Although SRT provides no explanation how the stellar aberration is achieved, desperate scholars embrace it as the redeeming solution. After more than 175 years, finally, a "possible" explanation was provided and science embraced this opportunity. Science was after a very, very long time looking for an answer, and would uncritically accept any. SRT does not explain, in a logical manner, the phenomenon of stellar aberration. Science had become so despairing, that any explanation was better than none. Besides a very dubious "explanation", SRT delivers many logical inconsistencies, and contradictions. Desperately the scholars embraced the very speculative mathematical interpretation of SRT and elevated the theory to scientific truth. Is it science or Faith? The dragged aether and the electric field A week into my sabbatical and I have an excellent explanation for stellar aberration, by analyzing the influence of the motion of the Earth around the Sun and the inclination. Assuming that I"m not the only one that is considering the answer of SRT weak and that therefore also scientists would like to see a better explanation, I send an article about stellar aberration to different universities in the Netherlands addressed to scholars who lecture SRT. I expect positive reactions.
It will take some weeks before I will get an answer, so I decide to go on and investigate the physical properties that dragged aether should have to be consistent with phenomena such as the electric field. That an aether can exist is made plausible, but what properties does the aether have to possess to be able to explain other physical phenomena? What does the aether look like? The electric field is a stable physical phenomenon. To be able to describe an electric field using aether, electric charge separation in vacuum is needed. When the aether is presented as a perfect fluid, with free positive and negative charges, then a positive or negative charge is immediately screened with the opposite charge from the perfect fluid.
The fact that electric fields and charged particles are stable, the conclusion must be drawn that in the aether, charge separation is possible, but also that the charges in the aether can not be completely free, because then charges would immediately be shielded and a stable electric field would not be observable.
Consequently, we assume that aether should consist of an entity, in which the positive and negative charges are trapped. We give the entity the name "point volume". In Figure 10, the vacuum is filled up with the proposed point volumes. The point volumes are stacked, while in the point volume there must be a "substance" in which charge separation is possible.
Figure 10: Point volumes filling up space An electric field can now be presented and explained with the assumed point volumes in which charge separation can be realized. This charge separation is schematically shown in Figure 11. Each point volume again induces charge separation in the subsequent section of volume and so on. The assumed point volumes make it possible for the electric field to be stable and propagate in a vacuum.
The electric field between two capacitor plates can then be imagined as follows: In the point volumes at the negative plate, the positive charge is drawn to the negative charge while the negative charge is repelled. In Figure 11, the negative capacitor plate has to be positioned to the left. The total amount of charge on the negative capacitor plate is offset by the positive charge separation in the point volumes.
Figure 11: Representation of charge separation in point volumes by an electric field In Figure 12, the charge separation, established by the charged capacitor plates in the aether, is shown as an overlap of the point volumes. Left at the positive plate, the negative charge in the point volumes is pulled to the plate, while the positive charge is repelled. The charge separation in the point volumes induce the same in the adjacent point volumes. The plates of the capacitor attract each other by means of the aether.
Figure 12: Schematic representation of charge separation with aether When a neutral particle enters between the capacitor plates, nothing happens, but with a charged particle this is different. The electric field between the capacitor plates and the electric field of the charged particle will influence each other. A charged particle has an electric field around it that is symmetrical on all sides. There cannot be a resulting force on a charged particle when there is no other electric field with which to interact.
Suppose that a positive charge is placed between the capacitor plates. Then the electric fields of the capacitor and the charged particle will influence one another. The interaction of both fields results in a force on the particle and plates. The particle will accelerate in accordance with the laws of electromagnetic theory (EMtheory).
Figure 13: The force acting on a positively charged particle in an electric field The force F (Figure 13) will accelerate the positive particle in the direction of the negative plate. Charged particles in accelerators can never (experimentally proven,) be accelerated to the speed of light. This is seen by mainstream science as experimental confirmation of SRT, since according to it, the speed of the light can never be achieved by a massive particle.
