Quantum mechanics mathematically describes physical phenomena at the molecular to the subatomic level. In the world of quantum mechanics, physical laws apply that are in our macroworld no longer relevant, but clearly mark observations. One of the quantum mechanical observations is that electrons circle in discrete orbits around the atom. The light that electrons emit, when they reach a lower orbit closer to the nucleus of an atom, is quantified, has a very specific frequency. Every atom emits its own very specific light waves; light quanta. Physically this phenomenon is to this day still a mystery. Quantum mechanics has of course developed a mathematical solution for this, but the physical explanation this solution implies is contrived and enigmatic. You'll see that with aether everything falls into place. The mystery of the atomic and molecular quantum mechanics is unraveled.
In the chapter "The photon and Planck's constant" the Planck constant is theoretically derived with an accuracy of 6%. This is a good indication that the analysis that underlies this derivation has a certain element of truth.
It has been demonstrated that scientifically, aether can not be ruled out. The vacuum, space, would then be filled with aether. This aether might consist out of point volumes with the radius indicated by means of the previously described and proposed photon. A much better indicator of the size of the point volume will be obtained with the formula, also derived in the chapter "The photon and Planck's constant", where the empirical value of Planck"s constant is substituted for the theoretical derived value:
RP lanck
= e4/32p2Mee2hc3 = 1, 636393 * 10-18 meter We will now fill up space with point volumes, which have a radius as shown above. What happens is startling! The radius Rc of the electron follows from the equation for the Compton radius:
W e
= Mec2 = e2/4pe0Rc
In the equation for the radius of the point volume, the mass of the electron is present. Elimination of the mass Me of the electron from the two equations, gives a ratio between the radius of the electron and the point volume of:
Rc/RP lanck = 8pe0hc/e2 = 1722, 045 ˜ 123 = 1728 When we assume that the ratio between the Planckradius and the Comptonradius is 123 instead of the calculated value of 1722.045 we introduce a deviation of 1.003458. Remember the origin of this factor because it returns systematically in the following analysis.
If point volumes fill up vacuum, this will happen in the tightest possible construction, a hexagonal stacking. Similar to marbles in a very big bowl.
Figure 34: Point volumes fill the vacuum The point volume will be in the vacuum in a rectangular grid orientation, as schematically shown in the above figure. If a positive nucleus is placed in the aether, then the positive charge of the nucleus will draw the negative charges/aether in the point volumes. The point volumes around the atomic nucleus become polarized and polarize the adjacent point volumes and so on. The aether around the nucleus polarize with the speed of light. An effect of the polarization of the point volumes surrounding the atomic nucleus is that the polarized point volumes are drawn toward the nucleus.
The point volumes around the atom's nucleus are drawn towards the nucleus by means of the electrostatic field. This has as a result that the hexagonal orientation of the aether (Figure 34) is lost around the nucleus and changes into a circular resp. spherical orientation. The arrangement of point volumes without and with the electric field of the nucleus differs substantially. The left small circle, below in Figure 35 , around the atomic nucleus can still be found in the hexagonal orientation (Figure 34) without a nucleus, but the circle with 12 point volumes cannot. It is essential to realize that the geometric orientation of the aether around an atomic nucleus fundamentally differs from the stress free hexagonal orientation.
Figure 35: Forced circle orientation of point volumes around the nucleus. All point volumes around the atomic nucleus are pulled towards the core. This has the consequence that point volumes, as much as is allowed, orient themselves in a circle around the charge. The radius of the pointvolume, RPl, is the smallest distance known.
We will call the radius of the point volume in the sequel the Quantum Distance (QD=RPl). We will see that the space around the nucleus is quantified by means of the forced circular orientation.
The electron occurs when a positive and a negative point volume, with spin energy, separate from one another. The charged spinning point volumes expand to the electron and positron. The radius of the electron Rc, is as we have seen almost a factor 123 greater than the Quantum Distance (QD). The introduction of this small deviation is rewarded with insight into the geometry and symmetry of the space around the nucleus and thereby provide a clear understanding. This will become clear later.
Figure 36: The electron constructed out of 123 point volumes with radius QD In Figure 36 we have drawn schematically the crosssection of the electron. The drawn radius of the electron is Rc=123QD. The geometric center of the circle with radius Rc is the point O. Bear in mind that the circle around O is made up of point volumes, which have a circular orientation around O. A point volume, with a diameter of 2QD, located at a distance Rc from the geometric center O includes an angle a. The angle a can be calculated by:
The point volume comprises measured from point O an angle of 25 arc minutes. In a circle of 360 degrees there are exactly 123/2= 864 angles of 25 arc minutes. The circle with the radius Rc can be thought constructed out of exactly 864 point volumes with a diameter of 2QD at distance Rc of O. Now there is something strange going on. Keep in mind that arithmetic and mathematics are developed by mankind on the basis of observations: mathematics is an empirical science.
