einstein would apply the contraction formula as an integral part of the Special Theory of Relativity.  Albert Einstein and his supporters championed the earlier position of Larmor. Since the mechanical effects of the aether (aether wind) did not seem to be detectable (null result of Michelson-Morley drift experiments), a position was adopted stating that space is endowed with electromagnetic qualities and EM fields and void of any aether substance with mechanical properties.  During this time period (the early 1900’s), Planck’s quantum theory of energy delivered in discreet packets, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and Einstein’s explanation of photoelectric emissions all burst onto the scene with the apparent end result of destroying classical wave concepts and exiling aether to the history books of physics.

According to classical wave theory, a disturbing condition arises as wave energy is distributed inside a ‘black box’ radiator.  This paradox, based on classical wave theory and the equipartition principle, predicts that any light entering this box would act to distribute its energy continually and result in an infinite amount of energy at a higher and higher frequency.  This is often referred to as the ultraviolet catastrophe.  Empirical data, however, showed that above certain frequencies, radiation would start to fall, an action contradicting the predictions of classical theory which shows wavelength degenerating to such high frequencies that the radiators after a relatively short time should radiate dangerously short gamma waves.  This result was never detected.  In 1900, Max Planck put forth the theory of quantized energy where only certain levels of energy dispersion are allowed.  For higher and higher frequencies, higher levels of quantized energy are required, preventing any accumulation at higher frequencies, thus avoiding the ultraviolet catastrophe predicted by classical theory.  Classic wave theory demands a “smooth” distribution of energy where any energy level is considered acceptable.  Planck’s quantum theory would better explain black box radiation by allowing for only discrete levels, in packets of energy equal to hv. [h is the common symbol for Planck’s constant which equals 6.626E-27 erg seconds and v is the frequency of the wave].

In 1905, Albert Einstein presented the Special Theory of relativity, which in part would express the concept that time and space are not absolute but conditioned by movement of an observer.  To do so, Einstein utilized the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis which expresses “the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer in objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz contraction or Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction) only becomes noticeable, however, at a substantial fraction of the speed of light and the contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is traveling.”(Wikipedia definition – Length contraction, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_contraction)  The contraction theory had been devised in the 1890’s independently by George Fitzgerald and Hendrik Lorentz and was used to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley aether drift experiment.  If rods or moving objects were to contract when moving relative to the aether, then the parallel distance would be shortened by the amount necessary to equal the perpendicular light paths, and no fringe shift would be seen.  It should be pointed out that this theory was advanced in order to maintain the concept of aether, by showing that the aether wind could still be present but not detectable due to the concept of length contraction of a moving body.

Also in 1905, Einstein presented his theory for photoelectric emission of electrons by certain metals when exposed to EM radiation of sufficient energy.  According to classical wave theory, as light intensity of a specific wavelength increased, energy of electrons released should also increase.  But actual experiment results showed that although the number of electrons would increase, the energy of the individual electrons released by a specific wavelength (and therefore frequency since c = wavelength x frequency) remained the same.  By proposing a “packet” or fixed amount of energy based on quantum theory, giving each packet an energy equivalent of hv, now known as a photon, Einstein was able to explain the experimental findings to an acceptable level without invoking a wave concept.

In the Evolution of Physics, pages 184-85, Einstein and Infeld state,

“All our attempts to make ether real failed.  It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion......Our attempts to discover the properties of ether led to difficulties and contradictions.  After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and never try to mention its name. We shall say: our space has the physical property of transmitting waves, and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid”

The attempts noted above by Einstein and Infeld are for the most part in reference to the multiple experiments by Michelson-Morley to show the movement of the earth through the all-pervasive aether.  From this position and as expressed in Einstein’s 1920 Leyden Lecture which denounced any physical properties of aether, mainstream physics in general totally abandoned the concept of a physical construct for carrying electromagnetic waves.  This disapproving attitude toward aether by Einstein is echoed by Morris Kline in Mathematics and the Physical World, page 360:

“When he proved that electromagnetic waves travel with the velocity of light, Maxwell concluded that these waves travel in ether, because since Newton’s day ether had been accepted as the medium in which light moved. But since electromagnetic waves travel through all substances this means that ether must pervade all substances, including empty space.   Moreover,  since  the  waves  move  with  enormous  velocity  the ether has to be completely  transparent  and  the  planets  must  move  through  it  with  no friction.  These conditions imposed on ether are contradictory.  Moreover, ether cannot be touched, smelled, or isolated from other substances.  Such a medium is physically incredible.  We must conclude that it is a fiction, a mere word satisfying only those minds that do not look behind words.  Further, the entire account in terms of fields is a crutch that helps the human mind to propel itself forward but must not be taken literally or seriously.” 

 

Following are several excerpts from Einstein’s 1920 Leyden lecture which proposes to remove from aether any “mechanical properties”; essentially leaving physics ’up a creek without a paddle’ to get back to a solid classical mechanics-based reality.  There is extremely good evidence of its mechanical structure and most of this evidence was present in the 1900’s and certainly during Einstein’s criticism of aether’s “hidden” properties.  The writer finds it curious that Einstein argues for the abandonment of aether while at the same time in his Special Theory of Relativity uses the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, a concept specifically invoked to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in order to retain the concept of an aether wind.  The dismissal of aether was, in this author’s opinion, Einstein’s and modern physics’ greatest blunder.

Excerpts from Ether and the Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden

>>>As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility…….

>>>We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity. …….

>>>Generalizing we must say this: There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski’s idiom this is expressed as follows: Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of worldthreads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether. …..

>>>Newton objectifies space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space “Ether”; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real. ….

>>>This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. ……

>>>Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

End of Leyden Lecture excerpts. (Author’s underlining).

 

Virtually no modern-day physics texts discuss aether or, when they do, basically state there is no evidence that it exists.  Some modern historical texts do give a brief account of aether but often do so with a rather fatalistic view.  In the 1930 text, The Universe Around Us, page 329, Sir James Jeans echoes Einstein’s position:

the Victorian scientist thought it necessary to “explain” light as a wave-motion in the mechanical ether which he was for ever trying to construct out of jellies and gyroscopes; the scientist of to-day, fortunately for his sanity, has given up the attempt and is well satisfied if he can predict what light will do under specific conditions.  It does not matter        much whether the formula admits of a mechanical explanation or not, or whether such an explanation corresponds to any thinkable ultimate reality…..the ether has dropped out of science, not because scientists as a whole formed a reasonable judgment that no such thing exists, but because they find they can describe all the phenomena of nature quite perfectly without it.  If at some future time they find they need it, they will put it back again.”(Author’s emphasis).

 

 

James goes even further with a somewhat pessimistic statement:

 

“This does not imply any lowering of the standards or ideals of science; it implies merely a growing conviction that the ultimate realities of the universe are at present quite beyond the reach of science, and may be—and probably are—for ever beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”

 

This from one of the great scientific minds of the early 20th century.

It appears to be time to “put it back.”  If we can demonstrate the existence of a carrier of light with mechanical properties, then Newton’s laws take precedence over Special theory of relativity, which in essence is an applied Doppler theory of time.  This is the position held by D.W.Sciama in The Physical Foundations of General Relativity, page 15:

 

“In the inertial case we would want to say that inertial forces are exerted, not by space, but by other bodies. If this makes sense, then inertial forces are not fictitious after all, but are just as physical as any other forces. In consequence, Newton’s laws of motion would hold in all frames of reference, and the problem of the preferred role of inertial frames would be solved.” (Author’s emphasis)

 

Presently if one asks why light travels at speed c, the answer by modern physics is: ‘it just does’.  That is like answering the question of why a candle is hot, with ‘it just is’.  But science has the answer to candle heat; the vibratory motion of the kinetic energy from the combustion of the wick creates the heat, a form of energy (motion).  But to the riddle of the speed of light, modern science remains silent, or are all the clues there, just not apparent to someone who is not looking for them because modern scientists have been told as noted above to “forget the ether completely”.  This indoctrination makes it virtually impossible for anyone on the “inside” of physics or science to be able to reach the state of mind to even consider that there might be a problem here, without a carrier for light.

“Fundamental challenges to disciplines tend to come from outside. It is customary for students to be introduced to their fields of study gradually, as slowly unfolding mysteries, so that by the time they can see their subject as a whole, they have been so thoroughly imbued with conventional preconceptions and patterns of thought that they are extremely unlikely to be able to question its basic premises.” Martin Bernal’s Black Athena: The Afro-asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vol. I, 1987


So why bring back aether?

            Dilemmas or obscurities of Modern Physics

Question – followed by Modern physics answers based on my readings and what has been voiced in past discussions of the author with other scientists.

Why does light move at speed c?  Don’t know, don’t need to know, don’t care, it        just does.

How does light move? As EM fields, no, as photons, no, as an EM wave on    nothing, just    pick the most convenient

What is the cause of Gravity?  Mass, how? Good question.

How is gravity transmitted?  Action at a distance (A Newton frowner, see pg 13).

How does gravity bend space?  By mathematical forces based on General    Theory of relativity.

How does an atom like lead (Pb) with 82 positive charges all located centrally not explode when positive to positive repulsion of two protons next to each other is one of the most powerful forces known to exist?  Easy, the intervening           neutrons neutralize the protons, maybe so, so what neutralizes the 82 negative electrons in the shell from repulsing each other?,  the 82 central            protons?,  doesn’t really make sense  (remember this paper allows logic and common sense to be considered in accepting a concept if it can be              applied to empirical data). 

How can the atom be almost all “empty space” between the electrons and      nucleus? It just is.

How does all the matter in the universe fit into a thimble? (Big Bang Theory), in          the beginning physical laws as presently understood don’t really apply.

 

These are a few of the author’s concerns. It is almost certain there are many others which have not been mentioned here, but the author would hope that the reader would at least agree that those listed above are pretty serious deficiencies.  Quantum aether theory can show a mechanism for the speed of light and perhaps answer many other questions through a better understanding of the movement of light as a carrier event.  Of course, it isn’t just the speed of light that remains an enigma for science.  As previously queried, “How does gravity work?”  The presently accepted scientific explanation is, “it just does,” of course, through action at a distance, a concept to which Sir Isaac Newton voiced strong opposition.  Or at least consider mass. What is it?  Leon Lederman with Dick Teresi in The God Particle, page 370, express their belief “that mass is not some sort of intrinsic property of particles but a property acquired by the interaction of particles and their environment,” but what is it?  Of course, based on Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2, mass is energy or energy equivalent but what defines it as ‘mass’?  These are just a few of the gaps in present theory as to why aether is needed.  Any physicist who has trouble accepting the aether word should just think of aether as a carrier of light.  Actually, it would appear most physicists already accept some forms of aether since many agree on the presence of cold dark matter, zero point energy fields and Higgs fields, all of which appear to be subsets of modified aether.  Once the carrier is defined, the above concepts start falling into place like a row of collapsing dominoes; it is not only eerie but unbelievable (literally unbelievable) when first encountered, or at least it was to the author.  Other concepts on which aether theory appears to have a significant impact include atomic structure, General Theory of Relativity, Steady State Theory of the Universe, and wave-particle dualism.  Quantum aether theory appears to have a good chance for a unified theory and, in the writer’s opinion, even meets some of the parameters expressed by string theorists, but probably not in the way they had hoped.  There are only three spatial dimensions in QAT, period.  It is possible to have other conditions (parameters) of motion and time, but only three spatial dimensions, and space is absolute.  QAT, properly understood, is a classical mechanical theory of particles which is capable of accommodating some of the concepts of General Theory, gravitation, and quantum theory.  As the carrier of light, it is understood that EM (electromagnetic) theory is embedded in QAT concepts, apparently as an angular impulse strain in an elastic (fluidic) solid.   The author knows the solid definition appears problematic from our present understanding of solid, and therefore should be qualified as meaning particles which are in direct contact with one another.  As the author is not a mathematician or a physicist, it will not be possible in this text to show readers mathematically the true nature of the aether, but the basic aether structure and its kinetics give the solution to all the above concerns which were just mentioned.  In The End of Science, page 83, John Horgan presents John Wheeler’s belief that, “the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, ‘Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind for so long!’”  The author believes aether is the central idea. 


Chapter 3 - Aether Basics - concepts and definitions for discussing QAT

If the reader has a desire to better understand our physical universe, its structure and mechanical behavior backed by solid empirical data, logic, and basic common sense without any smoke or mirrors, action at a distance, or “it just does”, then this may be the book for you.  The main objective is finding a way to move a wave of light at a speed of 30,000,000,000 centimeters/per second ( c ) [= 3E+10 cm/sec].  This also raises the question, “what is light?”  Light (EM) is used here in the broader sense as encompassing the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just the visible spectrum seen by our eyes.  There are, of course, other qualities of light that must be accounted for by any theory of light movement, but until the speed can be explained, the others remain secondary.  With a basic understanding of high school physics and mathematics, the writer believes all the concepts presented here will be grasped easily by the reader, and has the earnest hope that any who may have extensive skills in higher mathematics will go on to attach the necessary formulas to complete the aether structure model.  However, aether is dead. That’s what has been claimed by physicists, in Einstein’s books and speeches, and in emails received by the author. Since the writer is a physician by training, his diagnosis is that aether is just in a coma, and in its present state of demise, perhaps we should briefly contrast the present day mood toward aether versus its 19th Century status.  To emphasize just how comatose aether theory is, please review this quote from the preface of Kenneth Schaffner’s well researched text, Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories, “This book is an account of a group of theories which occupied the attention of some of the best physicists of the nineteenth century, but which is largely only of historical and philosophical interest today.  During the previous century the various aether theories held an importance for physicists which general relativity and SU 3 symmetry, for example, hold today.”  [Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories, Kenneth Schaffner, preface vii.].  Stated another way, aether has no scientific relevance whatsoever in modern physics. 

To illustrate just how sure of the existence of aether that the best physicists of the 19th century were, please review the following excerpt from, School Physics, Elroy M. Avery, Sheldon and Company, Chicago, 1895, pp. 312-313.

254. The Ether.---- Physicists are generally of the opinion that all space is filled with an incompressible medium of extreme tenuity and elasticity. This hypothetical medium is called the ether. The variety of the phenomena for which the ether hypothesis offers the only explanation that modern science can accept (see CH.10) is so great that the unproved existence of the ether is confidently accepted.  [Author’s emphasis]

(a)It has been estimated that the density of the ether is 9.36 x 10-19, which is enormously great as compared with that which air would assume in interstellar space. It has been estimated that its rigidity is about 0.000,000,001 that of steel, so that masses of ordinary matter readily pass through it. Its structure is assumed to be continuous instead of granular like that of ordinary matter... It is regarded as an incompressible substance pervading all space and embedded in it and connected with one another by its means. It has been compared to an impalpable and all-pervading jelly through which the particles of ordinary matter move freely; through which heat and light waves are constantly throbbing; which is constantly being set in local strains and released from them, being whirled in local vortices, thus producing the various phenomena of electricity and magnetism.

 

The author is not sure how they justified using incompressible and tenuity (rarified) in the same statement but in view of the apparent structure of aether expressed in this text, as one shall see when the design of aether is presented, it appears they were warranted in doing so!  These abbreviations may be used in the following pages.

AT = Aether Theory – classical aether theory prior to 1990

QAT = quantum aether theory  (as modified AT)

h = Planck’s constant ~ 6.624E-27 erg-seconds

c = speed of light in vacuum equal to ~ 300,000 kilometers/second

EM = Light = Electromagnetic wave = Electromagnetism

ST = Special Theory of Relativity

GT = General Theory of Relativity

QT = Quantum Theory

BB = Big Bang Theory

SS = Steady State Theory

rps = rotations per second

Scientific notation for powers of 10 so that

300,000 km/sec is the same as     3E+5   km/sec

  Equivalent meters per second     3E+8     m/sec

  Equivalent centimeters/second    3E+10 cm/sec

For the purpose of this book, the author is asking all readers to accept the following criteria, whether one actually agrees with them or not, at least to do so for the duration of this book because by the end, the author believes there is a possibility that the reader may then agree with the stated criteria, which for obvious reasons is the author’s objective.

There are three and only three dimensions of space commonly known as Cartesian space as x, -x, y, -y, z and -z.  It should be clarified that the negative is not negative space but the space on the opposite side of a chosen zero point in space which can be more visually defined as right(x), left(-x),  up(y), down(-y), away(z), and toward(-z).  There are no more spatial dimensions.  One can add parameters such as time and/or velocities which include spin, linear motion, rotational motion, oscillation and gyration (such as precession and recession).  None of the parameters affect space in any way.  Space should be considered as three dimensions of extension and, in my opinion, is absolute, which is the position put forth by Sir Isaac Newton (Great Books of the Western World – Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, pages 8-9).  Many readers and essentially all mainstream physicists may disagree with the above constraints but the writer is asking that for the time spent reviewing this text, these definitions are what are being used for clarity.  They are stated at this point so we do not have try to back into them later because when one understands that aether defines gravity and mass, it is no longer tenable to accept that space is bent by gravity.  As AT allows for a valid null interpretation (actually requires a null result) of the Michelson Morley experiment which attempted in 1884 to show the motion of the earth through the aether, the Special Theory of relativity interpretation of time dilation collapses and can be shown more correctly as a Doppler theory of time/light.  This is similar to a position held by H. A. Lorentz.  General Theory of relativity, touted as one of the most successful theories of modern times, appears less easily dismissed.  However, with the proper understanding, QAT can address or at least redirect most if not all concerns of GT, or certainly any of the relevant concepts put forward by GT, and at the same time assimilate quantum theory with minimal difficulty.  In the past, AT has held the distinction of being a classical theory but contains the unacceptable property of the “ultraviolet catastrophe”, as discussed earlier.  The AT, as presented here, is a modified classical theory in the sense that during wave movement of energy through space, it acts “classically” or smoothly to some degree of movement.  At the final stages when wave energy dissipates, it is transferred by particles (quantum), as the aether medium is extremely granular (quantized) and extremely small.  In that sense it might be more appropriately named quantum aether theory (QAT).  Although giving up some of its “classic” stature to quantum, QAT remains a strictly mechanics-based theory and as such reinstates and defends causality.  In most texts discussing physics, matter and mass appear inseparable. 

      There exists an invariant with respect to this group of physico-chemical transformations that is, a certain co-efficient characteristic of the individuality of this piece of matter which remains invariable and unchanged: this is its mass…. matter and mass appear to be synonyms.”(Philosophy and the New Physics, Louis Rougier, page 4)

In order to better understand the aether concept, it is necessary to clearly define matter using the #3 definition from dictionary.com which states that matter is something that occupies space.  Please note there is nothing about mass in this definition.

Matter

3.  something that occupies space.

      The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: Modern Language       http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/matter .

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but is a constant of the Universe as we know it.  Matter as defined in this text is any three dimensional construct which occupies space and therefore cannot be changed into energy or disappear from occupying space.  This concept is consistent with the Pauli Exclusion Principle in that two particles cannot occupy the same space at the same time, or as sometimes stated: no two particles can have identical quantum numbers. Aether spheres which occupy space are a form of matter, generally without effective mass.  Essentially all other particles we have come to know have mass (a form of energy – motion) and are matter with mass.  Any practicing physicist probably realizes the above definition of matter is enough to condemn Big Bang Theory.  Readers will not be asked to abandon BB at this time, but for the remainder of this text, the volume of any matter cannot be created, nor does it appear possible to destroy matter, particles which occupy space.  It is only possible to change its location in space and/or its volume displacement per unit of time, which can be done only through the passage of some finite amount of time.  Therefore, the volume displacement of matter per unit of time in any particular location of occupied space may change at any given time but can only do so if time has also changed; thus time and matter are inexorably coupled in any event where matter has changed its position.