With aether, the light speed of about 300,000 km per second, must be seen, in spite of the the incredible speed of light, as a limitation of the aether to transmit electromagnetic changes. In the point volumes, separation of charge will occur when an electric field is generated. Separation of charge in point volumes takes time, despite the enormous speed of light, which can be seen as the inertia of aether (vacuum,) to electrostatic changes.
Figure 14: The loss of force by the inert qualities of the aether When a charged mass in an electric field with aether is accelerated, then the particle can of course not be accelerated to the speed of light, because of irrefutable empirical knowledge. With aether, the cause for this does not lie with the relativity of time and space, but with the inert quality of the aether. It is conceivable that, when light velocity is the velocity by which the electromagnetic changes in the aether are transported, that it is physically impossible to accelerate a particle to or above the speed of light. In this context, the speed of light is the inert quality of the aether.
When a charged particle in the electric field is accelerated to V, then a portion of the electric field is no longer able to exert force on the charge when the particle is accelerated further. In figure 14, this is indicated schematically. The charge Q in the figure demonstrates that the particle in the electric field is only accelerated by a fraction of the electric field.
If the charge has a velocity V in the electric field, then the particle will move in the direction of the electric field in a very short period of time, dt, a distance of Vdt meters. Charge Q is a distance vdt removed from its original position after dt seconds. The philosophical and empirical law that a reaction can only take place after the action has taken place, together with the inert quality of the aether, are the cause for the reduction of the exercised force. In Figure 14 it is shown how the force decreases as speed increases.
With aether as a medium, the acting forces on the particle are transmitted by the aether itself. The force pulls and pushes the particle. When the particle is not moving, V=0, all the force and energy of the field is ceded to the particle in the form of kinetic energy. When the charge has a speed, the inert quality of the aether is responsible for the fact that not all of the energy delivered by the electric field is transferred as kinetic energy to the particle.
The effects of the inertia of the aether to the force which the field can exert, is shown in Figure 14. The surface of the dark circle still contributes a force, and transfers energy to the charge by increasing the speed V. The remaining electric field does not contribute anymore to the acceleration. This force and associated energy are "lost". "Lost" does not mean that this energy has disappeared.
When I was in primary school we shot paper balls in the classroom with a rubber band. Sometimes the wad of paper fell from the rubber band. Then no energy is transferred from the rubber band to the paper wad. The energy of the "field" is then "lost", not transferred to the speed of the the wad. The "lost" energy is manifested as vibrational energy of the rubber band. This is similar to the energy of the electric field that is lost. The charge has moved before the discharge energy of the electric field can be transferred.
Figure 15 shows how energy is "lost". The law that reaction can only follow action, explains why the charged particle can not be accelerated to the speed of light. The particle moves with the speed V. After dt seconds the charge moves Vdt meters. A portion of the field (the elastic band that disengages from the wad of paper) is too late. The force/energy of the dark colored part of the electric field can not wield a force and transfer energy to the particle. The charge is already gone when this part of the electric field discharges. Energy can not be lost as the law of conservation of energy, forbids it.
Figure 15: The inert quality of the electric field and "lost" energy The charge has already passed when this part of the electric field unloads its energy. With aether space is not absolutely empty. The charge is gone, but there is still aether, point volumes, where the energy of the field discharges. The "lost" energy of the dissipated electric field excites the aether behind the particle. The relaxing electric field passes the energy to the aether in the form of electromagnetic vibration (radiation), at the spot where the charge was situated dt seconds earlier.
Electromagnetic energy travels at the speed c and will therefore overtake the charge. The particle moves at speed V, which is always lower than the speed of light c. The radiation overtakes the charge/particle and can be absorbed by the charge. This energy brings the particle into vibration. The energy "lost" does not accelerate the particle and presents itself as electromagnetic energy of the excited particle. This radiation energy is known in high energy physics as synchrotron radiation.