With 123/2 point volumes in touch around O at a distance Rc=123QD, a "perfect" circle can be created as is illustrated in Figure 36. When we calculate the circumference of the circle by adding up all 123/2 arches of 2QD that are circularoriented around O, we calculate that the circumference of the circle must be: 864*2*QD =123QD =Rc. The circumference of the circle with radius Rc around O is equal to Rc! This is remarkable because in our world, the circumference of a circle with radius Rc is equal to 2pRc. How can 2p now equal to 1? The arithmetic calculation is correct. This can not be compromised. The mathematical solution to our world of experience is a factor 2p bigger and is experimentally determined and therefore also correct. How can this inequality be solved? Calculating the surface of the circle of the imagined electron by adding up 123 rectangular surfaces with height Rc=123QD and basis QD we calculate that the surface is also a factor of 2p smaller than the surface of a "normal" circle. How is this possible? Draw with a ballpoint or pen a small dot on paper. Look at this point and try to see a circle. The circumference of the tip is so small, that radius and circumference blur into one. A small dot has a diameter of 1/10 millimeter. The point volume has a radius of about the pencil tip of one tenth millimeter divided by a hundred times a million times a million and that's literally immeasurably small. There is no conception possible. The point volume is so The only logical explanation for the arithmetic result, that the circumference of the circle is equal to the radius, and the mathematical calculation, where the circumference is 2p times the radius, is that a mathematical translation takes place from the Quantum Dimension (QD), the point volume, to our three dimensional world experience. If you do not find this acceptable, then there is only one other possibility and that is that the math is wrong, because mathematics is based on the arithmetic. The most "logical" explanation is that the Quantum Dimension (QD) transforms mathematically to our experience of surface with a translation factor of 2p. The mathematical natural constant 2p must have its origin somewhere! Let us now take the circle created out of point volumes around O in mind. All point volumes belonging to the circle are touching, as shown in Figure 37. What is striking is that the point volumes below and above the circle are no longer fully connected to the adjacent point volumes, as is the case with the hexagonal orientation (Figure 34).
Figure 37: The imperfect filling of space with point volumes Is it possible with point volumes to create a "perfect" sphere around O? No.
If we look from above the circles around O (Figure 38), then there is only room for two "perfect" circles. It is impossible for point volumes or marbles to form a "perfect" sphere.
Figure 38: Top view of 2 "perfect" circles Rc around nucleus in O Around O no more than two "perfect" circles can simultaneously exist when vacuum is filled with point volumes.
When we suggested that the electron emerged from the vibrating and rotating point volume and the expansion ended at the Compton radius, the radius of the classical electron, we had no answer yet to the question: Why Rc? Why does the electron has precisely this size? The new found geometry provides the basis for the stable electron. The two circles Rc each consisting of 123/2 point volumes are perpendicular to each other and give the electron a stable threedimensional structure. The charge of the electron e is evenly spread over the sphere by the two stable circles. One of the "perfect" circles provides the basis for the rotation of the aether with the speed of light c, the magnetic spin of the electron.
Figure 39: Rotating negative charged sphere with radius Rc =123QD Of interest for later explanation of physical phenomena is the observation that no more than two "perfect" circles around point O can be formed.
The fine structure constant a The fine structure constant a is a constant of nature which is directly related to the Planck constant h. What a means in physical terms is not clear to science. The fine structure constant is seen as the constant that determines the electromagnetic interaction, and therefore is responsible for the observed minimum differences in the frequency of photons of the hydrogen atom. We know only that a is very important in a physical sense, but what it actually represents is a still mystery.
In the previous chapter we have seen a , the fine structure constant, but we paid no further attention. We consider the electron again. 123 point volumes at the distance Rc=123QD form two "perfect" perpendicular circles. A circle has an angle of 360 degrees or 2p radians. The angle a shown in Figure 40, is the minimum angle at which a point volume (2*QD) from O can be fully observed. We calculate this angle and obtain the value a = 2p/(123/2)= 1/137,54 radians.