[If it is too big a leap for some readers for the author to claim that matter can exist without mass, then the problem may be resolved through semantics by stating that aether is a substance with volume but in strictest sense no effective mass, and matter is a substance with volume with mass.  The author knows this sounds like nitpicking but if one looks at the definition of matter as that which has mass and a substance is a form of matter, there doesn’t seem to be a right word for aether, which occupies space but has no effective mass in the strictest case. (Aether does not have gravitational properties – it creates gravitational properties.)]

Particles are particles and at all times.  This is not a new observation but the belief put forth by physicist David Bohm in 1952 (as quoted by John Horgan, The End of Science, page 86).  One could view this as a corollary or extension of the principle that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  Particles are a form of matter with mass (a form of energy characteristic of the particle and which helps to define the particle).  This statement means that particles cannot become waves nor vice versa, wave energy, a form of motion, cannot become particles.  Energy (motion) can be transferred from particle to particle in the form of waves but particles do not mysteriously or otherwise disappear to become energy (do not lose their occupation of space, their volume displacement in space remains constant, while their volume displacement in time can change – their energy and/or mass state can change).  This contrast between volume displacement in space versus volume displacement in time initially may appear to be somewhat confusing.  To help visualize this, think of a sphere with a volume of one cm3.  This is its fixed volume and can never be more in spatial displacement and can never be less.  Let it spin at ten rotations per second, its volume displacement in time would be ten cm3/sec or ten spin volumes.  Any change in rotation speed is a change in its energy state while its volume in spatial displacement remains constant.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but is a constant of the universe as we know it.  Energy does not change into matter and matter cannot be converted into energy.  Energy is motion or some change in the position of matter.  All energy is some form of motion and although energy can be transferred between particles of matter, it can never be destroyed or created beyond what is already present in the Universe as we know it.  Mass is a form of energy which resides on matter and it would appear that up to this point in time it has eluded definition with respect to its cause.  The effective mass of aether particles in the purest form is essentially zero.  However, as we shall discuss later, it appears that this basic attribute of aether allows other particles to show their “mass”, an energy state which is different from the aether matrix of the universe.  In other words, when particles reach a certain level of motion which is significantly different from the fundamental energy state of the aether, these particles acquire the characteristic energy state or differential motion state commonly known as mass.  Mass, however, is not a constant unto itself as it is a subset of energy.  Mass appears to be motion outside of the aether matrix.  This will be discussed more in depth in a later chapter.

Waves are a form of energy transfer (transfer of motion), either linear impulse (sound) or angular impulse (light)) through a medium or group of particles so that the average position of each particle over which the wave (of impulses) has passed remains the same.  Wave energy does not become a particle at any time but the final transfer where wave energy may be detected or changed from wave form is always done by a particle which receives the effective energy from the wave to allow this particular particle to act (move) in such a way as to reveal its new energy state (new state of motion).  This statement allows for light to move as a wave but be transferred as a “particle” pulse at the point of detection which makes wave movement compatible with photo electric effect and quantum theory.  There appear to be other factors which also may be in play with photo electric emission, which will be reviewed in chapter six.

 Time is absolute.  The writer again supports the position held by Newton, referenced earlier.  There is considerable evidence which appears to support relative time.  This apparent and significant ambiguity will be addressed later once QAT has been fully defined. 

Many readers of this text are likely to believe that there is experimental evidence which does not agree with the statements above about particles always being particles and particles never becoming waves.  Under the auspices of QAT, the reinterpretation of experiments which were believed to support particles becoming waves does not allow for particles to become waves, but only to remain as particles.  Wave-particle duality is not supported in quantum aether theory and will be further discussed in chapters four and six.


            Quantum Aether Theory Hypothesis   [ QAT ]

All energy is motion.  This means that heat, sound, chemical, microwave, light, radiant, electromagnetic, electrical, magnetic, radioactive, caloric, nuclear and any other designated forms of energy are due to motion (volume displacement over time).   As it is presently believed that mass is energy, then by logical extension, mass is motion or a gradient of motion.  Waves are a form of energy transfer (and therefore a transfer of motion), where:

Wave (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition),      dictionary.com

7. Physics

b.      A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is        transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself.

What is meant by disturbance?  It is the transfer of some sort of motion (energy), i.e. change in position of a structural object. (A volume displacement.)

   1] Therefore, there must exist a medium of some form of three-dimensional       array of particles over which the wave motion (energy) is transferred

   2] In any empty space, commonly referred to as a vacuum,  where it is known that sound cannot be transmitted but light readily passes, there must exist some form of three-dimensional element to allow for energy movement known as electromagnetic waves to pass through this space. 

   3] The entire energy of this system can be defined as total kinetic energy:      

         Total Kinetic Energy (TKE) = total linear motion + total rotational motion

          TKE = ½ mass x velocity squared + ½ moment of inertia x angular velocity squared

          TKE = ½ mv2 + ½ Iw2                                                                                        (2)

                                               

Since sound wave energy has been shown to be linear impulse (mv) and since no sound is present (mv = 0) in the above empty space through which light may pass, the formula reduces to       

          

           TKE =  ½ Iw2                   where  ½ (mv) v = 0                                                  (3)                                                          

     

   4] Therefore, light must be equivalent to an angular impulse (Iw)         

TKE = ½ (Iw) w where the impulse (Iw) moves at an angular velocity, w, which     must be proportional to speed of light c.

Then a photon is an angular impulse transferred on a particle; a photon is not a particle (it does not have any spatial volume itself but changes the volume position of a particle as does all motion (energy))

Empirical statement of electromagnetic energy qualities:  Light energy moves in a symmetrically expanding pattern at a speed of 3 x1010 centimeters per second, with an energy degradation proportional to 1/distance squared (1/d2), with polarized (transverse) motion and with a quantized final transfer of energy.

The light energy (aka angular impulse) does not move as a particle but as a torque impulse on aether medium particles and transfers energy as a quantized amount of movement (Iw) onto a final receptor particle.  Maxwell was quick to note that such a rotational energy transfer would require an “idler arm” character in order for any torque to move in a forward direction.  It has been shown that light movement conforms to the definitional qualities of a wave which include reflection, refraction, and interference, which do not support a direct particle movement of light, as required by corpuscular theory or photon theory.

          

5] The only three-dimensional object capable of rendering the above parameters of light is a sphere.  Therefore:

  

 TKE = ½ Iw2  =  ½ (2/5 mr2)w2     = 1/5 mr2w2                                                      (4)

where Moment of inertia of a solid sphere = 2/5 mr2   

The author acknowledges that a different Moment of inertia may need to be considered, such as a hollow sphere (2/3 mr2), solid disc (mr2/4), wire disc (mr2/2), or partial moment of a sphere, since contact point is not on equatorial axis.

 

6] Electron size, proton central core sphere, and aether sphere size are identical in spatial displacement size (not mass), and based on Planck’s constant, h, it can be shown that a reasonable radius of the aether sphere is approximately 2.3x10-14 cm. where Planck’s constant, h = Surface Area of a sphere. Then light energy moving through a vacuum at linear speed of c would be proportional to hv = 1/5 mr2w2  which gives an approximate angular velocity of 2.8x1023 rotations per second.

 

With the above considerations in mind, in order to conform to the above requirements of movement for electromagnetic wave energy, the following hypothetical structure is proposed as the medium, classically known as aether.   This medium must resemble a construct which exists as

 

   7] Aether -  A contiguous structure of body-centered identical spheres of approximate radius of 2.3x10-14 cm.  Alternating layers exhibit opposite spin at an approximate rotational speed of 2.8x1023 rotations per second and have an effective mass of zero in pure aether.  It occupies all space and all particles which occupy space, which are a subset of modified aether.  It readily transfers light wave energy (angular impulses).   Contiguous denotes the direct contact, “solid state”, of adjacent spheres to allow for transverse movement of light on the aether matrix.            


Chapter 4 - Waves are waves, particles are particles at all times.

Consider the wave concept with respect to sound.  Does sound energy travel by waves or particles?  If two people are standing six feet apart and one speaks, a voice is heard because of oscillating particles put into a vibratory state by the speaker’s vibrating vocal cords.  The particles next to the vocal cords are not the particles which carry the sound energy all the way to the listener’s ear.  The sound vibration moves from the voice box to the receiver’s ear in a wave form of vibrating particles of air which transfer the sound energy by repetitive crashing of a particle into its adjacent particle(s), exchanging the energy in the form of linear impulses.  The average position of the particles remains unchanged throughout the process.  Sound energy moves as longitudinal waves (direct line waves of compression-rarefaction of particles) of linear impulse on particles but not directly by any one particle.  This is the classic understanding of wave energy movement.

The characteristic of a wave is to transfer energy from one point to another without any particle of the medium being permanently displaced; particles merely oscillate about their equilibrium positions. [The Wordsworth Dictionary of Science and Technology, Cambridge University Press, 1995.]

Now take the example of light energy passing through a vacuum.  If one applies the concept that the total kinetic energy of a system is the sum of the translational energy plus the rotational energy within the system, it should be clear that the light energy in this circumstance (and essentially in all cases) is due to the angular impulses (carried or transferred by the aether particles) which pass through the vacuum.  There is no other energy in the system.  Energy is movement.  If mass is equivalent to energy, then mass is movement.  With this understanding, all energy can be traced back to some form of movement or difference in kinetic states.  Getting back to the movement of light through a vacuum, the total kinetic energy = T.K.E. = ½  mv2  + ½  Iw2   but in the vacuum, the linear or sound energy is virtually zero (linear impulse = mv = 0), so any EM energy passing through the vacuum is due to the angular K.E. or ½  Iw2, as a group of angular impulses [ Iw ] being pushed forward as a wave at velocity w .  The angular velocity is proportional to the speed of light so that linear velocity as linear displacement is related to the angular velocity or rotational displacement of a rotating sphere as     v = 2 pi r w                                                        (5)   but the actual linear displacement depends on the contact point of the spin.

As noted on the next page, in a body-centered elastic solid, a one-rotation linear displacement would be equal to four segments of the contact points of the rotating spheres which are located at an angle of ~35.26 degrees.

 

Then c = (4 segments@35.26o = 1.06E-13 cm) times w       w  = ~2.8E+23                   = ~3E+10 cm/sec                                                   rotations/second

In a body-centered solid with a sphere of radius 2.3E-14 cm with a linear displacement equal to the speed of light [3E+10 cm/sec], the angular velocity would equal approximately 2.8E+23 rotations per second.  This is as good a place to start as any for deriving an approximation of the aether spin velocity. [Note: at the equator of the sphere of radius 2.3E-14 cm rotating at 2.8E+23 rotations/second, the linear displacement actually would be about ~4.0E+10 cm/sec.  Quantum aether theory is based on a body-centered solid which places the spherical contact points at a 35.26 degree offset which must be used for any wave-linear displacement calculation.]  This radius may be adjusted at a future point, but whatever future aether theorists determine as the actual size of the aether sphere, ALL spheres are of equal size.  Aether matrix spheres, electrons, positrons, and central nucleon core spheres are all the same size (preservation of symmetry). Hydrogen atoms and all other atoms have entrained aether spheres, some of which have electron qualities, and thus have greater volume displacement per unit of time which will be discussed below under atomic structure. The size proposed above for aether sphere radius is not unreasonable as classical resting electron radius has been calculated to be on the order of 2.8E-13 cm., Design of the Universe, The Heavens and the Earth, Fritz Kahn, page 58.  Max Born in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, page 212, uses Millikan’s measurement of electron charge, e, to arrive at an electron radius of 1.88E-13 cm.  Recent experiments on proton core have given radius approximations from 0.21 to 0.89 femtometers (10E-15 meters) [2.1 to 8.9E-14 centimeters] (http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci860994,00.html) and using proton frequency of 2.27E+23 from the wave equation of mc2 = hv, one gets a radius of 2.86E-14 cm.  Again in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, page 288, Born calculates the proton nuclear core as having a radius of 1.5E-14 cm.  Whatever it turns out to be, it can be understood logically that this is the smallest indivisible particle in the universe and all of these spheres would have the same spatial displacement volume: electron, positron, proton center core sphere(s), and the neutron center core sphere(s).   And these have a fixed volume value which is total displacement in space and can never be less than one sphere volume, a function of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.  So why do many think that electrons are sometimes waves?  This is again a misinterpretation of an experimental result due to a lack of understanding of experimental limits created by the belief that aether did not exist.  If one shoots particles with no medium present (which was believed to be the case for a vacuum) then one has no reason to assume that the observed waves were anything other than the particles being shot into it.   But when shooting anything in aether, especially particles which are the same or greater size than the aether spheres, there is going to be a ripple effect (a wave).  The classic experiment, to which the writer is referring, is the double slit experiment, described by John Horgan, The End of Science, page 81:

“When electrons are aimed at a barrier containing two slits, the electrons act like waves; they go through both slits at once and form what is called an interference pattern, created by the overlapping of the waves, when they strike a detector on the far side of the barrier.  If the physicist closes off one slit at a time, however, the electrons pass through the open slit like simple particles and the interference pattern disappears.” Wheeler tried to add a “delayed-choice where the experimenter decides whether to leave both slits open or to close one off after the electrons have already passed through the barrier—with the same results.  The electrons seem to know in advance how the physicist will choose to observe them.

Under quantum aether theory, the physicist is firing the electrons in a medium which propagates the wave at the speed of light.  So unless the scientist’s choice is faster than the speed of light or unless the electrons are being fired at the speed of light, whenever there are two slits open, there will always be a wave interference pattern.  The electron could even miss the slit or be fired parallel to the slits or one could fire any other particle like a BB shot and a wave interference pattern still would occur as long as two slits were open.  Movement of the electron will make a wave in the aether, as does anything which moves within it.  Even experiments firing electrons in a vacuum at a blank wall detector are believed to show the “wave” pattern of electrons, until one realizes that the vacuum is not empty, it is full of aether spheres of the same size as electrons which act to deflect the electrons in a fixed pattern, most likely identical to a body-centered structural design seen by X-ray diffraction pattern.  Electrons are particles and at all times.  But as a particle, it can and does carry wave motion in various energy states and therefore is likely to transmit wave information to the aether on frequent occasions, but its spatial volume displacement can never be less than one sphere volume.

Particles, by remaining as particles all the time, do not divide.  Particles can be accelerated at different speeds while the speed of a wave is medium dependent.

 


Chapter 5 - Quantum Aether Theory Applied

          Structure

   Quantum aether theory is based on empirical data and appears to be supported by elastic dynamic theories which were advanced by prominent mathematicians of the early 19th century.  As QAT relies heavily on force and motion, action and reaction, it can be and should be viewed as a classical theory of mechanics. QAT is not a classical wave theory, as it is fairly well documented that wave theory collapses at the subatomic level, to be replaced at this level by the very successful quantum theory.  QAT, therefore, must accommodate classical wave theory seamlessly over quantum theory; it can and it does.   With the considerations of the previous paragraph in mind, aether can be defined as

a medium which occupies all space and is necessary for transferring EM energy (angular impulses) through all space and matter.  The medium consists of two alternating layers of oppositely rotating identical spheres in a body-centered cubic pattern with an estimated sphere radius of 2.3E-14 cm rotating at approximately 2.8E+23 rotations per second. [This equals approx 3.5E-24 seconds for one rotation.]


The expanded body-centered structure is for illustration only.  All spheres are in direct contact with the layer above and below them. The size and rotational velocity are open to debate; the body-centered geometry of oppositely rotating identical spheres is not negotiable. Any size change of the radius requires a reciprocal change in rotational velocity in order to maintain the appropriate value of c.  Why is the structure non-negotiable?  It is the only one that can meet all the demands of what aether must do.  If a better design can be constructed, the writer is more that ready to take note, but sincerely doubts any other structural design will work.  The body-centered matrix of contiguous spheres is a solid-equivalence structural state required for transverse wave motion of EM waves.  The author has reviewed articles on the internet referring to a fluidic designated state which would be an equivalent concept as long as the body-centered layers in direct contact are maintained.  Because this structure consists of more than 30% empty space, it has tremendous elasticity, more than enough for planets, meteors, and one’s arm to slide through it with almost no drag (until one’s speed approaches the speed of light).  When one walks through waist-deep water, resistance to walking is easy to notice and the faster one tries to walk, the harder it is to walk, due to the resistance of the water.  Now assume one is walking across a ten meter span of water at a speed of one millimeter every million years.  Not much resistance would be felt, if any, as the water displaced by one’s forward motion would have ample time to move behind the legs as one moves forward.  Because of the tremendous rotational velocity of the aether spheres, on the order of 2.8E+23 rotations per second, aether would be capable of this quality of extreme elasticity while still maintaining its effective “solid” state.  The opposite spin layers allow for polarity and idler arm quality as described by Maxwell necessary for outward or forward motion of the waves.   But more than any other property discussed above, in a vacuum under the influence of Earth’s gravity, this medium would move EM energy (an angular impulse) at the speed of light, 3E+10 cm per sec. 

As one studies the body-centered design, one will be able to see the crucial elements required for a carrier of light.  One important element, emphasized by Maxwell, is the idler arm effect of oppositely rotating layers. [The Natural Philosophy of James Clerk Maxwell by P.M. Harman, pages 102-104]  Unfortunately, Maxwell’s use of the idler arm concept in his model resulted in an asymmetrical structure with different size spheres which did not allow for smooth movement of EM in all directions.  But the idler arm concept is absolutely mandatory in order to keep same-directional spin particles from annihilating the structure and to maintain the momentum of the wave moving in a “forward” direction, even though EM acts through transverse waves.  The direct contact of all the spheres allows the aether medium to function as a solid even with extreme elasticity and tenuousness.

 

 

            Speed of Light

While there probably is a maximum speed of light, it is unlikely that 3E+10 cm/sec is the maximum as this is the speed as measured in a vacuum on earth under the influence of the earth’s mass and under the influence of our sun in our solar system.  It seems very likely that the aether spin, and, therefore, the speed of light is faster in deep space between stars and the fastest at the point most remote from any two galaxies, where it would be least influenced (or slowed) by mass.  It is clear that mass and gravity (which is the result of mass) slow light, which directly translates to slower aether spin velocity.  This becomes very clear when one looks at what happens to light speed as we move from a vacuum (1), to air (1.000293), to water (1.333), to glass (1.50), and to carbon diamond (2.417).  (Refractive Indices noted in parenthesis).  With the radius of a sphere remaining constant at estimated 2.3E-14 cm., then

                                                  m/sec                                         Rot/sec

Speed of light in vacuum    299792458          requires 2.827E+23

                        Air                   299704645                                2.826E+23

                        Water              224900569                                2.121E+23

                        Glass              199861639                                1.884E+23

                        Diamond        123932393                                1.169E+23

 

This appears to be the mechanism by which light moves more slowly in different substances: lower spin velocity of the entrapped aether structure transfers EM at a slower speed than aether in a vacuum.  In the theory of electrons, after introducing the theory of “electrons”, Lorentz came to his item 7, page 11, in which he stated,

“Indeed, one of the most important of our fundamental assumptions must be that the ether not only occupies all space between molecules, atoms or electrons, but that it pervades all these particles. We shall add the hypothesis that, though the particles may move, the ether always remains at rest. We can reconcile ourselves with this, at first sight, somewhat startling idea, by thinking of the particles of matter as of some local modification in the state of the ether. These modifications may of course very well travel onward while the volume-elements of the medium in which they exist remain at rest.”