Currently science sees synchrotron radiation as kinetic energy which the fast moving particle cedes when the charge is deflected from the straight path. Mainstream science supposes that the electric field transfers all its energy to the particle in the form of kinetic energy. With aether, the explanation is different. The "lost" energy of the electric field transferred to electromagnetic energy, catches up with the particle and brings the particle into electromagnetic vibration. This vibration energy is disposed of by the charge when the particle is deflected, since the absorbed electromagnetic oscillation has the momentum/ direction of the discharging electric field.
The part of the force/energy of the electric field that was "lost" manifests itself as synchrotron radiation is. The "lost" energy of the electric field yields:
F vds = (v2/c2)EQds Electromagnetic energy and the aether The previous chapter presented how an electric field can manifest itself in the aether. With aether, electromagnetic energy must be seen as excess energy emitted by the aether or the particles.
Synchrotron radiation, with aether, is the discharge of an electric field where the energy is not transferred to a charged particle in the form of kinetic energy. To clarify the concept of electromagnetic energy with aether, we assume a negative electron. Around the charge e of the electron the positive charge in the point volumes, attracts the positive charge in the surrounding point volumes and repels the negative charge. This is schematically shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Charge separation in the aether around an electron A high energy photon can split into a negative and positive (= positron) charged electron. The electron, as schematically shown in the above figure, has just been created and polarizes the aether with the speed of light. In point volumes adjacent to the electron in the aether, the positive charge is attracted by the electron while the negative charge is repelled. The field around the created electron propagates with the speed of light c. The energy of the electric field represents the energy of the charge of the particle.
The electric field is maintained by the charge of the electron. The electric field can only exist, be stable, as long as the charge is present. Suppose that the electron suddenly disappears without a trace. The energy of the charge is still present in the aether, but the power that established and keeps the charge separation has disappeared. The electric field around charge e collapses with the speed of light c. The discharge of the electric field is opposite to the situation after the electron is formed. The discharge of the electric field is aimed at the point volume located where the electron could be found. The electron is gone, but there are still point volumes. The dissipative electric field is concentrated at the point volume where the electron was situated. The discharging electric field excites the point volume into an electromagnetic vibration.
Figure 17: Schematic representation of an electromagnetic vibrating point volume The electromagnetic vibration of the point volume can be imagined as follows: in situation 1, the positive charge is located on the outside of the point volume and the negative charge on the inside. In totality, the vibrating point volume is neutrally charged. The positive charge and negative charge in the point volume attract and are accelerated to each other. In situation 2 both opposite charges pass each other. The charges in the point volume overshoots to situation 3, where the negative charge is on the outside and the positive charge on the inside. The process is reversed and after the charges pass each other, situation 1 occurs again; the oscillation has run through a full cycle.
The electromagnetic vibration is not limited to the one point volume. Depending on the energy of the vibration with respect to the frequency of oscillation, and the inertia of the aether with c, the electromagnetic vibration expands across the aether. Depending on the frequency of oscillation in the central point volume, the charge separation in the adjoining aether is limited over space. The higher the frequency of oscillation, the shorter the volume with respect to distance other point volumes are polarized and are part of the electromagnetic oscillation.
This is because the central point volume, where the energy of the vibration is concentrated, oscillates with a higher frequency when the energy of the oscillation increases and therefore the oscillation can not spread further than the frequency allows the aether to be polarized.
The above argumentation does not presume to claim that a stationary electromagnetic vibration, as described, actually exists. The aim is to show that with aether, with certain properties, physical phenomena can be described. You might think: "Where should this paper lead? What is the meaning of all this?" To be able to answer this question you must have patience. The analysis leads to insights that reveal the secrets of quantum mechanics. It's not just a speculative story. A sound scientific basis is waiting for you, but before this can be explained, you must first become familiar with the physical properties aether has to possess; as imposed by empirical observations.
Magnetic energy
In the previous chapters we discussed the properties the aether must have in order to be responsible for physical phenomena, such as the electric field and electromagnetic radiation. Deduced, is that aether should have certain characteristics to be able to allow an electric field. The aether must be made of positive and negative charges and must be encapsulated in an entity we call the point volume.