Figure 40: Alpha, the fine structure constant
The empirical value is very accurately determined at a= 1/137, 036. The deviation between the above derived value a = 2p/(123/2) and the empirically determined value for a is identical to the introduced deviation of 1.003458, when we argued that Rc/QD=123
We shall see that the calculation of theoretically derived quantities systematically devolve to this factor. The assumption that space is filled with aether having point volume identities provides hitherto theoretically derived values for empirical parameters, such as a, which correspond exactly when taking into consideration the deviation of 1.003458.
The ionization levels of the atom The observation that excited atoms transmit light with a very specific frequency when electrons reach a lower ionization level, is one of the physical phenomena that indicate quantification of energy. To be able to explain this quantification, quantum mechanics must assume that the electron should be considered a duality, a particle as well as an oscillation.
The electron, in a stable orbit around the atomic nucleus, according to quantum mechanics, must be seen as a vibration, where the trajectory of the electron to the core is a multiple of the assumed wavelength of the electron. The electron is understood to be a particle and a vibration in quantum mechanics.
This assumption, the supposed duality of the electron, is necessary in quantum mechanics to be able to explain the physically stable ionization levels of the atom. According to current knowledge, it is not possible that the electron as a charged particle, can spin forever around the nucleus. The electron as a charged particle, loses energy, according to mainstream physics, when circling the nucleus (Bremsstrahlung) and will therefore eventually collapse into the nucleus. Because the electron doesn"t collapse (empirical knowledge) the conclusion of science is that the electron therefore must be considered an oscillation when circling in the atom. The situation is that the experimentally observed Bremsstrahlung, is a macroscopic phenomena; valid in our world but not at the subatomic level. The ionization levels around the nucleus are for the electron, in the circular bend space around the nucleus, resistance free "straight" paths.
So quantum mechanics assume that the electron is a particle and simultaneously a vibration, to be able to present a "consistent" story. This assumption is necessary in current physical insights, but are very strange, since the electron under all other circumstances is extremely stable.
With aether, there is no need for the electron or any other particle to be particle and vibration at the same time to explain observed physical phenomena. The electron is always just a particle. It can be excited, can vibrate, but that doesn"t imply that there is a duality. The excited electron can be represented, for example, as a tennis ball that has been hit by a tennis racquet. The blow makes the tennis ball vibrate, but it remains a real tennis ball despite deformation, like the electron. The electron remains an electron when excited. It is and remains a particle, which under certain circumstances can vibrate and emit excess energy with radiation.
When the electron orbits the nucleus and descends to a lower energy level, then the energy of the photon is very specific, quantified, for every atom. The electron can, with aether theory, only circle at discrete distances from the nucleus without resistance, without loss of energy. There are exactly 12 ionization levels. The ionization levels are to be found at very specific distances from the nucleus. The space around the nucleus is "quantified." The quantification of light emitted by atoms is the result of the quantification of the space around the nucleus. The polarized aether creates at very specific distances from the nucleus tunnels where the electron can circle resistance free. The energy levels of the tunnels are in quantum mechanics called the principal quantum numbers. The principal quantum numbers n = 1,2,3 ….. represent the ionization levels or the energy levels of the atom. With aether the quantification is not mathematically determined, but physically by means of the inhomogeneous space around the charged nucleus.
Figure 41: Spheres with the radius of the electron Rc create the ionization levels The quantification of light emitted by atoms is the result of the quantification of the space around the nucleus. The polarized aether creates specific distances from the nucleus where the electron can tunnel around it without resistance.
The electron is trapped at specific distances from the nucleus in tunnels with the radius of the electron. These tunnels are called the principal quantum numbers in quantum mechanics. The principal quantum numbers n = 1,2,3 ….. represent the ionization levels or the energy levels of the atom. With aether the quantification is not mathematically determined, but physically by means of inhomogeneous space.
Figure 42: 123 spheres with radius Rc create 2 "perfect" tunnels with radius Rc The two created circles can be considered as two circular tunnels with the radius of the electron Rc. These tunnels are also perpendicular to each other. The electron can circle the nucleus in these two tunnels, since the crosssections correspond with the diameter of the electron. At the Bohrdistance (Rb), there are two tunnels with the profile of the electron.
The two tunnels with radius Rc at Rb, the Bohrradius, represent the lowest energy level in which the electron can circle in the atom. This corresponds with the main quantum number n=1 of quantum mechanics. Since at the Bohrdistance (Rb) there are two tunnels with a radius Rc there is room for two electrons in the ground state.