When earlier physicists were stating “at rest,” it is not entirely clear to the writer what they meant by “at rest” at the time, but it is clear now that “at rest” should reflect the wave definition of particles “at rest” in the sense that the particles have no meaningful change in relative position.  Yet they are moving all the time in transmitting EM information in whatever direction is needed as it passes through the aether matrix and through any massive particle which allows EM/light transfer. 

 

 

 

            Gravity

As we have just noted above, speed of light varies significantly in different substances, which is theorized in this text as the direct result of different spin velocity of the aether entrained in each specific substance.  But the first two listed can also be thought of as variance in speed according to proximity of mass.  As one moves farther away from the center of mass of a planet or star, air becomes thinner and thinner until it reaches a “vacuum” state.  This, in turn, implies that the speed of light, and therefore the spin velocity of the aether, increases as one moves from a planetary surface to the borders of space beyond atmosphere, magnetosphere, or heliosphere.  This should be easy to confirm by measuring the speed of light as one gets higher and higher (although this result is already suggested by light being faster in a vacuum.)  In this case, it can be readily theorized and empirically implied that an aether gradient exists as one moves away from the surface of a planet.  Although this idea occurred as a direct result of the aether design, it is far from original thought.  As previously mentioned, Newton proposed that “its (aether’s) density varies from one body to another, being greatest in free interplanetary spaces,” (Whittaker, page 19) and “the density of the aether might vary from place to place, and that bodies might tend to move from the denser parts of the medium toward the rarer.” (Whittaker, page 28)  One has to be careful here in interpreting what exactly is meant by “density” which appears to apply to a volume gradient density, not a mass density.  Since the aether spin is higher in the vacuum of space, this results in a greater volume (spin volume) density per unit of time which causes any massive object or substance which does not displace the same volume per unit of time to be pushed to an area of lower spin volume, the lowest being on the surface of the nearest planet.  But as we know, hydrogen and helium actually move away from the surface, and according to QAT then, these particles evidently have a high spin volume relative to other particles and for that reason would be displaced away from areas of lower spin volume.  This is an explanation of gravity as a direct force concept, no action at a distance included. It is relatively simple; it is what QAT implies.  Although it is probably much more complicated than shown here, the formulas on page 44 show a reasonable conclusion of a gravity gradient due to variation in the speed of light as a function of aether spin velocity as one moves away from the surface of a planet.

 

Speed of light in space (vacuum) =  299792458  meters/second

Speed of light in air                          =  299704645  meters/second  

This gives a gradient difference of about 88000 meters/second of potential acceleration from the vacuum of space to surface of earth.

 

 

 

To carry it one step farther, gravitational lensing then becomes a function of aether spin. The general relativity concept of bending space becomes invalid.  What does occur with the bending of light passing near massive objects is nothing less than a demonstration of Fermat’s principle of least time; light travels the route which would take the least time during reflection or refraction.  Since light velocity is dependent on aether spin which is slower near the surface of mass, the path of light will “bend” around the entrained aether of a mass by moving to a level where it can transit space at the fastest line, which may not be the shortest or straightest line.

 

Einstein’s general theory allows for prediction of bending of light by using distance from mass as a surrogate for the apparent cause, speed of light variation.   As one moves farther away from center of mass, the speed of light speeds up because the aether spin velocity increases.  Light speed is not an invariant as claimed by special theory of relativity.

           

            Angle of deviation   a  = 2 K M  / V2R                                                        (6)

 

where M is mass of a star, V is invariant speed of light, K is the constant of gravitation, and R the distance from the center of the sphere to the ray (Rougier-Masius, Philosophy of the New Physics , page 93). The distance R from center of mass has to be used to correct for the error of assuming speed of light is a constant.

 

In QAT, light speed increases with distance from center of mass and the angle of deviation is actually the result of the principle of least time, which is also a form of refraction.  Therefore, if the speed of light gradient can be identified (of which the gravity variance is a surrogate), the angle of deviation could be calculated on that basis.

 


          Mass

If somehow one would be able to see aether in the most remote area between galaxies, based on the design noted above, one would see essentially two identical layers of spheres, one rotating to the left (counterclockwise) and the other to right (clockwise), carefully noting that two spheres of identical spin never touch each other.  For want of a better term, consider a  nine-sphere body-centered structure, designated as a NANOcube, which consists of nine spheres, one on each corner of the cube and one in the center which has the opposite spin direction of the other eight.  As long as all spin speeds are identical, it would be impossible to tell any difference between two adjacent spheres of the same spin.  Let’s assume all spheres spin at 100 rotations per second (rps) so that a NANOcube has a total of 900 rotations per second (spin volumes) and that the laws of conservation of matter (sphere volume) and energy (motion) must not be violated.  Now for whatever reason (Newton’s outside force), the center sphere of the NANOcube slows to 92 rps, but motion must be conserved so the eight corner spheres each pick up one rotation to 101 rotations per second so conservation of motion is fulfilled as we still have a total of 900 spin volumes.  But now we have a problem.  Because of the differential spin velocity between the center 92 rps and the corner 101 rps spheres, either the slower spin center sphere will have to start moving in a retrograde spin due to the higher spin velocity of the corner spheres or the corner spheres will start moving through space by circling the center sphere at some specified rate.  This is because the surface contact points are moving faster on the corner spheres than on the center.  This in itself probably doesn’t seem too dramatic, until one realizes another differential.  The new NANOcube spins are no longer compatible with the fundamental aether spin, and the NANOcube complex breaks away from the ocean of undetectable aether particles.  The NANOcube has acquired mass – energy of motion which is nonconforming with fundamental aether spin velocity.  It has separated itself from the aether “pack”.  The writer is not saying that the NANOcube is an actual particle of any type such as a proton, which is almost certainly more complex than this, but the illustration demonstrates very well how mass can be defined within QAT.  During consideration of mass, it may be helpful to consider the dimensions (labels) of mass.  Maxwell was quick to point out that mass has the dimensions of L3 / T2 which means length cubed over time squared.  He does this by combining the Newtonian mass law with Galilean movement formula showing that

S = ½ ft2 = ½ mt2 / r2 and rearranging m = 2 s r2 / t2                                         (8)*

             (A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism, Vol.1 by James Clerk Maxwell, page 4)

*Note the f in ½ ft2 is used by Maxwell to represent acceleration (a) as in the modern displacement formula of ½ at2.

 

With this in mind, it is reasonable to consider several possible scenarios for mass.  Volume times angular acceleration is one possible conclusion.  This would include a spinning sphere whose volume (L3) is under constant acceleration due to its rotational motion   (angular velocity squared w2 = (theta)/ T2).  An alternative possibility would be the linear acceleration (L/ T2) of a surface area (SA) (L2) (representing the displacement of the surface of a rotating sphere).  The second definition is favored by the writer (Mass = SA times Linear Acceleration).  If we use SA times an acceleration, then m = hv/c2 must equal SA and for one spin (v = 1) and assuming that 1 mass UNIT = 1,

then hv = mc2 = (4pi r2 )(4 pi2 w2) = 4pi r2 (1)      and v = 2 pi w = 1               (9)

Using this calculation gives a radius of 2.3E-14 cm, very close to the radius expressed by Born, above, who calculates the proton nuclear core as having a radius of 1.5E-14 cm.

What about mass increase as velocity increases?  We have already stated that mass is energy and that all energy is motion.  As crudely described above, mass appears to be the result of particles moving differently from the basic aether spin. This creates a volume differential.  The volume per unit of time is different.  When an electron is accelerated to a high velocity(v(e)), why does its mass increase by the formula m/ (Square root (1 – v(e)2/c2))?  As the electron approaches the speed of light, it starts running into aether spheres which create a drag to the electron, which would increase the volume gradient (mass) experienced by the electron.  It would appear that the more aether volume is displaced, the greater the mass.  Remember c2 is proportional to the aether spin velocity (c2 ~ 4 pi2r2w2).  The faster the electron speed, the more likely it is to bump into the aether and experience aether drag in an exponential or squared function.

      Photon

Theoretically, it is possible to extend this concept using the energy formula of a photon, E = hv.  Then assuming a single rotation is equivalent to one surface area displacement of an aether sphere [hv = Surface area of a sphere (4 pi2 Radius squared), the radius of that sphere would be approximately 2.3E-14 cm., which is within the range of what proton core radii have been empirically found to be.  Although there are many, including Einstein, who consider photons for some purposes to be particles, the author believes photons are NOT particles but angular impulses which could change the effective radius of aether particles in such a way that an aether particle appears to be moving faster (high frequency tilt) or slower (low frequency tilt).  If the impulse somehow changes the fundamental 35.26 degree contact point (through an angular impulse), the spin volume per unit of time will also change while transmitting EM waves (but it will oscillate essentially to no change in relative position over time – the definition of wave motion through a medium).  In an attempt to clarify what has just been stated, the spin velocity in rotations per second is identical whether it is a fraction of a degree from the axial pole or at the equator.  But the difference in linear displacement can be quite pronounced since the displacement near the pole would be much greater than the displacement near the equator.  This sounds backwards but if one sphere is in contact with another and the first sphere contact point is nearer its pole so that its circumference at the point of contact is only one-half that of the second  sphere’s point of contact circumference, the first sphere will spin twice for every one spin of the second sphere.  In other words, the first sphere’s spin volume displacement would be twice that of the second sphere.  This is an exaggerated example but because basic spin rotations are so fast, on the order of 1023 rotations per second, even a fraction of degree of tilt could give a significant result. Yet, since the sphere would oscillate over the contact point, the average displacement would be zero.

It is generally accepted that photons travel only at the speed of light, have no rest mass or charge and fail the concept of particle on almost all levels.  A particle such as an electron or rock, can be put in motion at a wide variety of speeds but almost never faster than the speed of light (there is a condition where particles may exceed the speed of light in a medium where light is moving less than c - Čerenkov radiation).  Particles can be accelerated, but photons cannot.  Photon speed is carrier dependent. Sound speed is carrier dependent.  Light energy divides its energy continuously as it moves through space, but particles cannot, at least at the level of the electron or aether sphere. There is no further possible division of these particles.  Therefore, photons are a wave entity, not particles.  This will be further discussed in chapter 7.


          Energy decay as 1 / distance squared

If one measures light energy at a specific distance from a source and then measures the amount of light energy over the same area at a distance twice as far, on average, it will show only one-fourth the amount of energy.  It has been well documented experimentally that light energy decays at a rate proportional to one over the distance squared.  The body-centered model supports this concept and does so by showing the energy actually spreads out on the number of particles at a rate which is equivalent to the square of the distance.  Since the fourth particle layer = 16 in number, at the eighth layer, which is twice the distance, the number of particles becomes 82 or 64 and by layer 16, the particle count jumps to 256 or four times the number that was present at one-half the distance.  At this distance, using the same number of particles that was at the eighth layer (64), one will find only one-fourth the amount of energy over the same area.  This energy distribution is an “average” concept because there appear to be some irregularities when one begins to look at individual photon distribution.   Although the ratio of energy decay as proportional to distance squared appears consistent with the expected smoothness of wave energy motion, a “crack” of classical wave theory smoothness was presented in 1903 by J.J.Thomson.  He was studying X-rays, which like ordinary light, can be diffracted.  When he passed some of these EM rays through gases, ionization occurred in a very small fraction of the particles, much less than expected for a uniform wave front since all the gas particles should have been exposed to the same amount of energy.  Thompson’s answer: “The difficulty in explaining the small ionization is removed if, instead of supposing the front of the Rontgen ray to be uniform, we suppose that it consists of specks of great intensity separated by considerable intervals where the intensity is very small.” (Whittaker2, page 74).  Whittaker goes on in a subsequent paragraph to state, “Thompson originated the conception of needle radiation i.e. that in the elementary process of light-emission, the radiations from a source are not distributed equally in all azimuths, but are concentrated in certain directions.”  As mentioned very early on, perhaps this aether theory would be better served by calling it quantum aether theory.  It was also stated earlier that QAT can accommodate anything that quantum theory throws at it.  The aether matrix is made of particles and by design is very granular, quantized as individual spheres.  If we consider a scenario of a spreading “wave” impulse, it is possible to show the mechanism which explains this characteristic.  Starting with a single particle (sphere) and doing a single-sided energy spread, one can understand how an uneven distribution would occur.  If we do just five layers of spread assuming energy is dispersed “evenly” in the first illustration as expected in a classic wave, evenly distributed energy ratios appear.   But it doesn’t make any sense in QAT that energy is spread evenly as expected in classic wave theory since when one moves from the second level of four spheres to the third level of nine spheres, all four transmitting spheres touch the center sphere and only one or two touch the remaining eight spheres of the 3x3 level.

The first graph is made for illustration only to suggest what the pattern might be if energy was distributed evenly as what one might expect in classical wave theory of 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, and 36 spheres.

INCORRECT  PATTERN  ---  Even distribution pattern   NOT consistent                                                    with contact pattern energy spread

1

4096

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

1024

1024

 

 

 

 

 

1024

1024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

455.11

455.11

455.11

 

 

 

 

455.11

455.11

455.11

 

 

 

 

455.11

455.11

455.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

256

256

256

256

 

 

 

256

256

256

256

 

 

 

256

256

256

256

 

 

 

256

256

256

256

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

 

 

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

 

 

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

 

 

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

 

 

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

163.84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

 

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

 

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

 

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

 

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

 

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

113.78

 

                                                                                                                                                                                      But actual distribution appears more granular       as noted below if one uses the assumption    that each sphere passes on one-fourth of its         energy to one of the four spheres with which it             is in contact.

 

 


      Actual Projected Energy Dispersion by sphere contact points

       and PERCENT of dispersion through 5 levels

1

 

4096

 

Total

Energy  

 

 

1

100.00%

Per

Cent   -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

1024

1024

 

 

 

 

4

25.0%

25.0%

 

 

 

 

 

1024

1024

 

 

 

 

 

25.0%

25.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

256

512

256

 

 

 

9

6.3%

12.5%

6.3%

 

 

 

 

512

1024

512

 

 

 

 

12.5%

25.0%

12.5%

 

 

 

 

256

512

256

 

 

 

 

6.3%

12.5%

6.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

64

192

192

64

 

 

16

1.6%

4.7%

4.7%

1.6%

 

 

 

192

576

576

192

 

 

 

4.7%

14.1%

14.1%

4.7%

 

 

 

192

576

576

192

 

 

 

4.7%

14.1%

14.1%

4.7%

 

 

 

64

192

192

64

 

 

 

1.6%

4.7%

4.7%

1.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

16

64

96

64

16

 

25

0.4%

1.6%

2.3%

1.6%

0.4%

 

 

64

256

384

256

64

 

 

1.6%

6.3%

9.4%

6.3%

1.6%

 

 

96

384

576

384

96

 

 

2.3%

9.4%

14.1%

9.4%

2.3%

 

 

64

256

384

256

64

 

 

1.6%

6.3%

9.4%

6.3%

1.6%

 

 

16

64

96

64

16

 

 

0.4%

1.6%

2.3%

1.6%

0.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

4

20

40

40

20

4

36

0.1%

0.5%

1.0%

1.0%

0.5%

0.1%

 

20

100

200

200

100

20

 

0.5%

2.4%

4.9%

4.9%

2.4%

0.5%

 

40

200

400

400

200

40

 

1.0%

4.9%

9.8%

9.8%

4.9%

1.0%

 

40

200

400

400

200

40

 

1.0%

4.9%

9.8%

9.8%

4.9%

1.0%

 

20

100

200

200

100

20

 

0.5%

2.4%

4.9%

4.9%

2.4%

0.5%

 

4

20

40

40

20

4

 

0.1%

0.5%

1.0%

1.0%

0.5%

0.1%

As shown above, in the 6x6 spread, the central four spheres of 36 hold onto almost 40% of the energy when in “classical” theory, one would expect only 1/9th or 11% on any four spheres.   However, if one totals any of the four quarter sections, one gets 1024 units or one-fourth the energy at twice the distance from the same number of spheres at the third level (3x3).  The pattern supported by energy decay equals one over the distance squared.  But as Thompson suggests, not all azimuths are created equally.  As the pattern spreads out beyond the second level, the centered superior and centered side points receive considerably higher energy than corners and the true center receives the highest amount of energy.  As one can see, even by as early as the sixth layer, the corners receive one-tenth less energy than the center sides and core center spheres are ten times higher than the side spheres (100 times more energy than the corners).  This is one of several quantum connections which appear to link wave theory to quantum particle theory.  The writer believes there is data available that shows this phenomena which could also serve as a premise for supporting or falsifying quantum aether theory.  Everything the writer has read supports this distribution which body-centered aether would generate.   Having said that, the above analysis of wave energy distribution is a “dumbed” down version since the author considered only ONE side expansion as opposed to the SIX polygonal expansion required for all-directional expansion as the norm for light wave expansion.   In this scenario the cubic corner spheres each would appear in three of the polygonal expansions and the side spheres in two, suggesting that the corners and sides would have more energy than was noted in the above example.

As noted in chapter 1, in the late 17th century, Huygens first presented the concept of wave front as,

each surface-element of the wave-front may be regarded as the source of a secondary     wave, which in a homogenous isotropic medium will be propagated outwards from the surface-element in the form of a sphere.”(Whittaker, page 24)

For those readers who have already begun to explore how a body-centered aether structure would transmit wave energy, it would appear that Huygens’ concept of spherical wave dispersal may be in conflict with the aether structure.  The author believes, based on a body-centered design, the wave movement would have to take the form of an expanding five-sided pyramid in six directions at the same time, in other words, a cuboid expansion.  This certainly doesn’t appear compatible with Hugyens’ spheroid expansion.  But as was just discussed above, wave energy is not distributed evenly, so that even though light expands as a square, the energy levels appear more “spheroidal” since the energy level drops off significantly towards the sides of the pyramidal faces.  If the wave phases are measured using a spherical design, the author believes the wave phases would be out of phase.  While wave phase expansion appears more cuboidal, wave energy expansion appears more spheroidal.

    The Atom

The atom is presently described as mostly empty with electrons circling around the nucleus in complex wave patterns, generally described by Schrodinger’s wave equations.  It is well proven that light can enter atoms causing an excited state which results in changes in energy levels of electrons by absorption of EM energy.  If this energy is lost, EM energy is emitted and every elemental atom has its own unique signature emission.  How light does this through empty space remains quite a mystery.  With QAT, atoms are not mostly empty but consist of millions of circling spheres around a central core of one (hydrogen) or more (all other atoms)  nucleons, which are spheres.  All spheres, central core spheres (proton core and neutron core), all circling spheres, and those which have been labeled as electrons are the same size.  In a hydrogen atom with an approximate empirically measured radius of 25 picometers there would be an estimated 8.9E+14 spheres while any atom of radius 200 picometers would be surrounded by a cloud of no less than 4.5E+17 spheres.  The largest empirically measured radius, cesium, at 260 picometers, would contain a massive 1E+18 number of spheres, over a quintillion (short scale) spheres, a lot of spheres. In comparison, a human body of approximately 0.06 cubic meter volume would contain approximately 8.1E+44 spheres.  That seems almost like an unreal number but that is what the calculations show. Remember one aether sphere has a volume of 5E-41 cubic centimeters.  Most physicists believe that the electron is NOT a sphere but some conglomeration of wave energy which sometimes moves as a wave and sometimes as a particle.  In review of the literature and data, the author has not found any information within QAT that supports the electron moving as a wave.  One source of information which is felt to support an electron being a wave is an electron diffraction pattern which not surprisingly looks similar to a wave pattern.  A condition in making this interpretation of this result is stating the pattern is done in a vacuum of empty space.  QAT disallows any such empty space.  The electrons are moving in aether medium and cause a wave in the aether, giving the illusion that one electron can turn into a wave.  It doesn’t.  It’s making waves in the aether.  Quantum theory descriptions of wave probabilities of the electron within the atom appear to be describing the wave patterns on the huge cloud of entrained aether spheres (here referred to as electrons) within nuclei of atoms.  Energy level restrictions demanded by wave function formula, (n2h2/8ma2) are also consistent with energy distribution in a body-centered solid, with n2 being proportional to the number of particles recruited at the next available contact area.