Magnetic energy must also be plausible within aether. A charged particle induces an electric field in the aether. This charge separation, the electric field, is permanent as long as the charged particle exists. Consider now a charged particle that moves relative to the aether. The electric field alias the charge separation in the aether is permanent. When the charge moves the induced electric field, the charge separation, is entrained by the charge. The induced separation of negative and positive charge in the point volumes is dragged when the charged particle moves in the aether. This dragged aether is what we call the magnetic field and represents magnetic energy.
Figure 18: The magnetic energy of a moving charge In the previous chapters, it is assumed that the positive and negative charges are trapped in the point volumes, otherwise a stable electrostatic field is not possible. The properties hitherto assigned to the aether are however not sufficient to explain and describe the formation of stable elementary particles such as electrons or the magnetic field. The assumption that the positive and negative charges in the point volume are locked in, can not be a fully correct representation.
The observation that electric fields are stable, implies that the aether must be locked down in an entity. Other physical phenomena indicate, however, that the aether also must be able to leave the point volume. After analysing the contradiction, that aether under certain conditions is confined to the point volume and the observation that aether also should be free in some way to be able to include the photon and the electron, yet allow it to be described, results in the realization that particles with mass must have specific characteristics.
The electron
We mentioned that the positive and negative charge of the point volume can separate during an electromagnetic vibration of the neutral point volume. The observation that a high energy photon can split into an electron and a positron indicates that the charges in a point volume can separate indefinitely. Because the aether must be consistent with the observations we must therefore assume that a point volume can definitively split into a negative and positive volume. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the positive and negative charge must be able to leave a point volume.
You might wonder what the use is of all these speculations concerning "aether". For the moment that is for you, the reader, incalculable. However when all logically imposed assumptions lead to empirically observable and verifiable properties, then the deduced properties of the aether, at least partly, are confirmed experimentally. A little patience please!
Figure 19: Vibration and complete separation of the point volume Imagine a vibration of negative and positive aether in the point volume (figure 19), where during the vibration the positive and negative charge become completely separated. The separated negative and positive point volume have equal but opposite charge.
Although we deduced that the negative and positive aether must be encapsulated in an entity we called "point volume" to be able to describe a stable electric field, we also had to conclude that aether must be able to leave the point volume to describe the magnetic field. This inconsistency, the contradiction of encapsulation and the ability to leave the point volume, must be answered.
When the oscillation energy of a point volume is large enough to separate the point volume completely into a negative and positive volume, the assumed ability of the aether to leave the point volume indicates that the separated charges will be annihilated. The separated charged volumes will attract and absorb, by means of the electrostatic force, the charge from the adjacent point volumes. The charges of the separated volumes will be annihilated and spread over space with the speed of light.
A separated point volume is therefore, with the necessary assumed physical properties, not stable. To be able to describe stable separated point volumes and particles, the charged volumes must possess spin energy. In figure 20 we drawn a negative point volume with rotation energy. This rotation energy is pure magnetic energy; a movement of aether. Suppose now that the negative charged point volumes attract positive aether from the adjacent aether. The positive aether is absorbed and neutralizes the negative charge.
Figure 20: The separated rotating negative point volume The adsorbed positive aether not only neutralizes the negative charge, but is also drawn, by means of the electrostatic force, into the spin. The absorbed positive aether, ceded by the surrounding point volumes, makes the adjacent point volumes partly negative charged.
The now partly negative charged surrounding point volumes will attract those lacking positive charge from the surrounding aether and draw the absorbed positive aether into a magnetic spin. This process of ceding of positive charge by adjacent point volumes continues. The rotating, spinning negative volume expands further and further.