By imagining the space around the nucleus to be constructed out of spheres with radius Rc, we can envisage where in the space around the nucleus, tunnels with the dimensions of the electron are created. When the distance Rb is constructed with 123 spheres with radius Rc we can calculate the Bohrradius of the atom with a precision of 0.05%. The proposed polarized aether around the nucleus is therefore fully consistent with the experimental findings of quantum mechanics.
When we calculated the surface of the electron constructed with point volumes, we noticed that the perimeter of a circle in our world is a factor of 2p larger. It is therefore not surprising that at the start of threedimensional space for the electron, the Bohrdistance, a mathematical correction takes place. This correction is 4 times the natural logarithm of e=2.71828 and explains the origin of the other mathematical physical constant of nature: the exponential growth constant e. The total mathematical correction from QD, the point volume, to our threedimensional world of experience is a factor 2p necessary for the transformation from the point volume (QD) to the Comptoncircle and a factor 4e for the correction from the Comptoncircle to our threedimensional space. The necessary mathematical correction from the point volume to our world of experience is therefore:
Summarizing we demonstrated that at the distance Rb of the atomic nucleus, the Bohr radius (n=1), two electrons can circle the nucleus resistancefree. Outside these two tunnels, the geometry of the space built up from point volumes is not in accordance with the structure of the electron. Outside the two tunnels, the electron must be deformed. The electrons are therefore trapped in the ionization tunnels.
When an electron circles in one of the tunnels, its speed is precisely so great that the attractive electrostatic force on the electron is exactly the required centrifugal force to let the electron circle in the tunnel. If the equilibrium position of the electron during its orbit is disturbed for example, by the absorption of a photon, then the speed of the electron and the electrostatic force will no longer match; the balance is disrupted. The electron is, due to the absorption of the photon, in an excited state.
When the electron absorbs a photon, it not only receives the energy, it also takes up the impulse. The speed of the electron, after absorbing the photon, is not in balance anymore with the centrifugal force necessary to let the electron circle exactly in the tunnel around the nucleus.
Figure 43. The excited, vibrating electron. The balance of the orbit of the electron disrupted. The speed of the electron is no longer in accordance with the electrostatic force which the nucleus exerts. The electron will now penetrate the space outside the tunnel. Because the space outside the tunnel is not in accordance with the geometry of the electron, the electron is pushed back. Depending on a number of factors including whether the energy increase of the electron is large enough to overcome the barrier, the electron can leave the tunnel and orbit on a higher level or even leave the atom ionized.
When the electron is unable to leave the tunnel completely, it comes in on a "rollercoaster" ride. It vibrates in the tunnel, trying to leave but is pushed back again and again. Also, depending on a number of factors, the electron can immediately emit a photon (reflection), lose energy during the rollercoaster ride and emit a photon of lower energy (fluorescence) or lose all energy to a radiant heat conversion (absorption).
The structure of the aether is geometrically in accordance with the dimensional structure of the electron only in the two tunnels at the Bohrdistance. In order for the electron to get further away from the core, it must deform. As soon as the electron is able to leave the tunnel it is pushed away from the nucleus by means of the imperfect geometry of space.
When the distance of the electron to the charge increases, the imperfection of the geometry of the aether decreases. At what distance from the nucleus has the imperfection of the aether disappeared and therefore is the structure of the aether geometrically in accordance with dimensional structure of the electron, allowing it move freely? For the electron to move freely, the space around the electron must be everywhere consistent with its geometry. At the Bohrdistance the first two tunnel are created corresponding to the dimensional structure of the electron. In the tunnel at the Bohrdistance the space is three dimensional. The first ionization level (n=1), the Bohrdistance, is the beginning of the three dimensional space for the electron. For space to be everywhere perfectly 3dimensional, we need to be in the 4th Quantum Dimension.
Again, we build up space with 123 spheres as we already did two times before, but now with spheres of the radius of the Bohrdistance; the first distance to the nucleus where space is according to the geometry of the electron. At the distance from the nucleus of 123 times the Bohrdistance (123Rb) space has become homogenous for the electron. It can be no coincidence that the calculated distance (123Rb) is, apart from the repetitive factor 1.003458, exactly equal to the reciprocal value of the Rydberg constant.