This is probably as good a time as any to discuss aether mechanics.  First of all, how does aether resolve seemingly non-mechanics concepts such as electromagnetism in terms of wave mechanics?  As discussed earlier in the history of aether chapter on page 17, Whittaker explains that MacCullagh’s differential equations for an elastic solid are directly convertible into EM theory as electric and magnetic force.  What about Schrodinger’s wave mechanics?  As noted by George Gamov in Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Physics, page 105, “unbelievable as it seemed at first, his (Schrodinger’s) wave mechanics was mathematically identical with Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, and that, in fact, and one could derive either from the other….today one uses wave-and-matrix mechanics intermittently depending on one’s taste and convenience.”  Aether is a mechanics-based medium compatible with matrix mechanics laws of the conservation of mechanical momentum.  The interesting patterns of wave motion defined by wave mechanics, a.k.a. matrix mechanics, are very likely real but do not represent the probability of locations of individual electrons, but more likely represent wave patterns on billions of aether spheres entrained within the atom by the proton core energy states.  This leads to an interesting view of atoms which possibly could help atomists sort this out.  If we briefly revisit the “NANOcube”, discussed in mass concepts, page 46, it is possible to view this as the central core structure of the hydrogen atom.  If this were the case, then it is possible to view the top four spheres as the Up quarks, the bottom four as Down quarks, and the central sphere as the massive S quark, which, of course, leads the atomic physicists to cry foul since there are only three quarks according to their calculations.  This problem may be resolved by realizing that the top four spheres are essentially identical and pretty much indistinguishable from each other as are the bottom four, therefore, although there are nine spheres in the NANOcube, there are only three distinct sphere states.

 A single linear millimeter of adjacent aether spheres (OOOOO) would consist of approximately 3.77E+12 spheres or nearly 2.17E+12 spheres in a direct diagonal line of spheres.  The illustration on the next page helps to show just how small the aether spheres, aka electrons, are. [One picometer equals E-10 centimeters.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please go to below site to see actual image

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/stm.html) (1 picometer = 1E-10 cm)

Based on QAT, in a spherical section of a single iron atom of empirical diameter ~280 picometers, there would be greater than 1.5E+17 electron (=entrained aether) spheres.  The ring diameter is estimated at 4300+ picometers, which would require ~16 million spheres to cross it (OOOOO) at four offset spheres every 1.06E-13 cm, more than enough to form wave patterns without the particle being a wave.  A surface area plate of diameter 4300 picometers x 5.3E-14 cm thickness (two sphere thicknesses) would have approximately 4.2E+14 spheres to play like waves.  It would appear that one is actually seeing the entrained aether in action like an ocean of particles, as an ocean of particles, truly magnificent. [Of course, the actual thickness of the copper sheet is much greater than two spheres.  A single copper atom (diameter of 270 picometers) alone would contain approximately 1.4E+17 spheres.]

Another very interesting fact is that essentially 96% of matter in the universe with mass that is not hydrogen, hydrogen isotopes, or helium is represented by ten atoms, of which eight of the ten appear to be quad cores (multiples of four nucleons ~ alpha particles - Helium multiples).  The author cannot believe this is coincidental, but is not aware of any present scientific theories to explain the empirical data.  QAT addresses this issue with nucleon spin resonance stability.  In order to be a more stable state, it appears four nucleon spins are required.  Hydrogen, which is the most abundant of all, does not interfere within its own nucleus because it is a single spin (except for Deuterium and Tritium).  Hydrogen and helium are not included in the calculation as their mass stability and mass amount overwhelm all the rest, being 4E+10 gm for 1H and 1.2E+10 gm for 4He per 1E+06 atoms of silicon in the universe.  Just adding a second nucleon to 2H, Deuterium, destabilizes it enough that deuterium has only 1.21E+07 gm which puts it all the way down to tenth on the list.  Tritium, 3H, which is reported as only 1 3H to every 10+14  1H atoms and 3He are not even on the chart, the third nucleon spin appears to be significantly destabilizing.  There is absolutely no doubt that most physicists know more about harmonics than the author, but it is very clear from this data sheet that multiples of four (alpha cores) are preferred for the stability of atoms.  There is good reason to believe this is due to resonance of the nucleons, of which only four non-competing spin positions are possible in a sine wave pattern, after which resonant decay or interference creates less stable atoms.  One can view this as sine wave overlap (See chart below)..   Only 14Nitrogen (14 nucleon) and 22Neon (22 nucleon) make it into the top ten of stable elements, the other eight being multiples of alpha cores (4xN nucleons).  It can be seen that the multiples #2 (8 nucleons) and #9 (36 nucleons) are missing and there appears to be good reason for #8 to be missing, such as resonance bounce-back decay.  The author is in need of some help on #36 but believes its rarity is most likely also due to some sort of resonance instability.


Natural Abundance in Universe (atoms per 10E+06 Si atoms) *

Cumulative

Element

Per cent

Atoms per

Atomic

Nucleon

Mass

 

Quad

Mass

Mass

Isotope

1E+06 Si

 #

  #

 

 

Multiple

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(alpha)

3.43E+08

3.431E+08

99.76%

2.15E+07

8

16

15.995

O

4

4.99E+08

1.563E+08

90.92%

8.60E+06

10

20

19.992

Ne

5

5.91E+08

9.208E+07

99.63%

6.60E+06

7

14

14.003

N

3.5

6.33E+08

4.153E+07

98.89%

3.50E+06

6

12

12.000

C

3

6.59E+08

2.580E+07

92.21%

1E+06

14

28

27.977

Si

7

6.90E+08

3.076E+07

91.66%

6E+05

26

56

55.93400

Fe

14

7.07E+08

1.722E+07

78.70%

9.12E+05

12

24

23.985

Mg

6

7.23E+08

1.668E+07

8.82%

8.60E+06

10

22

21.991

Ne22

5.5

7.35E+08

1.139E+07

95.00%

3.75E+05

16

32

31.972

S

8

7.41E+08

5.970E+06

99.60%

1.50E+05

18

40

39.962

Ar

10

 

2.647E+06

11.17%

9.12E+05

12

26

25.983

Mg26

6.5

96.3%

2.563E+06

100.00%

9.50E+04

13

27

26.982

Al

6.75

 

2.308E+06

10.13%

9.12E+05

12

25

24.986

Mg25

6.25

7.70E+08

1.884E+06

5.82%

6E+05

26

54

53.93900

Fe

13.5

Mass of

9.432E+06

26.23%

600000

28

60

59.93000

Ni

15

First 59

1.362E+06

4.70%

1E+06

14

29

28.976

Si29

7.25

Most

1.078E+06

67.88%

2.74E+04

28

58

57.93500

Ni

14.5

Abundant

9.978E+05

100.00%

4.34E+04

11

23

22.990

Na

5.75

Atoms

9.262E+05

3.09%

1E+06

14

30

29.974

Si30

7.5

(including

7.894E+05

0.20%

2.15E+07

16

18

17.999

O18

4.5

Isotopes)

7.481E+05

2.19%

6E+05

26

57

56.93500

Fe

14.25

per

5.375E+05

4.22%

3.75E+05

34

34

33.968

S34

8.5

1E+06

5.052E+05

1.11%

3.50E+06

12

13

13.004

C13

3.25

atoms

4.640E+05

0.26%

8.60E+06

10

21

20.994

Ne21

5.25

of Silicon

3.763E+05

100.00%

6850

25

55

54.93800

Mn

13.75

 

3.663E+05

0.37%

6.60E+06

7

15

15.000

N15

3.75

 

3.393E+05

83.76%

7800

 

52

51.94000

Cr

13

 

3.097E+05

100.00%

1E+04

31

31

30.974

P

7.75

 

2.337E+05

75.53%

8850

 

35

34.969

Cl

8.75

 

1.352E+05

0.04%

2.15E+07

 

17

16.999

O17

4.25

 

1.146E+05

93.10%

3160

 

39

38.964

K

9.75

 

1.061E+05

100.00%

1800

 

59

58.93000

Co

14.75

 

9.397E+04

0.76%

3.75E+05

 

33

32.971

S33

8.25

 

8.650E+04

73.94%

2440

 

48

47.948

Ti

12

 

8.005E+04

24.47%

8850

 

37

36.966

Cl37

9.25

 

4.437E+04

2.06%

4.90E+04

 

44

43.955

Ca44

11

 

3.944E+04

9.55%

7800

 

53

52.94000

Cr

13.25

 

3.040E+04

100.00%

1600

 

19

18.998

F

4.75

*7.7 E+08 gms. of first 59 common atoms (isotopes) per 1E+06 atoms of silicon

[Not including Hydrogen, Hydrogen isotopes, or Helium]   7.41 E+08 gms. of first ten atoms = 96.3%   *(Scientific Tables, 7th Edition, Documenta Geigy, 1973, pages 234-237.*[From Suess and Urey, Rev.mod.Phys., 28, 53 (1956).

 

 

As noted on the next page of theoretical nucleon wave patterns, there are two possible patterns for 2H, or deuterium.  The author favors the second pattern but presently has no way to confirm this other than the understanding that the first pattern would appear to be more stable than hydrogen and therefore should be more abundant than 1H if it were the actual pattern of 2H nucleon resonance.  Also, the first of the two sine-wave resonance patterns is offset by 180 degrees which in the author’s opinion would suggest two identical nucleons, either two protons or two neutrons, which is not the case as presently described for 2H as a proton and a neutron.  The author believes this pattern would require a “skip” level which likely is not allowed to occur.  Tritium, one proton and two neutrons, has only one possible pattern with the sine wave resonance interpretation, which also allows for 3Helium as an alternate spin of three nucleons, two protons and one neutron.  This interpretation of QAT theory is certainly pushing the limits and requires significant assistance to better define intra-nuclear resonance concepts.

 

 

 

 

 

Theoretical Nucleon Wave Resonance

          The Particle ZOO

From Steven Weinberg’s The Discovery of Subatomic Particles, page 167:  “In the debris of collisions of the high-energy protons from these accelerators were found a great variety of new hadrons, labeled rho, omega, eta, phi, delta, xi , theta, etc.-so many that the Greek alphabet was in danger of exhaustion.  They were all unstable, with extremely short lifetimes, which is the reason why they are absent in ordinary matter…”   With the QAT-imposed structure of atoms, it becomes easy to understand why a wide range of structures would appear from these collisions.  The hydrogen proton consists of almost a million billion spheres (>8.9E+14).  Just knowing that atoms are not “empty” space between the electrons and the proton-neutron core should be enough to help resolve this confusing state of affairs.  On the left is a coarse drawing of a positron-electron pair formed by a gamma wave.  The pair forms and then disappears from existence.

While their mass disappears, their volume does not.  It remains, hidden in the aether matrix, now concealed as aether spheres, much like how molecules of a drop of water would disappear when the drop falls into the ocean.  One might take some water back out of the ocean, but the chance of getting the exact same water which formed the drop is unlikely.  Aether fills all vacuums (in order to transmit light), so another positron electron pair can be formed anywhere in it, as long as the energy state is adequate to break them free from the grip of the aether spin inertia.  Using protons to slam into one another, knowing that they consist of billions and billions of spheres, leads to the logical conclusion that one would get a lot of short-lived particles.  Since opposite layers have opposite spin, and action-reaction conservation needs to be met, it is not only logical that oppositely charged pairs would be created but almost mandatory, based on laws of conservation of momentum = the momentum being unchanged as the pairs cancel each other out.  The gamma wave energy was consumed in the spatial (linear) displacement of the positron-electron; it was short-lived in part because the surrounding aether will reset them or the particle will reform to a more stable resonant state as discussed above in atomic structure. 

.

 

 

 

 


      Thermodynamics

Based upon the author’s understanding of the qualities of aether as described here, it would appear that aether structure allows the melding of the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, with the second law of thermodynamics, the irreversibility of nature as entropy increases over time.   As discussed under mass concepts, all matter with mass came from the aether matrix, by changing its spin relative to the aether base spin.  In other words, all matter could theoretically, over enough time, return to the aether matrix.  This would mean that although the entire mass (energy which is differential motion relative to aether spin) of the universe could disappear, the total energy would remain unchanged.  It now would be conserved and hidden in aether spin.  Based on our present understanding of energy concepts, the entropy of a system tends toward loss of energy as heat, which is considered irreversible.  Aether spin could conserve all energy, and, if necessary, could do so at absolute zero.  As matter with mass reenters aether matrix, the spheres immediately adjacent to this matter would act in a way to reset all spheres to the same rotational velocity.  With all aether spheres spinning at the same speed, there would be no heat, no mass, no “external” energy (motion) of any type.  This, of course, appears to go against the third law: that absolute zero cannot be reached.  But the author believes that since all energy would be conserved in the aether spin, should absolute zero be reached, then the third is simply a statement that is it extremely unlikely that absolute zero would ever be reached.  As low temperature physicists know, almost all known substances solidify as their temperature approaches absolute zero, except 4Helium, which not only does not solidify but turns into a superfluid state.

          While everything else is frozen up solid, helium can remain a liquid, and not only that,     but a liquid which in certain circumstances can flow about with no resistance whatever to         its movement……4He becoming superfluid while 3He does not.  Many theorists feel that it must be due ultimately to matters of symmetry. (Near Zero, D.K.C. MacDonald, pages     93, 96)

This characteristic yields support for two qualities of aether as described by QAT.  As discussed under atoms on pages 56-59, the “quad” core of 4He appears to be exceptionally stable due to a resonant state of its four internal nucleons.  This would help explain 4He stability at low temp versus 3He as noted by Dr. MacDonald.  It also supports the concept of aether itself being a “superfluid” which acts like a solid for transmission of light energy by transverse waves while being fluid enough for planets, planes, and people to freely pass through it.

QAT as described shows how aether can act to conserve energy as entropy increases and as systems approach absolute zero.   Since the mass number for electrons and positrons is less than Planck’s constant and the mass numbers for almost all other particles are greater (than h), it would appear the return of matter with mass to the aether matrix would be a balanced event with zero net energy loss.

Polarization

The author does not have a mathematical explanation for this other than stating that aether body-centered spheres are in direct contact with one another. This structure functions as a solid and meets the criteria necessary for transverse wave propagation, a requirement for polarization.   Opposite-spin layers may play a role in this quality of light.  Since the EM waves appear to be produced by tilting (torque) of the sphere position in either up/down torque or a left/right torque, this would be consistent with a transverse change in position rather than a compression.  As mentioned earlier, sphere tilt would change the contact position and would function as the acceleration (compression wave equivalent) and deceleration (expansion wave equivalent) of wave transmission.

The author hopes to add more to the polarization section at a later date unless an interested reader takes it over, which would be enthusiastically embraced.


          Chapter 6 – Wave-particle Dualism

In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus put forth a heliotropic (sun-centered) model which replaced the geocentric (earth-centered) model of Ptolemy which had been the dominant model of the universe for the previous 1400 years.  It is commonly held that the Copernican model was not any more accurate in predictive power than the Ptolemaic model, but the Copernican heliocentric model allowed for orbits of the planets around the sun without complicated epicycle motions.  These circular motions were needed by the Ptolemaic model to account for the periodic retrograde motions of planets when the earth’s orbit would catch up to and pass a more distant planet.  Only when the Copernican heliocentric model was finally accepted nearly a hundred years after being introduced would it become possible for Johannes Kepler to formulate the Laws of Planetary motion and for Sir Isaac Newton to devise his Law of Gravitation.  Both would have been illogical and impossible to consider with the Ptolemaic earth-centered system.  Without an understanding of the presence of a carrier of light, the aether, wave-particle dualism, empty atoms, and action at a distance have all been advanced as apparently valid and dominant concepts of accepted physical theory.  These concepts have been accepted with an inappropriate or at least with an incomplete model of space.  Within QAT, these concepts are no longer needed or valid.  Gravity as discussed earlier is due to aether spin gradient – not action at a distance, atoms and everywhere else are filled with aether spheres – not empty space.  But the concept of wave-particle dualism seems exceptionally entrenched in modern physics theory.  The author now hopes the following discussion on waves and particles will dismiss any lingering conviction of light as a particle and electrons as waves.  An excellent review of wave-particle dualism of light and electrons can be found in The Nature of Physical Reality, section 16.2, ‘Dualism Between Waves and Particles,’ pages 313-320.  In his book, Henry Margenau presents the arguments for light being a wave then as particle and for an electron being a particle and then as a wave.  Modern physics generally cites Bohr’s principle of complementarity as support of this concept. (from Wikipedia – Complementarity)

 

The (complementarity) principle states that sometimes an object can have several contradictory properties.  Sometimes we can switch back and forth between the different views, but we can never see both at the same time.  But in reality, the figure exists as BOTH at the same time, but we can only perceive it or view it one at a time, and never together.  For example, we can think of electrons as both a particle or a wave or stream of particles depending on the situation.  An object being a particle AND a wave is seemingly mutually exclusive and not possible.  But an electron, in some sense, is both at once. 

 

QAT does not support wave-particle dualism which is discussed in the next four sections.

EM as wave entity

Evidence for EM as a wave is both substantial and well-substantiated.  The fact that light energy spreads out as it moves through space is strictly a wave quality, with firm mathematical models from Huygens, Young, and others supporting this concept.  Interference and diffraction qualities of light are consistent only with wave energy movement since particles would not be capable of the complex patterns of destructive interference.   Polarization of light cannot be explained by particles and involves a sideways or transverse wave motion during forward movement of the wave.  Photons, the name given to light “particles”, have never been shown to have rest mass, a quality of virtually all other particles.  “Even today it goes against one’s grain to conceive of wave with mass or a particle without it.”(Margenau, ibid, page 315).  Therefore, this is at least supportive of the claim that light is not a corpuscle but an impulse on particles.   Since E(photon) = hv and mc2 = E, then mc2 = hv and movement of light on aether spheres is proportional to c = 2 pi r w where w is the angular velocity and 2 pi r w is the angular displacement proportional to the linear displacement of c,

        Then m 4 pi2 r2 w2 = hv              and       m r2  2 pi w =  hv / 2 pi w          (10)

                        and for a single rotation v = 1 and 2 pi w = 1

        Then m r2  w = h / 2 pi                            or   I w  = h bar                              (11)                   

Photons, then, are angular impulses equivalent in energy per rotation to Planck’s constant over 2 pi.  [One possible solution to aether sphere radius, assuming a mass unity of 1, is then    1 r2/2 = h bar      and therefore      radius =  3.2E-14 cm.  The author is uncertain whether this would be the center radius or the radius at 35.26 angle offset found at aether body-centered contact points.    All the above concepts of light as a wave are compatible with and supported by QAT.  Light is a wave.