Figure 21: The expanding rotating negative point volume The expanding negative charge is shown schematically in the figure above. On the outside of the spinning disk, the speed of the spinning aether is the highest. If the energy of the spin is large enough to achieve the speed c at the end of the rotary disk, then the negative spinning aether is not capable of continuing to entrain positive charges from the surrounding volumes. The inert quality of the aether, the speed of light c, is again the restrictive factor. The inert quality of the aether, the speed of light c, prevents the adjacent point volumes to deposit positive aether. The electrostatic force is no longer capable of dragging aether. The electrostatic force responsible for contact between the spinning disk and the surrounding aether is lost. The aether at the end of the profile is now spinning with the speed of light. The negative charge on the outside of the spinning volume can no longer drag positive charge from the adjacent point volumes. The negative charge of the point volume has attached itself to the surface of a sphere that rotates with the speed of light at the end of the profile.
Figure 22: Rotating and expanding point volume Calculating the magnetic energy of the spinning disk, moving at the speed of light c at the end of the profile, and the Comptonradius, the classical radius of an electron, then the magnetic spin energy equals to:
W m = µ0e2c2/8pRc The negative charge of the separated volume is equal to the negative charge of the electron e. This charge is positioned on the sphere with radius Rc, the Comptonradius. The electrostatic energy of a sphere with charge e and radius Rc is experimentally determined by:
W p = e2/8pe0Rc
Figure 23: The electron spinning with the speed of light The sphere spinning at the speed of light with charge e and radius Re has a total energy Wt equal to the magnetic energy Wm and the electrostatic energy Wp. W t = µoe2c2/8pRc + e2/8pe0Rc Is it a coincidence that the derived total intrinsic energy of the electron Wt , in the above formula, is exactly equal to the total energy /mass of the electron? The above derived formula for the electron describes many aspects of the particle; the dimensions, the charge, the electrostatic energy, the spin energy and stability.
The energy of the electron is equally distributed among the two degrees of freedom the electron possesses; magnetic spin energy and electrostatic energy. It is no coincidence that the energy of the electron is evenly distributed over the two degrees of freedom. This is in accordance with the equipartition principle.
The equipartition principle is the observation, based on experimental information, that in thermodynamics the energy of a system is equally distributed on the available degrees of freedom. The illustrated electron has two degrees of freedom to store energy.
The electrostatic potential energy of the electron can be seen as energy that is present in the particle which wants to decrease. In general, we can say that potential energy has the urge to degrade to dynamic energy. A plane always tends to crash. This potential energy will, when the plane crashes, be converted into dynamic energy, the speed of descent.The potential energy of the electron, the electrostatic energy, also seeks degradation to magnetic energy. An electrically charged sphere tends to decrease its energy level by expanding.
Figure 24: The potential energy of electrically charged spheres In the figure above, the positive and negative charged sphere both possess potential electrostatic energy. This potential energy is released when the charges are annihilated. The potential energy in the illustrated electric circuit discharges when we short circuit.
When we switch S to open, the potential energy of the two spheres disappears. That nature always pursues the lowest possible energy level is something we see everywhere around us. Hot food cools, a ball rolls down, a battery drains and a positive and negative charge attract each other to reduce the energy.
The charge of both spheres can not level out (Figure 24) without contact or without an electric wire. The potential energy of the two charged spheres also decreases when the spheres expand. The electrons on the negative sphere want to be as far as possible away from the other electrons. The potential electrostatic energy wants to expand the sphere, but can not because the sphere resists the expansion.
We argued that when the expanding spinning negative volume reached speed c, at the end of the profile, the adjacent aether can no longer hand over its charge because the electrostatic force is no longer able to do so. The electron, a spinning bulb with radius Rc,
wants to expand further even though no charge can be absorbed. The lack of absorption of charge does not imply that the charge of the electron does not want to continue expanding to decrease the energy level.
The spinning charge of the electron still strives after a lower energy level. The larger the bulb, the less dense the charge distribution is, the lower the energy level. In short, the stopped aether transfer does not stop the expansionism of the charge of the electron.
What then ensures that the electron will expand no further? It is the magnetic energy of the spin. Outside the electron the charge separation, the electric field, spins along with the spinning, charged, spherical electron. The induced magnetic energy in the aether around the electron was created when the spinning negative point volume expanded to an electron.