The remaining 11 ionization levels The electron in aether theory is a sphere with radius Rc. The electric field of an atomic nucleus forces the aether around the core in a spherical orientation. The geometry of the electron does not fit, does not match the geometry of the polarized aether around the core. The electron must deform when it moves in the space around the nucleus, except in tunnels where the space is according to the geometry of the electron. The circular stacking of the point volumes at the Bohrdistance Rb around the core create, the first ionization level where the geometry of the aether is consistent with the electron. At the first ionization level (n=1) two electrons can move free from resistance around the nucleus.
The radius of the electron, the Compton radius Rc, and the Bohrdistance Rb are found by filling up space around the nucleus with point volumes which are attracted to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. In the area around the atomic nucleus the geometrical configuration of point volumes is not homogenous for the electron. If we continue to fill space up outside the Bohrdistance than other geometric patterns will be evident, such as the attendant quantum numbers l = 0,1,2, ..n1.
The number of ionization levels around nuclei according to quantum mechanics is,
Although there should be, according to quantum mechanics, over 40 ionization levels, experimental science can only observe 12 . The remaining 29 are undetectable! Why can the other ionization levels not be measured? Quantum mechanics calculates the number of ionisation levels around an atom by means of the root of 1722.04 which is 41.4975 When we however fill up space around the nucleus with pointvolumes we find 12 ionisation levels in complete agreement with the empirical found number of ionisation levels.
In quantum mechanics, the maximum number of ionization levels is calculated by stating
that n 2
= 1722.045 and therefore n8= 41.4975. Quantum mechanics is with n2
in the 2nd quantum dimension. With aether we are with the ionisation levels in the 3th (quantum)
dimension for the electron: 1722.04 ˜ 123
It can not be a coincidence that the deviation is again the systematic factor of 1.003458. The ionization levels are for the electron in the 3rd Quantum Dimension (n3). So there are not 40+ ionization levels, but exactly 12.
Why must we be in the third dimension?
Figure 43: The geometry of the aether around the atomic nucleus Empty space is filled with point volumes with radius QD. In the polarized aether around the nucleus at a distance of 123QD, the geometric shape of the electron is created. At a distance 123Rc, the Bohr radius, two tunnels with the radius of the electron Rc are realized.
These tunnels are the first threedimensional tunnels for the electron and the start of the 3th Quantum Dimension. Therefore, we must calculate according to n83 = 1722.045
gives n8=12 (ignoring the factor 1.0003458).
The final result of all assumptions is a logical and understandable physical explanation for the great mystery of molecular/atomic quantum mechanics:
Why do discrete ionization levels exist? Now the answer has become obvious. Space around a nucleus is quantified by the electric field of the nucleus. The above statement is not mysterious and incomprehensible. In the aether there are many, many geometrical configurations to be found providing explanations and the elimination of fundamental natural constants. The above analysis ultimately provides the Planck constant in terms of other constants of nature. h can be expressed as follows in the other remaining independent constants of nature:
The deviation of the experimentally determined constant of Planck h is the frequently mentioned factor 1.003458. This divergence systematically pops up and arose when we assumed that the Compton radius of the electron and the Planck radius are geometrically related to 123.
Summarizing we found that the Rydberg constant is 123 times as large as the Bohrradius, which in turn is 123 times as large as the Compton radius of the electron, which is 123 time the Quantum Distance (Plankdistance).
This sequence of 123 eliminates the natural physical constants for the Compton radius, the Bohrradius and Rydberg constant.
In addition, the origin of the mathematically natural constants p and the natural logarithm e are found. Furthermore, we have obtained a clear physical explanation for the cause and position of the ionization levels.
It is impossible that this is all just coincidence. The physics of aether is fully consistent with the experimental formulas of quantum mechanics within a factor of 1.003458. In quantum mechanics, the use of correction factors is not uncommon. A quantum mechanical "perfect" formula is when it deviates by a factor, and this factor is added to eliminate the deviation. We do not apply this "trick" to obtain a perfect match. Such conduct is cheating.
To be exactly correct, the systematic factor 1.003458 must be explained. A possible explanation for the factor implies for me a mathematical problem that is far beyond my expertise. In figures 37 and 38, it is presented visually how the point volumes in the polarized aether around the atom's nucleus do not always touch each other. The hexagonal stacking of vacuum is replaced by a spherical orientation. The logical conclusion is that the hexagonal stacking can accommodate more point volumes, then an equal volume with spherical orientation.
When the hexagonal stacking of point volumes is forced by the electric field into a spherical orientation, then the space the point volumes occupy, increases. This may be the explanation for the factor 1.003458. The magnitude seems intuitively correct.
The mathematical determination of the factor by which the volume increases when a hexagonal stacking is transferred to a spherical orientation is beyond my skills.