EM as particle entity

Earlier, when wave motion was discussed, it was established that a wave was some form of motion (linear impulse – Sound, angular impulse – Light) over a group of particles where the average position over time of any one particle remains unchanged.  The author believes all the evidence claiming light as a particle has nothing to do with light energy movement but instead with transfer of light energy from the wave phase to a non-wave motion.  This does not make light into a particle.  The first argument of light as particles is that light moves as quanta or a fixed value of hv.  As it moves across particles, it moves with the continuity and spread of waves so that at any point in time, in theory and the writer believes in action, one could have the EM energy as a half wave (rotation) or a quarter wave while moving through the aether.  But the aether is very particle-like so that any attempt at measurement or energy transfer has to be done by a particle.  The author believes this to be true for sound energy also, in that when sound transfers out of wave form, it becomes a particle-like function.  An example might be when a wave of water knocks over a can or breaks up ice.  We don’t say the wave became a particle to do so; it transferred the wave energy to kinetic energy used to displace the can or break the ice.  The second argument for light as a particle is the photo-electric effect.  The photon, a massless particle of light, was a concept brought into existence by Einstein to help explain this event.  When light of adequate energy (high enough frequency) is projected onto certain metals, energy is absorbed by the metal and electrons are expelled at a specific energy for each frequency.   Some frequencies are below the threshold of energy required for this to occur.  Classic wave theory predicts that a certain amount of time would be required for the electrons to acquire enough energy to be released and that electron energy would increase with increasing amplitude of incident light.  This result is not seen experimentally, and therefore classic wave theory cannot explain photo-electric effect.  The data shows that for any increase in amplitude of a specific frequency, more electrons may be expelled, but all have the same energy level relative to the given frequency of light used.  In QAT, since a single wavelength of violet light is 4000 Angstrom or 4E-05 cm, a single wave would cross roughly 1.5E+09 spheres and for any increase in amplitude it is unlikely that any two waves would be exactly on the same two spheres when energy transfer is made, or at least not at the same angle of transfer.  Therefore, each frequency would transfer the same amount of energy (impulse) unique to that specific frequency.  When the wave energy strikes the metal surface, regardless of the amplitude, only a single wave affects a given electron and transfers its wave energy (Iw) of angular impulse in such a way as to cause its wave energy to be transferred to a single electron.  This transfer apparently causes the electron to go into a recoil energy state (such as a tilt) which places it in a position causing an escape velocity effect.  Each frequency creates a specific tilt and recoil energy specific to that frequency – this explains why all electrons have the same energy when ejected.  As was shown earlier in the energy distribution section, there are “hot” spots in the QAT matrix which should have enough energy for this event to occur almost instantaneously when the incident light is shone onto the metal.  Photons are impulses, not particles.

The next argument for light as particles is stated as the reverse of photo-electric, when X-ray waves of EM are released by the bombardment of a metal surface with electrons.  Photon energy is released as units of hv, claiming this is a particle nature of light when it appears to be exchanging electron motion energy into a wave impulse energy which then spreads out over particles (spheres of aether) as angular impulse.  Another quality of light expressing particle nature according to Margenau is the Geiger counter effect of high energy photons.  The Geiger counter is designed to detect the passage of charged particles by comparing the electrical potential between the two channels.  Any inequality between the two channels such as a charged particle passing through one side creates an inequality and the amplified click of the counter.  In classic wave theory, it seems improbable that such a difference in potential could occur from any wave, yet gamma radiation can trigger such a response.  Once again as shown in QAT matrix, wave motion is not equal in all azimuths.  Therefore, an adequate potential could be reached when a wave of high enough energy moves through one of the counter channels in this uneven fashion.

Perhaps the hardest evidence for light as a particle would be the Compton Effect, where scattering of X-rays by material objects altered their frequency.  Under classic theory and empirical data, light will change its wavelength but maintain the same frequency when passing from one medium into another, and its direction may be changed by reflection or refraction.   Classic theory also shows EM scattering by charged particles, but the frequency remains unchanged in this interaction.  According to multiples resources, Compton Effect can only be explained by EM moving as particles.   The question to ask here in the case of a photon-electron collision is, did both entities move to the collision point through space as a particle?  The answer in QAT is no.  The electron particle can be followed by its cloud chamber trail, but the X-ray EM energy sent in from an outside source moves as an EM angular impulse across particles of the aether matrix to arrive at the collision point where the aether particle transfers the EM impulse to the electron particle.  The particle, now with the EM initial frequency energy from that collision with the particle carrying the EM wave, moves a distance which changes its energy state and collides with another aether sphere creating an EM wave with a different frequency, having used up some of the original EM energy by changing its position. The Compton Effect is a particle-to-particle transfer of one form of energy, wave impulse, to another, electron velocity.  This does not mean EM energy is a particle moving, only that it moves on particles and is transferred by particles.  EM moves as waves until energy transfer; this is no different than sound, it’s just that without a carrier particle model there is no way of realizing this condition.  One cannot accelerate photons which have no rest mass because photons are waves of angular impulses on particles.   “Curiously enough, exclusion (Pauli Exclusion Principle) rules the behavior of all known particles except the photon.  No one quite understands this strange exception” (Margenau, ibid. page 431), unless as QAT dictates, photons are waves.

Electrons as particles

The original Cathode ray experiment to detect electrons used the fact that electrons appeared to carry a negative charge.  It is essentially impossible to visualize how a wave can carry any charge, negative or positive.  In the same experiment, J.J. Thomson used a mass/charge ratio in studying the velocities of the particles, determining that the electron was a particle like no other particle known at the time.  Electrons have been found to have a rest mass which is uncharacteristic of any wave feature.  Velocities of electrons can vary, even in a vacuum tube, depending on the potential difference across the cathode-ray while EM wave velocity is a fixed speed, c, in a vacuum.   All EM wave velocities are medium dependent.  Wave velocity cannot be accelerated or decelerated within a given medium.  Electrons can be accelerated.  In 1913, Robert Milliken published his research showing electrons carried an independent charge which could be measured as a single unit.  His experiment enabled an oil drop carrying a single electron to stand still in an electric field, a position no respectable wave would ever be expected to do.  A final point given by Margenau for support of electrons as particles is the cloud chamber where charged moving particles, including electrons, leave a linear trail of their path through the chamber.  All the above evidence for electrons as particles is based on very solid experimental evidence.  Electrons are particles.

Electrons as waves

Margenau first presents De Broglie’s famous wave equation, wavelength = h / mv as evidence that since mass has a wavelength, it must in some way be a wave.  This author finds this less than conclusive since any vibrating mass could give off EM waves into the aether.   Yet in 1927, electrons bouncing off a metal exhibited a pattern normally seen by X-ray radiation and had the wavelength consistent with De Broglie’s equation, leading to the conclusion that electrons must in some way be wavelike.  An experiment the following year passing cathode rays through metal foils showed a similar pattern and wavelength.  X-ray wave diffraction shows a specific pattern over the wave carrier spheres which have a fixed geometrical design.   Electrons moving within the aether are allowed only to move in certain channels and in doing so would stimulate the aether to vibrate in a similar pattern.  A third experiment using ruled optical gradients to diffract streaming electrons showed a similar “wave” pattern with the expected wavelength and “the undulatory nature of electrons was established beyond doubt,”(Margenau, ibid, page 320).   If one shoots bullets in water, a wave pattern will be formed in the water.  If one shoots electrons in a vacuum which is actually aether with a fixed geometry, a wave pattern is stimulated in the aether.   In QAT, all the above evidence is consistent with a particle making waves in a medium, not empty space.  Margenau’s final points of evidence of electrons as waves are experiments which evidently can polarize electrons, a quality generally unique to waves.  Oddly enough, in this section Margenau does not discuss the results of the double slit experiment of electrons shot ‘in a vacuum’ through one hole of a plate with two holes.   When one hole is closed, the electrons come through in a particle pattern, but when two holes are present, a wave pattern appears with the classic interference pattern, the assumption being that the electron must have come through as a wave since a vacuum has “nothing” in it.  Unless one accepts QAT, in which case, the vacuum contains aether and the electron sphere which is the same size as an aether sphere would create quite an undulatory event in any aether solid through which the electron moves.   The evidence for electrons as waves is consistent with particles moving through a fixed geometrical elastic solid while the electrons remain as particles at all times.

But physicists apparently don’t like the idea of electrons being particles.  As reviewed in Physics in the 20th Century by Curt Suplee, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publisher, 1999, when in 1922 silver atoms were shot through a fixed magnetic field, it was expected that the field would force the atoms into an unbroken vertical line, assuming the electrons of the silver atoms were randomly aligned while orbiting the nuclear core.  The result showed two and only two lines, which was consistent with Bohr’s belief that electron angular momentum was quantized.  It would later be theorized that in addition to the electrons’ orbital value, another quantum state of spin must also be in play to explain the two lines, one for clockwise spin and the other for counterclockwise spin.

 Each kind of spin would produce a tiny magnetic field aligned in opposite directions, giving the possibility of two, and only two, quantized values…… There was, however, an annoying problem with the idea.  It was almost certainly impossible in any conventional physical sense.  For electrons to spin at the rate required to generate the magnetic quanta observed, they would have to be moving faster than the speed of light.  So they weren’t really spinning on an axis, even though they clearly behaved as if they were; in the same way, physicists were coming to realize, electrons weren’t really revolving around the nucleus, even though their apparent angular momentum could be quantified.  In those cases, and many more to come, scientists gradually became accustomed to the idea that, in the quantum world, objects had properties for which there were no visualizable physical counterparts.” (Suplee, page 77)

The author disagrees again.  The electrons are particles, spheres with spin, and are theoretically visually accessible.  Electron microscopy images give indirect evidence.  Margenau also expresses the need for the electron to spin so fast that a point on its circumference moved with a speed 300 times as great as that of light….. it appeared to violate the secure facts of relativity.”(Margenau, page 313.)   QAT shows that the light speed contact point of the sphere is at 35.26 degrees offset from the equatorial line.  While this doesn’t reach Margenau’s need of 300 x light speed, it does appear significant since this would mean that the linear speed at the equator is roughly 36 percent faster than the speed of light displacement (4.07E+10 cm/sec at sphere center vs 2.997E+10 cm/sec at 35.26o)(NOTE even at the 35.26 degrees offset radius, the angular displacement for the rotating sphere is 3.3E+10 cm/sec or 10 percent greater than the speed of light.)

 

Waves are waves and particles are particles and at all times; therefore Bohr’s concept of complementarity is no longer required.


Chapter 7 - Big Bang Concepts

The definition of particles in chapter three made reference to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.  The Pauli Exclusion Principle is a quantum mechanical principle formulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925. It states that “in any atomic system made up of elementary charged particles like electrons and protons, it is impossible for two such particles to be in the same energy state.”(Lindsay, Basic Concepts of Physics, page 375.)

The above statement alone should lead one to have serious doubts about Big Bang (BB) theory, presently the dominant theory of evolution of the universe.  With Einstein’s General Theory (GT) of relativity equations showing that the universe must be either expanding or contracting in mind, a key factor for the support of the BB appears to have been the discovery of the galactic “red shift,” the displacement of the EM spectra of galaxies toward the red side of the visible spectrum (longer wavelengths).  The cause of the red shift is presently believed to be due to the Doppler event of these galaxies moving away from the earth, thus supporting an expanding universe.  Extensive mathematical models have been generated to support BB concepts.  If the universe is in fact expanding, then it is theorized, again based on GT equations, which prior to the expansion, the universe had to have been smaller, denser, and hotter in the beginning.  Using the red shift data as their foundation, BB theorists have built a complex and relatively complete scenario which is overwhelmingly supported by the present cosmological community.  As we shall see, QAT does not support Big Bang, but is more aligned with Steady State (SS) concepts of the universe.   Even without QAT’s opposing implications, several areas of BB are very disturbing on their own merits.  There are five areas of BB which the writer believes should be revisited in light of the reestablishment of a carrier of light.

1] the primordial pea

2] background radiation (CBR)

3] outward expansion of the universe

4] General Relativity requirements

5] red shift as a Doppler effect

According to several resources, Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle.  Briefly stated, the cosmological principle maintains that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.  In a simplified definition, this means that the universe is continuous, made of similar structure and should look the same no matter which direction one chooses to look.  [No preferred direction.]  The author is not familiar with the exact criteria explaining Steady State concepts but believes that these same principles would be operative in and also would be met by SS. 

1] the primordial pea

Steady state would appear to cause galaxies to be created on a local basis rather than the radical implication of BB that the entire mass of all galaxies originated in a single dense node, sometimes referred to as the primordial pea.  This concept is extremely incompatible with all empirical knowledge of chemistry and physics.  The primordial mass doesn’t just assume the entire mass of the solar system was compressed into the size of a marble, but that the entire universe was, which is billions and billions of stars, and goes against common sense and empirical data about mass compression.  The only way BB theorists can sidestep this contradiction is to deny the existence of the physical laws at the beginning of the BB.  Yet the cosmological principle demands the universality of physical laws.  Not a good start for Big Bang.  The major concern is that there is no evidence that it is possible to take any two objects and compress them into the space of one.  Well, maybe two nerf balls would fit but let’s focus on something a little harder, say diamonds.  It is common knowledge that the proper type of coal (carbon) can be compressed to form a diamond, one of the hardest elements on earth, and the author would argue the densest based on density per nucleon.  Any additional compression will fail to compress the object any further.  The Pauli Exclusion doesn’t even allow two electrons to occupy the same space, so how can billions and billions of stars occupy the same space?  Big Bang would appear to rely on particles being waves which then could somehow be miraculously compressed to thimble size.  With QAT in mind, to believe that somehow all the matter in the universe can fit into a thimble is beyond the author’s comprehension, almost to the level of Newton’s disbelief that anyone could seriously accept action at a distance as the final cause of gravity.(see Whittaker, page 28)

Since QAT shows that atoms are not the EMPTY space once believed, compression under QAT principles is not allowed.  Matter is not compressible.  This failure of the universe to collapse into a solitary pea, alone, should invalidate BB theory.

2] cosmic background radiation (CBR)

Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is the existence of background radiation which should be leftover radiation after the expansion phase of a hot universe.  BB theories predicted that there should be an isotropic level of background radiation and in 1965; such radiation was recorded by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson while working for Bell Laboratory (Guth, The inflationary Universe, page 58).  Since then confirmation of an isotropic CBR of approximately 3 K has been confirmed.  There does not appear to be any inconsistency with CBR and BB.  But SS with aether would very likely require an isotropic CBR as well.  Since light would have been moving across the universe between galaxies for billions of years, a steady state uniform background temperature of the aether luminous vibrations would also be expected.

3] outward expansion of the universe

According to Red shift data and interpretation, galaxies as far away as five billion light years are said to be moving at a speed of 105 km per second.  But according to the author’s understanding of this observation, this means that no matter what direction one looks, if one looks out five billion light years, one will find a galaxy moving away relative to earth at 105 km/sec.(Guth, page 51)  A logical conclusion would have to be that the galaxy on the left which is ten billion light years from the one on the right is moving at a velocity of 2x105 km per second or 66% of the speed of light.  The author believes this to be another premise of BB which defies common sense.  Modern theorists are trapped into this assumption based on their interpretation of Red shift data.  This interpretation is causing acceptance of incorrect results which have led to these illogical or, at best, tenuous positions. The assumption above would put earth in the center of the universe.  But BB theorists make the argument that the universe is more like the expansion of a balloon suggesting that the outermost galaxies are receding faster than the inner galaxies.  This would mean that the galaxy furthest away from earth would be receding at a speed somewhere between 1-2 105 km/sec. But that still leaves the outermost galaxies in the up-down and front-back dimensions to deal with as well.

4] General Relativity concerns

Some may think that QAT will have the most difficult time dealing with the success of GT, General Theory of relativity, but it may actually be the easiest to explain.  It is commonly understood that GT relevance to BB rests in the fact that GT predicts the universe to be either expanding or contracting, but this theoretical conclusion applies to Newtonian and Galilean mechanics as well.  Evry Schatzman, in Our Expanding Universe, page 31, states “when the various parts (of the universe) attract each other according to the universal law of gravitation, (then the universe) can only be in a state of either collapse or of expansion; there is no third option.  Seelinger and Neuman showed that this is due to the fact that any particle in this universe is attracted by any other particle according to Newton’s law.”  But it seems very logical that there is a third option known as a resonant state.  The universe could be in an effective steady state (SS) with galaxies constantly alternating equally between expansion and contraction.   For the most part, galaxies maintain their positions relative to one another, unless two galaxies are close enough to be drawn (actually pushed by aether gravity gradient) into one another.  There is also probably a critical distance beyond which the force of gravity (in this text known as aether spin gradient) is ineffective, especially since the force of gravity decays at 1 over the distance squared.  Atoms and molecules show expansion and contraction, commonly known as a resonant state.  Each galaxy, then, is periodically pulsating between expansion and contraction [very much akin to pendular movement].  One alternative term to describe this motion is oscillation, described as repetitive movement balanced by inertia reactance and elastic reactance of a system.  Our own solar system is an excellent model of this concept.  Planetary orbits are elliptical.  It is commonly understood that circular orbits are not allowed as the laws of forces and gravitation demand that a circular orbit would decay and fall into the sun.  In fact, in the evolution of our solar system, this probably happened and any previously circular orbiting objects have been long ago consumed by the sun.  Remaining planets and objects have elliptical orbits, stated according to physics, to have a gravitational acceleration toward the sun and on passing the sun are heading toward an escape velocity.  As any planet moves farther away from the sun, it never quite reaches escape velocity (inertia reactance), and the gravity of the sun pulls it back into another acceleration state (elastic reactance).  Orbits are elliptical oscillations, pendular movement which is an effective expansion-contraction twice for each rotation.  If Einstein’s GT is valid within the context of QAT, which it appears it isn’t, it would only be acceptable in that GT predictions of expansion versus contraction could be an expression of a resonant SS universe.  This is one in which galaxies are alternately expanding and contracting, but with zero net change over time.  Space is not curved.  What brings planets back toward the sun is the fact that as one moves away from a source of mass (in this case the sun), the aether spin velocity increases, which creates a greater gravity gradient and forces the planet heading for escape velocity back toward the sun (and toward an area where more volume to be occupied is available).  

 

The attraction of gravity has been used to explain the acceleration phase noting that gravity is defined by the aether spin gradient induced by a nearby mass.  Remember, as one moves away from a center of mass, the spin volume of aether spheres increases so that there is more occupied volume per unit of time. Objects with less spin volume will be forced by the gravity gradient to an area of lower spin where there is less occupied volume per unit of time.   The author believes this is further supported by thermodynamic-kinetic theory, where areas of high energy = higher temperature = greater kinetic activity = higher pressure pushes particles to areas of lower pressure.  In the case of aether, the higher spin velocity = greater kinetic activity = greater volume pressure pushes particles toward the center of massive objects (planets and stars) where there is lower spin aether = lower volume per unit time and more volume available for occupancy.

 

    The speed of light is dependent on aether spin velocity.  Therefore, any equation, General Relativity or other, which involves the speed of light in any form is aether spin dependent, the bending of light by “gravity” being a prime example as discussed in chapter 6.  Space is not bent by gravity, light seeks the path of shortest time which happens to be a curved path following the faster aether spin which occurs farther away from any massive object.

 


5] red shift as a Doppler effect

It is this author’s belief that there is no evidence that cosmic red shift data is due to a Doppler shift from galaxy movement away from earth.  It makes just as much sense and probably more to state that the cosmic red shift is a physical property of light being seen from a great distance.  It is very clear that the distance is directly proportional to the observed red shift.  Every day we see the effect of atmosphere on energy from the sun at sunset as the light from the sun shifts from white to bright yellow to red, the author knows this a refractive cause where light changes it frequency, evidently great distance may be a cause as well.  Three alternative possibilities can be used to explain the Red shift, any one of which would make more sense than velocities of galaxies moving away from the earth; however, the third is essentially a Doppler effect.