The rotation energy of the aether outside the electron, the spin, is allied with the charge of the electron. The electric field energy of the electron is connected to the negative charge. Charge and spin of the electron are entangled. The charge can not expand further because the magnetic spin energy does not allow it.
Mathematically, this is evident from the previously derived total energy of the electron.
W t = µoe2c2/8pRc + e2/8pe0Rc In Figure 25, below, it is demonstrated schematically that the spinning charge separation outside the electron is connected to the charge of the electron. In the above equation of total energy, we see that the magnetic spin energy (first term) has to decrease when Rc increases. When the electron expands further, the magnetic energy becomes less. So for the electron to be able to expand further the redundant magnetic spin energy must be ceded.
Figure 25: The spinning aether surrounding the charged electron For the electron to expand electron the superfluous spin energy must be transferred. However we see that the second term of the equation for the total energy of the electron, the potential energy, also decreases when the electron expands. So the expanding electron can not lose the energy allowing it to expand. The charge is trapped. The electron can not explode because both energies, magnetic and potential, decreases when the particle further expands; the magnetic and electrostatic are trapped. The proposed basic and very simple electron doesn"t need to possess an internal structure to prevent it from enlarging.
It may be difficult to imagine how this is physically realized. However, there is a natural phenomenon, a phenomenon that is still a mystery, and that is, ball lightning. Ball lightning is the big brother of the electron in our macroworld.
The spinning magnetic field around the ball lightning traps the charge. Its magnetic field may lose energy by magnetic induction in objects near itself. Magnetic energy leaks away, decreasing the spin energy over time and the ball lightning eventually explodes. The energy of the electron spin is incapable of being transferred to another system, and therefore the electron is extremely stable.
The photon
Within aether the electron can best be regarded as a very small ball lightning, wherein the charge is held captive on a sphere with radius Rc; the classical electron or Compton radius. The magnetic field of the electron is the spinning electric field outside the electron. This magnetic energy keeps the charge trapped. The spin and electrostatic energy of the electron are entangled and together, constitute the particle.
The spin speed of the electron at rest in respect to the aether is externally equal to the speed of light c. When the electron is put in motion by an electric field, it moves with respect to the aether. When in motion relative to the aether, the situation arises that the spinning charge of the the electron exceeds, in relation to the surrounding aether, the speed of light c.
Figure 26: The with V moving and therefore shrinking electron The energy of the spin of the electron is fixed. The speed of the spinning charge on the outside of the electron in respect to the aether is c. When the electron moves with speed V relative to the aether, the speed of the charge on the outside of the electron will lose contact. The rotation speed inside the electron decreases proportionally to the radius (Figure 23, 26 and 27). The electron cannot expand, but can decrease in size. The size of the electron decreases proportional to the speed of the electron until the shrinking of the electron has compensated for the speed V.
Figure 27: The contraction of the electron in motion relative to the aether With the motion of the electron, the total energy increases with the kinetic energy. When the electron is in motion, it has a total energy that is equal to the intrinsic energy of the electron, namely, the magnetic spin plus electrostatic energy of the electron, and the kinetic energy. The total energy of the electron increases as it moves. Where does this energy of the electron originate? To make things clearer, we present below the total energy Wv of the electron moving with speed V: W v = µoe2c2/8pRc + e2/8pe0Rv + µoe2c2(Rc – Rv)/8RcRv The first term is the magnetic spin energy. This energy remains unchanged when the electron accelerates. The second term is the electrostatic potential energy of the charge which increases when the radius of the electron decreases. The charge of the electron, being now positioned on a smaller sphere (Rvwill represent more energy (second term). The last term is the magnetic energy that the electric field of the moving charge induces in the aether.
It should be noted that the increase in potential energy of the charge by the decrease of the radius of the electron, is equal to the magnetic energy of motion. Both forms of energy, potential and dynamic or electrostatic and magnetic, that the electron possesses are still equal. When the acceleration of the electron is finished, the electron will remain in balance with the aether as long as the electron is moving with velocity V in respect to the aether.
The size of the electron remains in balance with the aether.