The article "Quantum Mechanics and the Aether", which is described in the final chapters, was sent for publication to all the leading scientific journals. It will not surprise you that this was not successful. The rejections of the referees can again be summarized with: not relevant, not current.
I want to illustrate some comments briefly. Do not forget that the referees of scientific journals are the crème de la crème of science:
"This paper does not contribute to the understanding of the physical phenomena and should therefore be rejected." "The fine structure constant is, I believe, measured to many places of decimals, and it is not equal to 4*pi/12**3, as is implied by your formula. Therefore your formula is false." "it appears that your manuscript is very far from what is usually published in our review. Therefore, we will not further consider your paper in …" "There is no justification, no physics. It does not deserve publication in …" "Moreover, by a purely logic stand, what the author "derived" is just alpha, not h." "It would at least be more sensible to call it an attempt to derive alpha (which is in principle possible one day, but it will involve field theory) than an attempt to derive Planck"s constant." "If this paper would have been written between 1911 and 1924 it might have been an interesting contribution to science. But now that we have the Quantum Theory ……" The many speculations of the science Quantum Mechanics Negative reactions were expected, but I was still upset. I approached science and scientists always with respect. All theoretical physicists were trained with the belief that the science they practice is correct. The mentioned omissions were peddled as the undeniable scientific truth. The scientists are not to blame. The work performed by them remains brilliant and ingenious. It is just no longer science, but fiction.
From science, one should expect that discovered omissions are investigated. The publication of these articles should result in a scientific discussion whether the earlier conclusion that aether can not exist is really justified. Science is the search for the truth! The arguments of theoretical physicists, that it is not interesting or relevant that aether exists, demonstrates incompetence. The reasoning that mathematically it has been proven that the existence of an aether does not matter, is even ridiculous. Scientists will say anything to prevent their incompetence from becoming known.
From a human perspective, it is perfectly understandable that scientists and certainly the epitome of the science, rejects revision of earlier scientific conclusions. It doesn"t serve their selfinterest when this happens. The geniuses presume my theories are "crackpot". Financial and other factors play an important role in leaving physics as it is. When the scientific truth is violated so brutally, then science must ultimately take responsibility, however painful that may be. After 7 years approaching scientists with respect, I judge it is time to question their competence and integrity.
What's the point of educating students in fiction for another 100 years, what is the usefulness of research for fictitious particles that costs billions, what is the use of blocking scientific advances any longer, what is the benefit to society to withhold nuclear fusion, what is the advantage to sell fiction as science? Quantum mechanics claims to be the most successful theory of all time. In one sense this is true. Scientists have been able to find exceptional experimental formulas for quantum mechanical phenomena, which is admirable.
How is it possible that quantum mechanics empirically is so successful, while the theories are fiction? If thousands of scientists worldwide, over years have searched for formulas that describe particles, then it is statistically expected that occasionally exceptionally good formulas are found. This is not the result of insight, but the result of coincidence.
Consider the famous Standard Model. This model is the mathematical relationship between different particles. The Higgs particle is "predicted", because it is necessary for the developed mathematical model to be "valid". Science needs, to make the Standard Model complete, 25 fundamental constants of nature such as the fine structure constant, alpha.
Nobody knows what these fundamental constants of nature really mean, but they are mathematically necessary. Science calls these mathematically necessary factors "fundamental constants of nature", but the phrase "no idea what they represent constants" would be an equally good name, except from the perspective of marketing of the Standard Model.
These 25 fundamental constants of nature are not sufficient because the Standard Model is not yet complete. Fundamental constants of nature are also required for the not yet discovered Higgs particle, dark matter, dark energy, ……
Dark mass, which science can not perceive and therefore do not know what it is, must account for, according to the theories (read formulas), no less than 84% of all mass. Only 16% of the scientifically necessary mass is known. The same applies to dark energy, unobservable and unknown, but which must present 73% of all energy known in the universe (or multiple universes?).
Despite all this ignorance, science knows with certainty what they know! A fundamental physics experiment Now what? None of the scientific articles has been able to interest the scientists of theoretical physics to consider that the scientific conclusion that the vacuum is absolutely empty space may have been premature. Writing another article seems futile.
When their knowledge and insight is questioned, believers in quantum mechanics state that there is no doubt about the correctness of their beliefs. They say it is empirically, so incredibly successful, that the theory must be true! Empirical significance is apparently in QM the only thing that counts. You would think that when irrefutable empirical evidence can be presented, that quantum mechanics is based on incorrect premises, this should be enough to get everything on its head.