1) Tired light   – The author is not well versed in tired light concepts but does know it is related to a frequency shift due to the Compton Effect which was discussed in chapter six.  As noted at that time, frequency falls (shifts from higher to lower, a “red” shift”) when EM radiation interacts with matter, chiefly electrons.  The electron first absorbs the EM energy, then moves some distance which, in effect, takes energy, (remember energy is movement), then releases another EM burst at a lower frequency, a red shift.  Galactic red shifts appear to be linearly related to distance and such an effect could be compatible with Compton energy decay with the greater distance directly proportional to the number of Compton interactions (on average).

2) Galactic refraction (Milky Way aether cloud effect) – Once one accepts QAT as a valid concept, the existence of magnetosphere not only of planets but also of systems and galaxies comes into play.  This would mean that light entering our planet has to weave its way through at least three entrained aether systems: the earth’s magnetosphere/atmosphere, our own Sun’s entrained aether within our solar system, and the Milky Way Galactic aether magnetosphere cloud.  EM moving through these modified aether structures could in some way be deenergized, with more distant light already being weaker due to distance traveled and being more affected than EM from closer galaxies.   Since more “side bands” of EM energy are likely needed for adequate viewing of the more distant galaxies, the greater angles of collecting may in some way lead to frequency decay: the greater the distance, the greater number of side bands recruited or a increased pseudo-refractive state, the greater the red shift.

3) Galactic rotation red shift – Although great emphasis has been placed on Bradley’s constant of aberration, the author has found no mention of how the earth’s galactic speed has been considered when viewing distant objects, even though it appears seven and one-half times faster than the earth’s orbital velocity [225,000 meters/sec versus 30,000 meters/sec].  Greater distance viewing would almost certainly fall within a “lateral” Doppler concept.  This means the effect is not from galactic systems moving away from the earth, but how much the earth has moved not only in the solar system but in the galactic vortex while gathering the light from a distant system.   Use of this concept to explain red shifts would also allow for some of the blue shifts which have been observed.

There are a considerable number of websites dedicated to alternative explanations of cosmic Red shift other than Doppler cause.  The most prominent one that comes to mind is Halton Arp, who also is the author of Quasars, Red Shifts and Controversies.     As a formally trained physicist, Dr Arp has immeasurable expertise in such an area over this author, his concepts are likely much more valuable than this author’s in determining the cause of the observed Red shift of galaxies.  Whatever that turns out to be, Dr. Arp and I both agree:

The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a red shift, as modern astrophysicists presume?  It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO! (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm)


Chapter 8 – Acceptance of Quantum Aether Theory

The author believes QAT is nothing short of a major paradigm shift on the scale of those addressed by Thomas Kuhn in his landmark work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  In the Wikipedia bio of Thomas Kuhn, the following five criteria are given as the crux for determining theory choice:

 

1 - Accurate - empirically adequate with experimentation and observation
2 - Consistent - internally consistent, but also externally consistent with other theories
3 - Broad Scope - a theory's consequences should extend beyond that which it was initially

        designed to explain
4 - Simple - the simplest explanation, principally similar to Occam's Razor
5 - Fruitful - a theory should disclose new phenomena or new relationships among

        phenomena [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn]

1. Sphere size and rotational velocity are interdependent so that whatever size is eventually determined, the theory for the speed remains accurate.  Experimental and mathematically-derived sizes of electrons and proton cores are consistent with the value of  Planck’s constant in calculation of approximate size as used for QAT spheres.

2. The author believes QAT to be internally consistent with movement of light.  Externally, QAT can assimilate quantum theory while maintaining a fundamental wave movement for delivering energy.  While QAT is compatible with some of the concepts of General Relativity, it does not appear to support relative time or bending of space by gravity, but allows for a different and, in the author’s opinion, a better and more logical explanation of these concepts.  The contraction of the entire universe is not supported by QAT, while a resonant state of equilibrium of an alternating contraction-expansion state is.

3. QAT has a broad scope beyond explaining the speed of light, for which it was originally proposed.  Wider areas noted in chapter five include areas of dismissing action at a distance and explaining mass and the particle zoo on a strictly mechanical basis.  To the author’s knowledge, there are presently no other theories which explain speed of light, gravity, mass and atomic structure on the mechanics level to the degree supported by QAT.

4. The author believes spinning spheres is about as simple as it gets.

5. New phenomena ideas are discussed in chapter nine.  Hopefully, anyone reading this book will come up with many more.

What tests must QAT pass to prove itself as the preferred dominant theory of light movement?  Or, in other terms, how can QAT be falsified?

If a sphere size other than that proposed by QAT were discovered or proven, would that disprove QAT?  No.  Whatever size anyone wants to assign the “primary” or “primordial” sphere, its rotational velocity would be reciprocally adjusted to keep the speed of EM at the empirically proven speed of 3E+10 cm/sec.   QAT is not falsifiable by change in sphere size.

EM energy dispersion follows a law of Energy Decay = 1/distance*squared.  As shown in chapter five, section Energy Decay, pages 49-52, the QAT body-centered design shows that the actual number of particles over which energy is distributed increases by the distance squared.  However, as also noted later in the same section, this “wave” energy was not a smooth distribution as imposed by classical wave theory, but instead an uneven pattern with higher intensity azimuths.  The body-centered design of QAT also explains this quality of light.  Since QAT is compatible with this concept, it could be disproved if, of course, J.J. Thompson’s statement on azimuths is incorrect. (See Whittaker2, page 74).

QAT states, as earlier suggested by Lorentz, that aether is everywhere where there is no matter but also embedded in matter. In The Theory of Electrons, after introducing the theory of “electrons,” Lorentz came to his item 7, page 11, in which he writes:

“Indeed, one of the most important of our fundamental assumptions must be that    the ether not only occupies all space between molecules, atoms or electrons, but that it pervades all these particles. We shall add the hypothesis that, though the particles may move, the ether always remains at rest.”

It would be logical to assume that large particles like a planet or person would move through the “loose” aether which is not embedded in massive particles.  Therefore, it seems logical that a Michelson-Morley type experiment should be able to falsify QAT.  But it can’t be done in a location where the object is not moving through the aether such as on the surface of the earth.  It is fairly clear to the author that the earth and most large massive objects drag a considerable amount of aether with them.  This entrained aether is called the atmosphere and may extend to the magnetosphere for the earth and probably includes the outer boundaries of our solar system for the aether entrained by the sun.   But there is an object within reach of science which is moving at one-fourth the speed of the earth, the speed which was used for the Michelson-Morley calculations.  The International Space Station (ISS) has an orbital velocity stated at 28,000 kilometers per hour (7777 meters per second).  This speed is only one fourth the speed of earth’s orbital velocity of 29,000 meters per second as used in Michelson-Morley fringe shift calculations.  Present technology may be able to confirm or falsify QAT by attaching aether motion detection devices to the ISS. 

The author refers to this experiment as pulsing dueling lasers.  Consider two (or three) side by side one or two meter long beams which fire a laser pulse as a time delay gated laser pulse to its opposite side (the next pulse dependent on the arrival time of each previous pulse).  Laser 1 sends its pulse from left to right and laser 2 from right to left, both receiver and emitter open to the air so that any moving carrier between the emitter-detector would retard or accelerate the laser pulse.  (A third laser with an emitter-detector encased in a vacuum tube-like design could serve as a control).  This experiment could also be done by a single laser device as long as it would be possible to reverse the emitter-detector signal and compare results for opposite directions.  The device(s) would need to be mounted on an external position of the ISS in line with the forward velocity of the ISS.  (An alternative vehicle might be a normal shuttle mission whose velocity is similar to the ISS).   As a more economical solution, a similar device might give significant results (retarded signal vs accelerated signal) in a jetted wind tunnel.   Where it won’t show any significant result is sitting on the surface of the earth.  [Or it might if it’s a really windy day!!]   A good place to calibrate such a device might be at one of the sites where Michelson-Morley did their experiment since it is known from their results that there is no aether wind there.  If it were possible to build a two meter length gated laser with a nanosecond delay between pulses, then in a one second “race” of oppositely aligned lasers, the laser pulse moving with the aether wind would appear to have 6000 more pulses per second.  If a nanosecond gate is too extreme, then a microsecond delay should show 10 more pulses for every 30 second “race” moving at 7777 m/s over the two meter length [29801192 pulses with aether wind and 29801182 pulses against aether wind for a 30 second interval with a microsecond gate.][A spoiler might be that the ISS or space shuttle would also drag a considerable amount of aether with it, which would be seen as null result. However with the recent drifting away of the bag of space tools by the space-walking astronaut, if would appear that some aether current is present.]


Chapter 9 – QAT areas of intrigue

The author finds the following few topics of extreme interest with QAT concepts in mind.  Hopefully, those readers with advanced interest will be able to further explore and expand these and additional concepts using QAT as a foundation.

 

      Lorentz Electron Force Equation

(from Lorentz, H.A., the theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat, page 27)   (and  F = ma = L4/T4)

It was stated earlier that there would be two complex formulas discussed in this text.  The earlier one was MacCullagh’s differential equation showing his expression for movement of light in an elastic solid medium (page 19).  The author believes the electron force equation of Lorentz is equally important but reconciliation of the labels has been problematic for this author.  As noted earlier, Maxwell was able show that mass = L3/T2 (where L is a distance and T is time measurement) which means that a force must be (mass [L3/T2 ] times acceleration  [L1/T2]) = L4/T4.

S is stated to be a volume element.  Integration of the volume element on the right side of the equation would match the L4 part of the left side of the equation, but T4 on the right side remains a mystery.  As discussed by the author in chapter four, c is proportional to 2 pi r w and can be thought of as a frequency element.  Therefore c2 becomes (2 pi r w)2 and 1/c2 becomes a period of frequency of one rotation or time element, possibly squared, which could account for two of the four time elements on the left side of the equation.  It may also be possible to imagine that -1/c2 equals one rotation (where T = 1/frequency) and all other time elements be assigned as a single “unit” of time so that all elements of time reduce to unity and the equation would then be left with L4 = L4.  One could logically conclude that mass is in some way a function of an accelerated or decelerated rotation (L1) of a Volume (L3).  And a further consideration would be that force is in some way a function of an accelerated or decelerated rotation (L1) of a Volume (L3).   This would suggest that mass (L3/T2) then is a function of an acceleration (L1/T2) of a surface area (L2).  Better analysis is needed.

 

 

 

            Quantum Leaps

Up to this point, not much attention has been paid to quantum theory, even though earlier the author had alluded in this text to the fact that aether can handle quantum theory seamlessly.  As it is now clear that the aether, as defined by QAT, is very ‘granular’ or quantized by design; aether’s ability to act in a quantized manner should be readily apparent.   But one area of interest which seems to support aether’s ability to act quantumly appears to be the equation for energy distribution (Schrodinger-equation solutions).  As noted in Barrow’s, Physical Chemistry, page 82, a solution of the Schrodinger-equation can be shown as:

e = n2h2 / 8ma2                                                                                                (13)                      for n = 1,2,3…  No really different solution can be found, and no energies other than these will result.  [where e is energy for a given level of an integer n, h is Planck’s constant, m is mass, and a is a fixed distance, usually in the range of ~3 Angstrom (3 E-8 cm)]

Each quantum jump energy is a multiple of a square (n2) which the author hopes by this time is obvious to the reader as exactly how the body-centered aether expands: layer two with four particles, layer three with nine particles, and on up the line of squares equaling the actual number of particles.  The author refers to this concept as a “click-spin” recruitment of a given energy level.  If one examines the body-centered aether design as shown on page 50, it is possible to imagine the first two layers spinning (layers one and two with one and four spheres respectively) while higher levels are not spinning. [Note this refers to the actual layers spinning, not just the individual spheres.]  Then, by introducing the appropriate amount of energy needed to “leap” to the next level as

e(level3) – e(level2)  = 9 h2 / 8ma2    -   4 h2 / 8ma2    the present energy state of the second level of four spheres would capture the third level of nine spheres.

Again this may be oversimplified as it may involve multiple layers of the squares (the ratio of 32 to 22  such as 62 to 42 which is the same ratio (9 to 4 : 36 to 16) being maintained, but it is exactly what the body-centered design is capable of showing and correlates exactly with the n squared energy jump.  Wave theory, in the author’s opinion, supports quantum jumps by shifting the incoming wave energy from energy on particles (angular impulse) to particles in motion.  No waves become particles and no particles become waves.

QAT correlates very well with quantum mechanics results with the exception of one concept:  there is no probability involved.  The final event is the result of an actual event occurring prior to the observed event.  Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, it still appears to be impossible to know the actual conditions but quantum wave mechanics work very well within this limitation.  Therefore, quantum theory is only guilty of leading us away from cause and effect, and this is why the author stated that quantum theory is an incomplete concept while remaining an extremely powerful and valid tool.

            Sunspots

Once QAT is fully understood, many readers also may think of events or circumstances which may be more easily and better explained by using QAT.  One area of promise that has occurred to the author is the ~11 ½ year cycle of sunspot maximums.  QAT shows that aether is affected by mass, i.e. earth’s magnetosphere.  Therefore, it is likely that our sun or solar system has a similar aether deformity around it within our Milky Way galaxy.  It would appear that a galaxy of our age has a layered plate-like effect from local aether layers, the rings of Saturn and earth’s van Allen belts being a subset of this condition.  The author proposes the possibility that the earth experiences similar atmospheric disturbances each fall and spring as it passes through a plane of aether created by our sun (hurricane season during the fall equinox).  In the case of the sun, the solar system wobble would appear to move the sun to a position of maximum disturbance by crossing the center plane of the galaxy every 11 ½ years.

           

 

 

           

            Poisson’s Magnetic Intensity

Another area which may be worth reviewing with QAT in mind is the volume concept associated with magnetic intensity.  In his second chapter, “Electric and Magnetic science prior to the introduction of the potentials”, pages 64-65, Whittaker presents Poisson’s theory of magnetic induction.

Poisson accounted for the properties of temporary magnets by assuming that they contain embedded in their substance a great number of small spheres… when placed in a field of magnetic intensity F, must acquire a magnetic moment of amount 3/(4pi) x F x the volume of the sphere… Thus if kp denotes the total volume of these spheres contained within a unit volume of the temporary magnet, the magnetization will be  I, where

4/3 pi  I = kp F   Poisson’s law of induced magnetism.                                              (14)

It is known that some substances acquire a greater degree of temporary magnetization than others when placed in the same circumstances.  Poisson accounted for this by supposing that the quantity kp varies from one substance to another.  But the experimental data show that for soft iron, kp, must have a value very near unity, which would obviously be impossible if kp is to mean the ratio of the volume of spheres contained within a region to the total volume of the region.1  The physical interpretation assigned by Poisson to his formulae must therefore be rejected, although the formulae themselves retain their value.”

With  QAT,  it  may   be   possible   to  explain  this  concept  with  a  physical interpretation using  volume  spin  differentials which would exist with aether and within atomic structure. 

  

 Bell’s Theorem, EPR, and Spooky Action at a Distance

Does QAT support locality?  The author believes it does, first by its solid state and/or second by its faster than c movement down the diagonals of its light pyramid cones (see page 52).  The author admits to being a little confused by Bell’s theorem demands that if a particle at a distance is known to have a specific spin, then it is immediately known that the second particle at a distance will have the opposite energy state.  Isn’t this just restatement of Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?  What’s so spooky about that?   It has been suggested that this “quality” can exist millions of miles apart.  As far as this author knows, it has only been studied over very short distances.  If one looks down the diagonal chain of spheres in the aether body-centered structure, it can be seen that these spheres are in direct contact with each other all the way down the line (until some intervening massive particle or structure gets in the way.)  Smacking or otherwise impacting one of these spheres could potentially send an essentially instantaneous signal down the solid chain to some exit point.  In the case of an atom, striking one diagonally aligned sphere on the left side could theoretically eject a sphere (now electron) instantaneously on the opposite side, at least something to consider with QAT in mind.


Chapter 10Closing Remarks

 

The author would be the first to admit there is a lot of work left to do.  However, the basic concepts of QAT are very solid and supported by present data.  But until the scientific community can move beyond the present acceptance of and dependence on Relativity and wave-particle dualism, it will remain in a “Ptolemaic” state of paralysis, without causation, without mechanisms for speed of light, mass, and gravity.  Without the Copernican model, Newton’s law of gravity and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion would have been problematic if not totally inconceivable.

There exists a carrier of light in the form of a body-centered matrix of oppositely rotating layers of spheres.  This carrier can explain the following concepts using a strictly mechanical-based methodology.

 

Medium as carrier of light – a body-centered medium of alternating layers of rapidly spinning spheres in direct contact allows for the movement of an  angular impulse (light) effectively in all directions from the source in an expanding nearly homogenous symmetrical pattern.   As shown by MacCullagh, page 18, “Whereas in an ordinary elastic solid, the potential energy of strain depends on the change in size and shape of the volume elements—on their compression and distortion, the potential energy of MacCullagh’s new medium depends only on the rotation of the volume elements.”(Whittaker, page 143)  This consideration also eliminated that nasty complication of longitudinal waves.  The alternating spin allows for Maxwell’s idler arm mechanism for the forward or outward propagation of adjacent vortex spins while preventing destruction by collision of same spin particles (under normal conditions).  As also discussed on page 18 (as referenced in Whittaker), the curl and strain elements of MacCullagh’s elastic solid can be seamlessly converted to the electromagnetic forces (h and e) of Maxwell in the same manner as Schrödinger’s wave mechanics are mathematically equivalent to Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics (classical momentum theory). In this text, the author used Planck’s constant as a one rotation spherical surface area or  h = SA = 4pi r2  giving a radius of ~ 2.3E-14 cm.  If the reader has a more compelling calculation for sphere size, the author would defer to that number.  Certainly, Max Born’s size for proton radius of 1.5E-14 cm could be considered.

Speed of light = aether spheres of radius ~ 2.3E-14 cm in a body-centered design with a 35.2 degree offset would give a 1 rotation linear displacement of ~ 1.06E-13 cm, spinning at 2.8E+23 rotations per second will give a linear displacement of light as c, ~ 3E+10 cm/sec. ( 2 pi r w )

Gravity - Gradient of faster aether spin as one moves away from mass. The    faster spin creates a gradient because faster spin occupies more volume          per unit of time so that more “space” is available closer to the surface of             mass.  Therefore, objects are pushed out of the higher-occupied volume         toward the space of less-occupied volume (per unit of time)

Gravitational Lensing - refractive movement of light around a mass due to the principle of least time by moving through a medium with faster spin speeds as one moves away from a center of mass

Mass- sphere velocity which is not compatible with fundamental aether spin creates an energy (movement) gradient.  This can also be thought of as a volume differential relative to the basic aether spin volume in which the mass is presently residing.

Atomic Structure- entrained aether creates a spherical cloud of ~4E+16 spheres      (hydrogen) or greater number of spheres around a nucleon core.            Electron particles and wave-functions overlying these particles appear to    be a subset of this entrainment.

Energy dispersion 1/ (distance squared) – the body-centered sphere structure disperses energy on direct number of particles (#squared) as distance          increases as distance squared

Thermodynamics   energy would be conserved in the aether as spin velocity, even at absolute zero.  Low temperature physics shows that fluidic states (He4) can be maintained even at absolute zero

Polarization- body-centered spheres in direct contact create the quasi-solid   (elastic) structure mandatory for transverse EM wave motion.

 

The primary goal of quantum aether theory is to identify a mechanism to explain why light (EM) moves at speed c.  The author believes this objective is effectively met by QAT.  A secondary goal is to “jump start” the world of physics into reexamining the need for a true physical carrier of light which will restore mechanics and causation, which the author believes QAT can.  The contiguous (fluidic solid) nature of aether hypothesized by QAT allows for transverse wave movement of energy required by classical theory (refraction, reflection, diffraction, and interference), while the body-centered spherical nature allows for discontinuity, finite, and quantum transfer of energy out of the aether matrix required by quantum theory.  Even though QAT as presented here puts down a respectable foundation to restore a carrier of light, there remains a significant gap of mathematical correlation and interconnection left for physicists to complete the theory.   This incomplete state of quantum aether theory is the reason for the statement in the preface noting a “call to arms” for modern physicists to revisit causation on the backbone of aether structure. 