The decrease in the interaction between electron and aether continues to apply as long as the electron moves at V. If the electron slows down, it will enter into an electromagnetic vibration. Imagine that the electron moves at V. The electron collides and comes to a standstill. The interaction with the aether increases and the shrunken electron, with radius Rv, can expand. The potential energy is now too large for the magnetic spin energy to keep the radius of the electron at Rv. The electron dilates further.
The spin energy is sufficient to confine the charge on Re. The electron expands to Re. Now the spin energy is in accordance with the radius, but the electron expands further to Rm (Figure 28) because the decreased potential energy of the expanding charge is converted into magnetic energy. Due to the inertia of the system, the electron expands to Rm, after which the magnetic spin energy, now too large for Rm, compresses the charge again. The shrinking overshoots the radius Re to Rv, and the electron expands again. The abundance of potential electrostatic energy of the electron when stopped, is converted to oscillation energy.
The abovedescribed oscillation relates to half of the kinetic energy of the electron. The other half, the induced magnetic energy, due to the charge separation and the motion of the electron catches up. The magnetic, kinetic energy reaches the vibrating electron when it is already expanding. Further speculation how the process varies is not useful. What should be noted, is that the magnetic energy of the electron has an impulse in the direction of motion of the electron before it was brought to a standstill. The vibrating electron causes an electromagnetic vibration in the aether. The magnetic energy, with momentum in the direction of motion, drags the electromagnetic vibration with it.
This process results in the ejection by the electron of a photon, in which the vibration energy of the excited electron is the oscillation energy of the photon. The magnetic energy of the electron represents the "kinetic energy" of the photon in the direction of motion.
Figure 28: The vibrating, excited electron The above argumentation is in no way scientific. How the aether precisely handles energy and photons in particular, can possibly one day be specified. The aim of the thesis is to show the qualities the aether must possess to be able to physically be responsible for phenomena. What I tried to accomplish here, is just a plausible explanation for physical processes. In no way do I pretend to present an exact accounting of the phenomena.
You must understand that I am now in the 3rd week of my sabbatical and I'm considering possibilities the aether offers for explanations of physical phenomena. Only later, when it becomes clear that the demonstrated capabilities of the aether were completely ignored by scientists, did I look for scientific evidence to support the story. This is later presented to you as the main dish .
Time dilation
Time dilation is the observation that for fastmoving unstable particles, time seems to go slower than for particles at rest. This phenomenon is seen as very strong confirmation of the Special Theory of Relativity. According to scientists, the observed longer lifetime is the result of the slower ticks of a moving clock compared to a stationary clock.
Time dilation is observed in cosmic radiation particles such as µmeson. The µmeson has a halflife of 2.2 micro (millionth) seconds. This means that every 2.2 millionth second the number of mesons are halved by disintegration. Mesons, which penetrate the Earth's atmosphere are observed at 2000 meter altitudes. On average, there are 568 observed mesons per hour at that height. The speed of the mesons is nearly the speed of light. This means that it takes a meson 6.6 micro seconds to travel from 2,000 meters altitude to sea level.
With a halflife of 2.2 microseconds one can expect that from the 568 mesons at 2000 meters there will be 568/8 mesons, or about 71 left over to be observed at sea level. The travel time of 6.6 microseconds is 3 times the halflife. The number of mesons will be reduced by half, 3 times before the remaining mesons reach sea level . The number of mesons observed at sea level is 412, almost 6 times as many as could be expected on the basis of the halflife. Science argues that, in the context of the Special Relativity Theory (SRT), this is an experimental confirmation that time is relative.
The scientific explanation given by SRT for this observation is that the mesons moving with a very high speed towards the Earth experience a slowing of time, according to the Lorentzfactor t' = tv1 – v2/c2 .
To observe 412 mesons, out of 568, at sea level implies, according to SRT, that the speed of the mesons is about 0.985 times the speed of light. Is this an experimental confirmation of the Special Theory of Relativity? From the perspective of an aether, another explanation is much more logical. The explanation of SRT, by means of time dilation, assumes that the mesons that are stopped enjoy the same lifetime as the undetected mesons, which travel to sea level.