The experiment that can cause this must be to so fundamental that no one can deny it. Scientists should not be able to say anymore "…. but quantum mechanics is empirically so successful that it must be true". The experiment should be so "basic", that someone with high school Physics understands that (sub) atomic quantum mechanics is based on incorrect assumptions.
In the article "The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy" is shown that Electromagnetic Theory (EM), the theoretical basis for subatomic quantum mechanics (particle physics), violates the law of conservation of energy. There must be something fundamentally wrong. Is there a fundamental erroneous assumption in electromagnetic theory, that can be stated empirically in a simple way? Every high school student in physics knows that two parallel rectified electric currents attract each other and that two parallel but opposite electric currents repel by magnetic force. This is empirically and unambiguously demonstrated and forms the fundamental experimental basis for EMtheory.
What does the EMtheory state of two parallel streams of electrons and protons? It states that a stream of protons should be seen as an opposite flow of electrons. This means that if we have a stream of protons parallel but opposite to a flow of electrons the two stream of charges must be considered, according to the EMtheory, as two parallel rectified electrical currents.
Figure 44: The attractive force between a proton and electron beam according to EM With aether, it clearly shows that two parallel streams of charged particles, regardless of the charge of the particles have to attract each other when the particles move in the same direction, and vice versa repel when the currents are opposite .
Figure 45: The force between parallel streams of charged particles with aether The distinction between EM and the aether theory is obvious. A parallel flow of protons and electrons, wherein the particles are moving in the same direction, must repel according to the EMtheory, while the aether predicts that the beams attract each other. A very basic and simple experiment can therefore determine whether the EMtheory in this respect is correct or not.
You might wonder if this experiment has not already been performed? Remarkably enough, no. The experiment is basically very simple to implement. Place an electron gun, (which I think is present in any physics lab in high schools) parallel to a proton accelerator. The proton beam will not be detected visually, but that's no problem. It is known to which side the protons move. At the electron beam, the idea is to see whether attraction or repulsion takes place. Distortion by the electrostatic force between protons and electrons is protected by the Faraday cage, which is what the shell of the proton accelerator in fact is. The experiment is not at all stressful, since it can be performed even when the proton accelerator is in operation for other purposes.
Scientific institutions were not interested when I suggested this measurement. The argument that this experiment should be carried out in principle to confirm unverified assumptions of the EMtheory, was to no avail. Normally it is scientifically prudent to eliminate assumptions of a theory, if possible. Experimental confirmation of the mentioned assumptions has not been done, and are necessary according to the scientific method.
Scientific institutions fail. Possible an other party can perform the experiment. TNO in the Netherlands carries out measurements on assignment for third parties. I had heard that TNO can use the proton accelerator at the universities for measurements. I therefore asked TNO, on behalf of myself, to perform the measurement at my commission. The response of TNO is that they do not perform electromagnetic measurements. This answer surprised me greatly. I questioned whether an exception could be made but no response was received.
Even such a simple and inexpensive experiment is impossible to realize. Some science journalists remarked sarcastically, that then I must build a proton accelerator myself.
My esteem with regard to the scientists of theoretical physics and science journalists decrease, after unmotivated rejection of the articles and experiments. Not because errors have crept into science, because that is always possible, but the dominant morality that selfinterest at the expense of everything must prevail. My previous respectful approach to scientists gives way to a cynical view of how scientists deal with knowledge. A cynical approach seems to me essential to shake up science.
One of the cynical mailings sent to thousands of scientists, universities, science journalists etc., with the title "AAAS Tolerates Structural Science Fraud" is to my surprise answered by a Nobel Laureate in Physics. In subsequent correspondence, the article "The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy" and the fundamental physics experiment have been discussed.
Recapitulation of the conversation comes down to this:
When asked what he thinks of the experiment, the answers is: "I"m not interested".
At the request to perform the experiment in his laboratory the answer is: "Of course not." With regard to the article on magnetic and kinetic energy his last words are:
"I'm not defending Thomson, that was nearly 130 years ago. I am defending my own understanding of EM and QM" (For the full correspondence I refer you to the website) Even a Nobel Laureate in Physics has no legitimate argument raised why the article and the measurement are not relevant. The message of science is clear:
No matter what arguments or evidence is found, previously acquired scientific knowledge is untouchable.