As noted in the opening paragraph by Sir James Jeans and based on the belief that modern physics does not adequately explain many phenomenon as noted in this text, it is this author’s opinion that it is time for physicists to “put aether back again.”


Appendix A - Simultaneousness:  Absolute Space and Absolute Time

If aether does exist, and the author believes there is ample evidence that it does, then the special theory of relativity is invalid or, at the very least, limited in scope.  To reemphasize the position presented by D.W. Sciama in The Physical Foundations of General Relativity, page15:  “In the inertial case we would want to say that inertial forces are exerted, not by space, but by other bodies. If this makes sense, then inertial forces are not fictitious after all, but are just as physical as any other forces.  In consequence, Newton’s laws of motion would hold in all frames of reference, and the problem of the preferred role of inertial frames would be solved.” (Present author’s emphasis)  So what about a simultaneous event which Einstein disallows by observers moving at different velocities?  The author had serious thoughts about not including this topic but it seems in any discussion of the existence of aether, it is fundamentally unavoidable. 

Take the case of two lights, A and B, separated by a distance of four km. [Diagram on next page.]  These two lights are controlled by a central switch point which is exactly the same distance from both lights, so that any time the switch is activated, the lights A and B will begin to shine at the same time.  In Einstein’s famous thought experiment noted in Relativity, the Special and General Theory, section IX, The Relativity of Simultaneity, an observer (M’) moving in a direct line from A toward B would state that light B was seen before A and therefore they are not simultaneous events.  This is an illogical position since we have just stated that the lights are wired in such a way that they can only blink or shine at identical times.  In essence they are a single event in two locations.  Einstein’s denial of events being simultaneous is inconsistent with the known design of the experiment.  While it may be true that observer M’ believes light B to occur before light A in his relative space, it is not true that the events are not simultaneous in absolute time.  With proper understanding and the appropriate analysis, observer M’ should be able to calculate that, because of his movement, he sees a distortion of reality (lack of simultaneousness) and would realize that seeing an event before a different observer who is moving differently or not moving at all, does not mean that the rate of time has somehow been changed.  This could be described as visual distortion.  It may be ok (as is done frequently and was the argument made by Hendrik Lorentz) to use the contraction equations as tools to be able to calculate back to the correct time or to an intercept time.  This is what everyone does, but absolute time is not changed by movement or observance, only the visual perception of the event is.  Please consider the scenario of four observers, M, S, Q, and P, as noted in the illustration below, M is the equivalent of Einstein’s M’.

M and P are both moving at a speed of ½ c.  S and Q are stationary.

The wavelength of lights A and B, which are activated by the same switch as noted above, is 600 nanometers.  Any wavelength can be used; the results will be the same.  So the scenario here is: light from point A and point B arrives at the stationary observer S at the very same time as M and P also arrive at S.  All observers know in advance that the source lights will have a wavelength of 600 nanometer (frequency of 5E+14 cycles/second). 

What does each observer see or experience with respect to Light A and Light B?

S sees light from A and B at the same time, since S knows she is exactly between A and B, S concludes correctly that they are simultaneous events which occurred 2 / 299792 seconds earlier. [S knows she is two kilometers from each light source.]

Q sees light from A first and then from B but the A light is nine times brighter than B.  Q notes the light from B arrives 2 / 299792 sec after A light and the duration (proportional to wavelength) of the light is the same.  Since Q knows that light energy dissipates at 1/(distance squared), Q concludes that he is three times farther from light B than light A.  Q knows he is 1 kilometer from A and can calculate back that B is 3 km away, using either time or intensity data.  In doing so, Q can also determine A and B are simultaneous events.

M is at point S when S begins to see the light from A and B and M also begins to see both light beams from A and B at the same time. The previous statement alone should indicate to M that A and B are simultaneous events.  However, since he is moving toward B, he will see the end of B first as a shorter wavelength than A .  M will also see B before S has seen a full wavelength of either light A or B and M concludes that light B occurs before A and therefore A and B cannot be simultaneous events.  [Actually, this experiment is designed so that A and B are the same event in two locations and by definition are simultaneous in Absolute time.  Any interpretation of the observed results which leads any observer to deduce A and B are not simultaneous must be an inaccurate or false conclusion.] 

P moves in a transverse bisecting line so that P is always halfway between A and B and is also at point S when the front edges of lights A and B reach point S.  P is moving perpendicularly to the line of site, and therefore it will take longer for P to see both A and B and the final wavelength will be longer than either of the stationary observers, S or Q.  Even though P is moving at the same speed as M, P sees A and B as simultaneous events.

Einstein’s (Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction) moving observer, M’, would begin to see B like everyone else at point S, at time1.33333333333E-05 but would see the back of the B wave at 1.333333333445E-05 for a duration of 1.15E-15 sec. and viewed wavelength of 3.46E-07 meters.  It is unclear how M’ would see A.   From the internet Wikipedia, discussions of the Lorentz - Fitzgerald contraction derivations point out that Fitzgerald arrived at it as an attempt to explain the null result of Michelson-Morley and Lorentz assumed its validity based on the electromagnetic forces of matter, but I am not aware of any empirical data that was used to create the contraction formula.  Once concocted, it appears to have worked to a high degree of reported success.  As the author shows in the following Doppler formula calculations for observers other than direct forward, a similar contraction concept can be derived from actual observer-light intersect times between the leading edge of a wave and the final edge of a single wave.  When the observer begins to see an EM wave, it appears it would not be possible to recognize the event until at least ONE full wavelength (or cycle) has been observed


 

 

Observer

 

 

 

 

 

           S

            Q   

             M

             P

 

Perceived wavelgth

 

 

 

 

 

nanometers   A

600

600

1200

693

 

nanometers   B

600

600

400

693

 

Intensity  A

1

4

9.9999996E-01

slightly less than 1

 

Intensity  B

1

0.4444

1.0000000002E+00

slightly less than 1

 

  Real Time seconds

 

 

 

 

 

Begin see A

1.33333333333E-05

1.00000000000E-05

1.33333333333E-05

1.33333333333E-05

 

End wave A

1.33333333353E-05

1.00000000020E-05

1.33333333373E-05

1.33333333356E-05

 

Begin see B

1.33333333333E-05

1.66666666667E-05

1.33333333333E-05

1.33333333333E-05

 

End wave B

1.33333333353E-05

1.66666666687E-05

1.33333333347E-05

1.33333333356E-05

 

Time of Wave Obs A

2.000000E-15

2.000000E-15

4.000000E-15

2.309401E-15

 

Time of Wave Obs B

2.000000E-15

2.000000E-15

1.333333E-15

2.309401E-15

 

Wavelength in meters

 

 

 

 

 

 c x t A (wavelength)

6.000E-07

6.000E-07

1.200E-06

6.928E-07

 

 c x t B (wavelength)

6.000E-07

6.000E-07

4.000E-07

6.928E-07

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE that ALL the observers (S, M, and P) located at point S BEGIN to see A and B at the very same time which is the definition of simultaneousness.  What happens after this point is a function of the motion of the observer, an event “relative” to each individual state of motion.  But this does not negate the simultaneity of events, only conditions an event to be visualized differently.

 

The formulas on the previous page were used for the calculations.  Of significance is that the direct line mover M (parallel) sees the light differently than P, the perpendicular mover, even though they are moving at the same velocity.  According to the Special Theory of Relativity, this at least suggests that two observers moving at the same speed would have different time dilation, which seems an illogical position.  It was stated earlier that in absolute time any observer should be able to calculate back to any event time if the observer has enough information and the correct formula to do so.  Also stated above, the two stationary observers S and Q do not see lights A and B in the same way or at the same time even though neither is moving.  Q sees the complete wave of A before B but Q didn’t state that time dilated in looking toward B; he uses the knowledge of light energy decay over distance squared and the speed of light to correctly state that A and B were simultaneous events in Absolute time.  What also should be disconcerting from the relativity point of view is that M sees light B before observer S does, but the observer, P who is moving at the same velocity of M, sees light B after S does.  This makes no sense at all to this author under relativity concepts.  It is generally understood that the argument for acceptance of the contraction formula of relativity is that it only applies in the forward direct line.  In view of the observer results in this thought experiment, this requirement of special theory is an unacceptable restriction and invalidates the conclusions of special theory.  Most of the prominent physicists of England and the United States during the early part of the 20th Century also rejected or severely disliked relativity theory as noted by Stanley Goldberg in Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution, Section 8, Defending the Ether: The British Response, and Section 9, Defending the Practical: The American Response.  “As late as 1923, N.R. Campbell commented:

[British] physicists of great ability, who would be ashamed to admit that any other branch of physics is beyond their powers will confess cheerfully the complete inability to understand relativity…*Campbell, Relativity p.v.” (Goldberg, page 235)

And also from Goldberg, Section 8, page 235, Joseph Larmor is quoted as saying, “I was raised and trained on absolute time and I just can’ believe this relative time business.”  According to the mathematical physicist, A.A. Robb, “the idea that Einstein proposed ‘to preserve symmetry’ was that events might be at the same time simultaneous to one observer and not to another.  Robb equated this with a serious logical fallacy:

“This remarkable suggestion {relativity of simultaneity} was at once seized upon with it apparently not being noticed that it struck at the very foundations of logic.  That a thing cannot ‘be and not be at the same time’ has long been accepted as one of the first principles of reasoning, but there it appeared for the first time in science to be definitely laid aside…. {To some people} this view of Einstein’s appeared too difficult to grasp or analyze, and to this group the writer must confess to belong.

So what does Einstein’s M’, who is riding a moving train, see to make him believe that lights A and B are not simultaneous events?  This author has reviewed at least eight books on relativity and Einstein, and it is still unclear as to what M’ sees other than seeing B before S sees it and M’ sees A some time after B and concludes A and B cannot be simultaneous events.   In Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, page 26, Albert Einstein states:

 “he (M’) is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A.   Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.  Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than lightning flash A.  We thus arrive at an important result: Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train,    and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).  Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.”

 

Einstein goes on to discuss how the only way out of this dilemma was to abandon absolute time and employ the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction formula to explain this apparent paradox of different observers.   There is no mention of what M’ actually saw in the form of wavelength or frequency of B during his observation or the timing of his observation, and how that might differ from M (Einstein’s stationary observer equivalent to S in this scenario).  The reason the contraction formula works is that it is consistent with observer time-intercept equations which are given in this discussion of simultaneousness.  It appears to be a modified Doppler formula.  To make the situation more intriguing, let’s add one more observer L, also moving at speed ½ c, who arrives at point S at the same time as M and P but moves away from point S at 75.5 degrees toward point B.  L begins to see light B at the same time as everyone else who is at S at the first arrival of the light and sees B for the same length of time as the stationary observers, S and Q, but it takes L longer to see A.  To summarize, there are now three moving observers, M, P, L, all moving at ½ c and all seeing B differently from each other and two seeing B differently from the stationary observer S and one moving observer seeing B the same as S.

 

The contraction formula was used to shrink a measuring device moving into a theoretical aether wind.  In our experiment there is no aether wind stated and no measuring device except perhaps a flat light detector.  Therefore, the author assumes that any moving observer must be moving through the stationary aether.  Therefore, not only M (M’) moving directly in line with B should shrink, but also P and L who move into the aether wind should be subject to any contraction consideration.  According to standard Doppler, M, L and P distances at wavelength intercept times would be (vt) 1.33E-15, 2.00E-15, and 2.31E-15 seconds respectively, while Einstein’s M’ allegedly would intercept at only 1.15E-15 seconds.  There is no explanation of P and L velocity adjustments or even in the case when M’ is moving away from a source emitter like A.  Since in effect, M’ would be moving through the aether when moving away from A, then his “forward” length should also shrink, which would result in light A catching him sooner than normal Doppler formula predicts.  The contraction formula would show an intercept time of 3.46E-15 seconds in place of the M Doppler formula intercept time of 4E-15 seconds.  All intercept times are end of wavelength observation times.

 

It would appear to the author that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is fundamentally equivalent to a time-intercept point of any observer moving toward (or even away from) a light source.  This must be a commonly-used formula by physicists but the author has not run into any discussion of how this relates to relativity.  However, the contraction formula overcompensates for forward movement.  Both the Doppler forward mover, M, and Einstein’s mover, M’, see B before the stationary (S) observer but the Doppler mover, M, knows his movement distorts the image (sees wavelength of 400 nm instead of the projected 600 nm seen by S), and can calculate back to show that B and A are simultaneous events.  But Einstein’s M’ can’t do this?  The author has no clue why Einstein’s M’, knowing his speed and observed frequency (or wavelength), cannot calculate back to the knowledge of a simultaneous event for A and B as seen by the centrally located observer S, and as a precondition of the experimental design.  So why do time dilations apparently occur?  Although one doesn’t get the extent of dilation with standard Doppler as with the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, the Doppler “contraction” is still significant and probably indistinguishable from each other, especially at lower speeds.  Most clocks are now based on EM mechanisms and movement across magnetic zones would likely retard these clocks without any “shrinkage” of length.  Particles which are claimed to support relativity by having “longer life” due presently to “time dilation” from increased velocity can be explained under QAT to have greater volume displacement per unit of time.  It would take longer for the basic aether matrix spin to “recapture” or reset the particles.  This is also the explanation for greater mass with greater velocity = greater volume displacement per unit of time.  Mass is a function of differential volume per unit of time vs the aether basic spin volume.  As a particle approaches the speed of light, it is also approaching aether spheres much faster to the point of ever-increasing drag on an exponential scale, keeping in mind that the c2 of the contraction formula is proportional to the angular speed of the aether spheres (c = 2 pi r w).   It would also be reasonable under QAT to view the mass-velocity relationship equation (m*Sqrt(1-v2/c2) as a Viscosity formula, showing that as a mass moves faster in aether, the resistance to movement through the aether increases as a result of the reasons given above, more volume displacement by the moving mass.  However physicists want to resolve this, it isn’t because space bends or rods shrink or time dilates.  Under QAT, it is because light speeds vary near mass (path of least time), and moving observers see light sooner due to wavelength compression (Doppler) which at slower speeds occurs only in the forward direction.  

Even when the author reads the above section, it is not as clear as he had hoped to state it.  The key point is that in the original example by Einstein, it is commonly stated that M’, the moving observer, sees light B before A and before the stationary S observer sees it, and, therefore, M’ concludes that B and A cannot be simultaneous.  As noted above, it appears clear to the author that any observer, moving or not, at point S at the time when S begins to see A and B, also begins to see A and B at exactly the same time that S does.  But moving observers will see a light wave in a shorter time in the direction when they are moving toward the light and a longer time in a direction when they are moving away from the light.  But they all begin to see the light at the same time, and by knowing observer velocity, light original wavelength, and wavelength shift (Doppler), it would be possible to calculate that A and B are simultaneous events by any observer, moving or not.  (By experimental design, A and B is the same event in two locations).

The above discussion shows how complex the discussion of relative time versus absolute time can become.  As noted by Goldberg in Understanding Relativity,  the majority of American physicists and English physicists of the era of Einstein, the 1920’s, did not support relativity theory, but apparently had no alternative to replace special theory.   Even Lorentz, whose contraction formula is the foundation for special theory, believed special theory to be a “tool” which could assist in evaluating certain events, but not a reflection of “reality” and certainly not powerful enough to lead to the denouncement of absolute time.  Hence, by default, special theory became the dominant theory of time dilation, when, in fact, it is merely a modified Doppler theory.  Point in fact: let’s do the same experiment one more time with only three observers; one stationary, S, and two moving, M and T.  All conditions as noted above are identical and S and M are also the same as noted above.  In this case, T has been added and T is moving the same speed and direction as M.   But T is trailing M slightly so that T arrives at S exactly when S sees the end of the wave pulse from A and B.  Based on the analysis method of Einstein, T would have to conclude that A and B were simultaneous, since T sees the “finished” wave of A and B at the same time as S does.  The relativist might argue that’s absurd because T wasn’t at point S when S began to see A and B so T knows A and B are not simultaneous events.  But the only way for T to conclude that A and B are not simultaneous is to conclude that A occurred before B [Since T would begin to see light wave pulse from A before light from B.] and therefore event A must precede B, while M moving at the same speed and same direction believes B came before A.  

The author cannot accept the result that M and T, both moving the same direction and same velocity can conclude that A and B are not simultaneous events, as seen by S.  Since based on relativity method using the end of wave as the critical analysis point, M would conclude B occurs first and T would conclude A and B were simultaneous.  It is not logical to have M use the end of the wave observation and T to use the beginning for analysis, but even if one does, the result is more confusing, since T would have to conclude that A occurs first even though moving in the same direction at the same speed as M. The only way out of this paradox is absolute time.  Based on velocities and times of intercepts, M and T should both be capable of using a Doppler shift formula or even the contraction formula to calculate back to the result that A and B were, in fact, the same event occurring simultaneously.  This was the design of A and B from the start; any other conclusion would be a distortion.

As noted below, at low velocities, Lorentz relativity Doppler formula and standard Doppler give virtually the same results.  Results are stated in perceived wavelengths with 600 nm being the base wavelength.  It is only at higher speeds well in excess of one-tenth the speed of light that the two formulas start to separate. 

 

                Apparent Wavelength Observed                      Galactic speed  /  Earth orbit spd  

Observer             Speed

1/2c

1/4c

1/10c

0.000733333

0.0001

Straight Forward

400

480

545

599.5603

599.94001

 90AngleCalc

693

620

603

600.0002

600.00000

Lorentzian Toward

346

465

543

599.5602

599.94000

Doppler Toward

400

480

545

599.5603

599.94001

Doppler Away

1200

800

667

600.4403

600.06000

Lorentzian  Away

1039

775

663

600.4402

600.06000

Straight Away

1200

800

667

600.4403

600.06001

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is determined in fact to be an accurate reflection of empirical findings, the author believes relativity is not the likely answer, but the formula shift would more likely be due to some yet-undiscovered quality of aether.  At higher velocities, aether drag or resistance may cause standard Doppler formula to break down in favor of Lorentz contraction (shifts). It might be possible that as an observer moves forward, a true lateral Doppler which as shown above is equivalent to the contraction formula is in play due to the transverse nature of EM movement.  Or the cause may be from some other aether quality resembling gyroscopic resistance to movement of rapidly spinning objects.  In any case, objects do not shrink in length at higher velocity.  The contraction formula was, the author believes, derived from study of ‘shrinking’ of EM events, wavelengths, not solid objects.  The author believes standard Doppler is very likely active for all observers since the empirical foundation of the contraction formula appears to be indefinable.

Appendix B – Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction [FLC]

If it can be shown that the FLC is a valid formula, then some of what the author has just stated in appendix A is not valid, at least for light.

 

   The extension of this specific result to a general result was (and is) considered "ad hoc" by many who prefer Einstein's deduction of it from the Principle of Relativity without reference to any physics. (Footnote - More exactly, it is a consequence of all physical laws being the same for all observers in inertial frames of reference. (Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction, wikipedia).

 

So basically much of modern day physics is based on a hunch?  While a stationary observer has to “wait” for the light to reach him, the moving observer might actually be seeing “side” bands.  As was noted earlier in the energy distribution section, while the light plane is moving forward at speed c, the face is also expanding sideways at c.  This means the diagonals of impulses of the face are moving at 1.41c, while the impulses along the four edges of the polygon are moving at 1.73c.  This brings us to the curious fact that for any given wavelength, using the Lorentz relativistic Doppler formula, a moving observer would see the equivalent of the original wavelength as if light was moving at a speed of 1.73c.  It would appear that observers somehow may detect this faster speed of light when making observations while moving. 