Epilogue
Fourteen years ago I had no idea what I was getting into. I was convinced that scientists are seeking the truth, because science is the search for truth. It has been sheer naivety to think that scientists have a morality that transcends selfinterest.
The goal from the outset is focused on recognition of the knowledge that aether may exist. The scientific view that vacuum is absolute empty space, makes it impossible to obtain a subsidy for building a fusion reactor based on aether physics. This is impossible as long as mainstream science denies the possibility of aether.
Shortly summarized, we can conclude that stellar aberration is fully explained with dragged aether. If the article about stellar aberration was published before 1905 then Einstein would never have concocted SRT, because there would have been no need for such a theory at all. Where would science be if that had happened? The theory of the point volume eliminates with the repetitive factor 123 the physical constants as the classical radius of the electron Rc, the Bohr radius Rb and the Rydberg constant.
The assumption that aether exists leads to an unambiguous explanation for the mystery of discrete energy levels of atoms and provides a physical explanation for atomic and molecular quantum mechanics. The physical cause for Alpha is revealed and the independent fundamental physics factor, the constant of Planck, is eliminated. As a bonus, the origin of the natural mathematical constants Pi and e appear, and that is according to scientists just all a coincidence! The subatomic quantum mechanics (particle physics) have hardly been discussed, but it is shown that the EMtheory, on which the Standard Model is based, is at crucial points, fundamentally incorrect.
Geometry plays no role in the Standard Model, and is not at all applicable. With aether this is the opposite. The geometric configuration determines everything. For nuclear fusion the particles must be guided; manipulated. The chaos of the thermonuclear fusion approach seems far from optimal to achieve fusion when aether exists. According to the scientific discipline of nuclear physics, the radius of the nucleus is about 1012 meters. At this scale, a nucleus includes about 1018 point volumes. With 1018 point volumes an infinity of possible configurations can be constructed.
When I was writing the chapter "Fundamental physics experiment", CERN came with the announcement that the Higgs particle is most likely found. The first thing that comes to mind is: "History repeats itself". In 1727 Bradley discovered stellar aberration. In 1905, over 175 years later, there was still no physical explanation at all. The distraught scientists embraced SRT and Einstein as the savior, while the experimental evidence and theoretical consistency of the theory are very suspect.
More than 40 years after the prediction, and after many, many billions are spent, the Higgs particle is not yet found. The particle is absolutely necessary for the validity of the Standard Model. In recent years, doubts grew whether the Higgs particle exists. The scientists are again "desperate" to "prove" their science is not fiction.
The Higgs particle must have specific characteristics. Very likely it is now found, or so says science. What exactly is found is not known, but it is the last hope for the Standard Model.
If the particle does not have the right features, they can still devise a mathematical solution; a new renormalization of the Standard Model, so everything can be fixed mathematically.
It is always possible to find mathematical solutions to any problem. Maybe now "antiparallel subdimensions" are going to be the scientific reality. Who can tell?
Conclusion
It is really not up to me to draw conclusions in this book now. That is up to you, the reader. With what I wrote, I tried to make clear the inaccuracies and limitations I experienced.
It is my intention to alert the nonscientist, as I consider myself to be as well, on the doubtful conclusions science has drawn. I hope that you, after reading the book, will not accept unthinkingly everything that theoretical physics sell as the indisputable truth. It convinced the world that common sense cannot fathom the subatomic world. This is, according to this science, only granted to individuals who are able to comprehend higher mathematics.
By relative simple mathematics and common sense I think I have demonstrated that the practitioners of theoretical physics are not omniscient. In the past 14 years, scientists have refused categorically to answer my questions, whereas I"m convinced I didn"t just talk nonsense. Theoretical physics has established such distances between men and science that scientists per definition consider a scrupulous questioner an idiot.
It is important that one should not consider it impossible that scientists have little notion of what they"re up to, and that they therefore don"t understand how the subatomic physics can be explained in a logical way. There is the possibility that science will oppose scientific, economical, social and meteorological developments by unmitigated overestimation for many decades to come. From which point of view, the described subjects are considered, the conclusion is,
Unbelievable.
P.s. There is a conclusion I dare to make and that is that Science will not correct the mistakes unless they are forced to do so; it is all too embarrassing. If you agree Science must correct the omissions, please forward the link of "Unbelievable" (http://www.paradoxparadigm.nl/wpcontent/uploads/Unbelievable.pdf) to persons who are interested. The public opinion is the only option left that is able to force Science to adopt the necessary changes.
Autor:
Carel van der Togt
| Página siguiente |