    As noted on the back cover of A need for speed (c), it is stated, “While useful for some calculations, relativity and quantum probabilities appear to be misleading and incomplete concepts within the framework of QAT.”  Therefore it would be acceptable to use the Lorentz contraction formulas since they obviously work.  But it has nothing to do with space or objects shrinking, it is because light moves at different speeds based on observer motion and perception.  Light does not appear to be invariant within the framework of QAT.  EM waves are often stated as “rotating” in addition to moving transverse (sideways).  Therefore, it is likely that moving observers are picking up these rotating waves from the side rather than the frontal approach as expected with longitudinal waves of sound.  (In essence, it is as if the waves are uncoiling to the moving observer, while stationary observers have to wait for the wave to “come around” to him or her.  The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction then is directly derivable from the lateral Doppler discussed in Appendix A.  But in the case illustrated, for whatever reason, it becomes a “half” lateral Doppler when moving forward.  Based on Lorentz relativistic Doppler results, the intercept time from the 600 nanometer wave phase from its front edge to the beginning of the next wave would be ~1.15E-15 seconds, and the observer would see a blue shifted wavelength of ~346 nm. in place of the original 600 nm.   If the speed of light was moving forward (down the lateral light pyramid) at 1.73c, then the intercept time calculated with the Lorentzian relativistic Doppler formula would give a perceived wavelength of ~600 nm. (1.15E-15 x 3E+10 x 1.73)   This would be true for any wavelength.  The author is not entirely sure what the final “fix” is, but he is sure that objects do not contract and Absolute time does not change.  The perceived shrinkage is the wave length or object image, not the object, space it absolute.   The time change is a period shift, which properly understood, translates back to confirm absolute time.

 


            References listed alphabetically by author

Adair, Robert K., The Great Design: Particle, Fields, and Creation, Oxford     University Press, 1987, New York

Avery, Elroy M., Elements of Natural Philosophy: A New Text-Book for High    Schools and Academies, Sheldon & Co., 1878, New York, 1885 edition

Avery, Elroy M., School Physics:  A New Text-Book for High Schools and        Academies, Sheldon & Co., 1895, New York

Barnett, Lincoln, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, William Sloane Ass., 1948, New      York, foreword by Albert Einstein

Barrow, Gordon M., Physical Chemistry, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961, New   York, second edition 1966

Barrow, John. D., The Origin of the Universe, Basic Books, 1994, New York

Bernal, Martin, Black Athena: The Afro-asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization,            Vol. 1, Rutgers University Press, 1987, New Brunswick, N.J.

Bittle, Celestine N., From Aether to Cosmos: Cosmology, Bruce Publishing, 1941, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Bonnor, William, The Mystery of the Expanding Universe, Macmillan Publishing         Co., 1964, New York

Born, Max,  Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1965, New York

Born, Max, The Restless Universe, Dover Publications, 1936, New York,         translation by Winifred M. Deans revised edition 1951

Bradley, Eugene B., Molecules and Molecular Lasers for Electrical Engineers,           Hemisphere Publishing, 1990, New York

Broglie, Louis de, Armand, Louis, et al.,    Einstein, Peebles Press, 1966, New          York, 1979 English Ed.

Calder, Nigel,  Einstein’s Universe, Viking Press, 1979, New York

Calder, Nigel, The Key to the Universe: a report on the new physics, Penguin             Books, 1977, Middlesex, England

Casper, Barry M., and Noer, Richard J.,    Revolutions in Physics, W.W. Norton &      Co., 1972, New York

Chester, Michael, Particles: An Introduction to Particle Physics, Macmillan      Publishing Co., 1978, New York           

Davies, Paul, God and the New Physics, Simon and Schuster, 1983, New York

Davies, Paul, and Gribbin, John, The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That            Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality, Simon and Schuster,            1992, New York

Dewdney, A.K.,Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour through the           Twists and Turns of Bad Science, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997, New   York

Diem, K., and Lentner, C., editors, Documenta Geigy Scientific Tables, Ciba-            Geigy, Limited, 1970, Basle, Switzerland, seventh edition, 1973 edition

Dodd, J.E., The ideas of particle physics:  An introduction for scientists,          Cambridge University Press, 1984, Cambridge, England

Einstein, Albert, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Crown           Publishers, 1959, New York, translation by Robert W. Lawson

Einstein, Albert, and Infeld, Leopold, The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of             Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Simon and Schuster,            1942, New York

Einstein, Albert, Ether and the theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden, full text available at http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html or other sites on the Internet

Feynman, Richard, P., Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its          Most Brilliant Teacher, Helix Books, 1963, New York, introduction by Paul          Davies, 1995 edition

Franklin, William S., and MacNutt, Barry, Light and Sound, Constable & Co., 1924, London

Gamov, George, Thirty Years That Shook Physics:  The Story of Quantum       Theory, Anchor Books, 1966, New York

Gamov, George, The Creation of the Universe, Mentor Books, 1952, New York

Gamov, George, One Two Three ---Infinity:  Facts and Speculations of Science, Mentor Books, 1947, New York

Gardner, Martin, The Ambidextrous Universe, Basic Books, 1964, New York

Goldberg, Stanley, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific            Revolution, Birkhauser, 1984, Boston

Goldsmith, Donald, The Astronomers: Companion book to the PBS television           series, St. Martin’s Press, 1991, New York

Harman, P.M., The Natural Philosophy of James Clerk Maxwell, Cambridge   University Press, 1998, Cambridge, UK

Guth, Alan H., The Inflationary Universe, Helix Book-Perseus Books, 1997,     Reading, Massachusetts

Hawking, Stephen W.,  A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black   Holes, Bantam Books, 1988, New York

Hazen, Robert M., & Trefil, James, Science Matters: Achieving Scientific        Literacy, Anchor Books, 1991, New York

Hoffmann, Banesh, The Strange Story of the Quantum, Harper & Brothers,      1947, New York

Horgan, John, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the      Twilight of the Scientific Age, Helix Books, 1996, New York

Hoyle, Fred, The Nature of the Universe:  The Origin and Future of the Earth, Planets and Stars, Mentor Books, 1950, New York

Huygens, Christiaan, Britannica Great Books #34: Treatise on Light, William             Benton, Publisher, 1690, Chicago, translated by Silvanus P. Thompson,     1953 edition

Jeans, Sir James, The Universe Around Us, Cambridge University Press, 1929,       Cambridge, England, 1930 edition

Jeans, Sir James, The Mysterious Universe, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1930,            New York, 1937 edition

Kahn, Fritz, Design of the Universe: The Heavens and the Earth, Crown          Publishers, 1954, New York

Kaku, Michio, and Thompson, Jennifer, Beyond Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for        the Theory of the Universe, Anchor Books, 1987, New York

Kaufmann, III, William J., The Cosmic Frontiers of General Relativity: A            Layman’s Guide to the New Universe, Little, Brown, & Co., 1977, Boston

Kline,  Morris, Mathematics and the Physical World, Dover Publications, 1959,          New York

Kuhn, Thomas, The structure of scientific revolutions, University of Chicago    Press, 1996 and earlier, Chicago

Lederman, Leon, with Teresi, Dick, The God particle, If the universe is the      answer, what is the question?, Houghton Mifflin, 1993, New York

Lerner, Eric J., The Big Bang Never Happened, Vintage Books, 1991, New   York                                                                                                 Lindsay, Robert Bruce, Basic Concepts of Physics, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,       1971,  New York

Lorentz, H.A., the theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of           light and radiant heat, Dover Publications, 1915, New York, published in           1952                                                                                                Luckiesh, M, Foundations of the Universe, Van Nostrand Co., 1925, New       York MacDonald, D.K.C., Near Zero:  An Introduction to Low Temperature Physics,        Anchor Books, 1961, New York

Macrone, Michael, Eureka!, Barnes and Noble Book, 1999, New York

Margenau, Henry, The Nature of Physical Reality: A Philosophy of Modern      Physics, Ox Bow Press, 1977, Woodbridge, Connecticut

Maxwell, James Clerk, A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism:  Volume 1, Dover       Publications, 1891, New York, published in 1954

Maxwell, James Clerk,  A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism:  Volume 2, Dover      Publications, 1892, New York, published in 1955

McEvoy, J.P., and Zarate, Oscar, Introducing Quantum Theory, Totem Books,            1996, New York, edited by Richard Appignanesi

Menzel, Donald H., Astronomy Random House, Chanticleer Press Edition,     circa 1972, New York

Metcalfe, H. Clark, Williams, John E., and Dull, Charles E., Modern Physics,   Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,1955, New York, 1964 edition

Newton, Sir Isaac, Britannica Great Books #34: Mathematical Principles of    Natural Philosophy, William Benton, Publisher, 1725, Chicago, 1954   edition, translated by Andrew Motte

Newton, Sir Isaac, Britannica Great Books #34: Optics, William Benton,         Publisher, 1717, Chicago, 1954 edition

Nourse, Alan E., Universe, Earth, and Atom: The Story of Physics, Harper and           Row, 1969, New York

Rado, Steven,  Aethro-Kinematics, Aethron Publishing Co., 1994, Los Angeles

Rainwater, Clarence, Light and Color, Golden Press, 1971, New York

Romer, Alfred, The Restless Atom: The Awakening of Nuclear Physics, Dover           Publications, 1960,      New York, 1982 edition

Rothman, Tony, Instant Physics: From Aristotle to Einstein, and Beyond,         Fawcett Columbine, 1995, New York

Rougier, Louis, Philosophy and the New Physics – An Essay on the Relativity            Theory and the Theory of Quanta, P. Blakiston’s Son & Co., 1921, Philadelphia, translated by Morton Masius

Schaffner, Kenneth F., Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories, Pergamon Press            Ltd., 1972, New York

Schatzman, Evry L., Our Expanding Universe, McGraw-Hill, 1992, New York

Sciama, D.W., The Physical Foundations of General Relativity, Anchor Books,          1969, New York

Smilga, V., Relativity and Man, Progress Publishers, 1950, Moscow, translated by V. Talmy

Smith, Hans-Jorgen, and Zagzebski, James, Basic Doppler Physics, Medical           Physics Publishing, 1991, Madison, Wisconsin

Snow, Theodore P., The Dynamic Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy, West Publishing Co., 1985, St. Paul, Minnesota

Sobel, Michael I., Light, University of Chicago Press, 1987, Chicago

Staguhn, Gerhard, God’s Laughter: Physics, Religion, and the Cosmos  /  Man          and His Cosmos, Kodansha International, 1994, New York, translated by   Steve Lake and Caroline Mahl

Supplee, Curt, Physics in the 20th Century, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York,   c1999

Thomson, G.P., The Atom, Henry Holt & Co., 1930, New York

Walker, Peter M.B., General Editor, The Wordsworth Dictionary of Science &            Technology, Cambridge University Press, 1988, printed in Denmark

Weinberg, Steven, The Discovery of Subatomic Particles, Scientific American          Library, 1983, New York

Whittaker, Sir Edmund, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity:  The         Classical Theories, Philosophical Library, 1910, New York, 1951 edition       (Referenced as Whittaker)

Whittaker, Sir Edmund, A History of the Theories of Aether & Electricity: Volume       II: The Modern Theories  1900-1926, Harper Torchbooks, 1953, New         York, published in  1960 (Referenced as Whittaker2)

Zajonc, Arthur, Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind,     Oxford University Press, 1995, New York

Zukav, Gary, The Dancing Wu Li Masters:  An Overview of the New Physics, Bantam Books, 1979, New York

World Wide Web links listed in this book

 

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html  - Einstein’s 1920 Leyden Lecture

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/stm.html - IBM images

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wave

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-FitzGerald_contraction_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz contraction  -  Wikipedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn - Wikipedia.org

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm  - Information site about Halton Arp

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/quasars_and_gamma_ray_bursters  - Arp site

http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci860994,00.html –proton radius

 

Page INDEX to Author References for A need for speed ( c ):

 

Adair, Robert K                      21

Arp, Halton                              75

Avery, Elroy M.                       7, 30

Barrow, John                         80

Bernal, Martin                        27

Born, Max                               38

Einstein, Albert                      25, 26, 85, 91

Einstein, Albert, and Infeld, Leopold           24

Gamov, George                    54

Geigy, Documenta                57

Goldberg, Stanley                 90, 96

Guth                                        71

Harman, P.M.                        7, 41

Hawkings, Stephen               7

Hoffman, Banesh                  11

Horgan, John             29, 33, 39

IBM Corporation                    55

Jeans, James                        5, 26, 27

Kahn, Fritz                              38

Kline, Morris                          25

Kuhn, Thomas                       76

Lederman, Leon, and Teresi, Dick 28

Lorentz, H.A.                          42, 77, 79

MacCrone, Michael              5

MacDonald, D.K.C.              61

Margenau, Henry                   8, 63-68

Maxwell, James Clerk          46

Newton, Sir Isaac                  31

Rothman, Tony                      6

Rougier, Louis                       32, 45

Schaffner, Kenneth   F.         10, 21, 30

Schatzman, Evry                   71

Sciama, D.W.                        26, 85

Suplee, Curt                           68

Weinberg, Steven                 60

Whittaker, Sir Edmund         5, 7, 12-22, 43, 49, 77, 82, 83

Wikipedia definitions            24, 63, 69, 73, 76, 87, 97

 

     INDEX

 

action at a distance  6, 12, 19, 28, 30, 43, 63, 70, 76

Aristotle                      6, 11

Big Bang (BB)           5, 9, 31, 33, 69-75

body-centered           36-41, 46, 49, 52, 53, 62, 64, 77, 80, 83, 84

Bohr                         8, 63

c speed of light          5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19-21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35-37, 41-43,                    45, 47, 48, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 76, 83-85, 90, 91, 95, 96,                     97, 98

causation                    5, 7, 8, 32, 83-84

cold dark matter        6, 29

corpuscular theory     11, 14-16, 22, 36, 64

Descartes                   8, 10-14

Doppler                      26, 31, 69, 74, 75, 87, 91, 92,  94-98

Eddington                  8

Einstein                      5-9, 11, 20-30, 38, 45, 47, 65, 69, 72, 85, 87, 90, 91, 94-97

electromagnetism (EM)        5-7, 10, 17, 18, 20, 23-26, 28-31, 35-37, 40-42, 47,                    49, 53, 54, 62, 64-67, 69, 74, 77, 83, 84, 87, 95, 97, 98

energy                         5-6, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, 27-29, 32-37, 39-41, 46-54, 60-62,                    64-66, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 83, 84, 86, 90, 97

Fermat                        10, 12, 44

General Theory (GT) 6, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 45, 69, 71, 72, 85, 91

gravity                         7, 10, 13, 16, 29, 33, 42-44, 46, 64, 71-74, 77, 84

Heaviside                   7, 11, 18, 20

Heisenberg                8, 11, 54, 80, 83

Higgs field                  6, 29

Hooke                      10, 13, 15

Huygens                     10, 14-16, 52

idler arm                     7, 36, 41, 83

Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson)           7, 18, 20

Lorentz                        7, 11, 23-25, 32, 42, 77, 79, 85, 87, 91, 94-98

Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction        24-26, 88, 91-93, 95-99

MacCullagh                11, 17-19, 54, 79, 83

mass                           6, 9, 28, 32-37, 42-48, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60-62, 64-67, 70, 72,                  73, 76, 77, 79-81, 83, 84, 95, 108

matter                         9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 28, 30, 32-34, 40, 42, 46, 46, 56, 60-                    62, 69-71, 74, 77, 87, 108

Maxwell                      7, 11, 18, 19, 22, 25, 36, 41, 46

mechanics, matrix                 54, 83

mechanics, quantum 69, 80

mechanics, wave                  53, 54, 80, 83

medium                      5, 6, 9-15, 18-20, 25, 26, 30, 32, 34-37, 39-43, 47, 48, 52-                    54, 66, 67, 79, 83, 84

Michelson-Morley      6, 7, 11, 21, 23-25, 32, 77, 78, 87

Newton                       5, 10, 12-15, 22, 25-28, 31, 34, 43, 46, 63, 70, 71, 83, 85

particle                       5, 9-14, 18, 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31-39, 41-43, 46-49, 53, 55,                  60-71, 73, 76, 77, 80, 83, 84, 95

Pauli Exclusion Principle      32, 38, 66, 69, 70

photon                        25, 29, 36, 37, 48-50, 65-67

Planck                        8, 11, 23, 36, 61, 64, 76, 80, 83

quantum theory          6, 23, 24, 32, 49, 53, 76, 80

red shift                      70, 72, 75, 76

simultaneity                9, 85-88, 90, 91, 94-96

space                         5-7, 10-14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-33, 35, 36, 38, 40-44, 46, 48,                  53, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 76, 77, 83-85, 95, 98

Special Theory (ST)              6, 9, 23-27, 31, 32, 45, 85, 90, 96

Steady State Theory (SS)    29, 31, 69-72

symmetry                    7, 30, 38, 61, 90

thermodynamics        7, 62, 74, 85

Thompson, J.J.          49, 51, 77

time                             5, 7, 12-14, 24-27, 29, 31-35, 38, 45-47, 61, 63-66, 72, 73,                               76, 77, 79, 83-88, 90-96, 98

vacuum                       6, 7 12-15, 17, 31, 35-37, 39, 41-43, 53, 60, 67, 78

volume                        18, 19, 33, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46-48, 60, 72, 73, 79, 82-84,                               95, 108

wave theory                6, 13-16, 23-42, 40, 49, 50, 52, 65, 66, 77, 80

wave-particle dualism           6, 29, 34, 63, 83

Young                         6, 16, 17, 64

zero point field           6

 

 


 Video Graphics References

I put together a webpage in 1998 with video graphics to help visualize some of the concepts presented by QAT.  Unfortunately, due to modern virus killers and firewalls, it no longer functions in the way I intended it to work.  NOTE, most of the writing on this site was pre 2000, and therefore does not reflect the corrections made in this text on quantum aether theory.  Information of QAT overrides any information presently noted on the website listed below.  I hope to fix the site at a later date but other activities take precedence at the time of first publication.

You can go to the site to view text but the videos may not work on the actual site pages.  NOTE the I in index must be capitalized to work.  The videos work on some of my computers and not others.

http://webpages.charter.net/deww/Index.htm

To view a video go to the following site and click on the specific avi file.

http://webpages.charter.net/deww/

It may be possible to view the individual avi files on your media player (such as Windows Media player) set on continuous or looping for best visual results.  Just click on the file you want to run.

QATwall.wmv  - two walls of spheres demonstrating opposite spin    [Note this one doesn’t seem to work on all computers,  works on mine with Windows Media Player and better with NERO Show Time.  Sorry, this video, wmv, does not seem to work on Apple Computers but the avi files will.       

augcop.avi  - video of three layers of spheres with top and bottom spin opposite center sphere,     basically a NANOcube missing the front sphere in order to see the center.  This illustrates matter without mass, volume displacement which remains in its own space, hidden within the aether matrix.

cloudfade.avi - video of mock hydrogen NANOcube with two phantom spheres. This illustrates matter with mass, volume displacement incompatible with aether matrix spin.

dream3.avi   - top view of aether spin

dream4.avi   - side view of aether spin

vA.Html    -    You may be able to view augcop, dream3, and dream4 on a single page but may be asked by your webviewer for permission to allow these videos.

 

Author’s email as of 12/31/2008   deww@charter.net