Given the perspective of the previous chapter, a highenergy particle that is brought to rest can be expected to absorb at least part of the kinetic energy it had originally. The very unstable meson, with only a halflife of 2.2 microseconds, that is forced to rest, enters into an excited state.
The electron is extremely stable and will release the excess energy by means of a photon when it is forced to stop. The meson is unstable. The kinetic energy of the meson that travels with 0.985 times the speed of light is enormous. So much so, that the kinetic energy of the meson is almost enough to create 6 new mesons! Once a highly unstable charged particle such as the meson with an immense amount of kinetic energy is brought to a standstill, one can expect with an aether, that at least part of the energy is transferred to the unstable particle in the form of vibrational energy, such as discussed in the previous chapter.
The disintegration time of a radioactive element, in aether, depends on the overflowing oscillation energy the particle possesses with respect to the most stable situation. The most stable situation is one where there is no excess of thermal energy present, ie at 0 degrees Kelvin, the absolute zero temperature of approx. 273 degrees Celsius.
The meson is raging through the aether, and as long as it can move freely it is in equilibrium with the aether. The halflife of an unstable particle will decrease when the thermal energy, the excess vibration energy is increased. When forced to a standstill the kinetic energy will be (partly) transferred into the form of vibrational thermal energy. The thermal energy of the meson with such extreme speeds will certainly increase when the meson is forced to stop in aether. The conclusion that the observed increase in halflife is caused by the relativity of time and space is premature. It is much more likely that the halflife of the meson, which travels undisturbed through the aether, is considerably greater than the halflife of the meson that is forced to stop.
It is plausible that the lifetime of an unstable radioactive particle decreases under the circumstances outlined. It can be expected that the radioactive decay is affected by the excess vibrational, thermal energy. The disintegration constant ? of a radioactive particle can be expected to be dependent on the thermal energy as follows :
?= ?o (Ed + Ek) / Ed In the above equation ?o is the disintegration constant at absolute zero. Ed is the energy necessary for disintegration and Ek the transferred kinetic energy in the form of thermal energy. The temperature dependence of normal radioactive decay will be difficult to measure, because the thermal energy under normal condition is much, much smaller than the required disintegration energy.The kinetic energy of the meson is extremely high, making it very likely that the increased temperature of the meson influences the disintegration constant ?o.
The interpretation of science based on SRT is that a meson that is forced to stop is still as stable or unstable as it was before. An understanding that seems anything but likely with aether.
The proton and neutron
The story, so far, gives insight into fundamental physical phenomena. The proposed aether is fully consistent with experimental observations, and logical contradictions do not occur. That is to say, the physical and logical explanations, are plausible. This encourages us to continue. The electron circles in the atom around the nucleus. The nucleus consists of protons and neutrons. Would it be possible to describe nuclei using aether? The proton is about 1,800 times as heavy as the electron and has a positive charge.
In describing the process by which the electron is born, we have assumed that a neutral point volume can split into a spinning negative and positive volume. Expansion of the spinning positive and negative charge, gave the possibility to imagine the creation of the electron and positron. We consider again the derived formula for the electron. We notice that the intrinsic energy of the electron is inversely proportional to the radius.
W e = µoe2c2/8pRc + e2/8pe0Rc An electron and positron can arise from a high energy photon. Conversely, when an electron and a positron merge, a high energy photon is created. Consider now an aether swarming with electrons and positrons. Imagine a situation where a positron and an electron merge, but before the photon arises, other positrons and electrons are available for fusion. Merging n electrons and n +1 positrons, the formula for the new particle should be similar to the following:
W 2n+1 = µoe2c2/8pR2n+1 + e2/8pe0R2n+1 The radius R2n+1,
of the composite particle after fusion of n+1 positrons and n electrons, is then R2n+1 = Re/2n+1).
The merging electrons and protons concentrate the energy more and more. The radius becomes smaller and smaller. It is not logical to assume that this merging can go on unabated, because the radius R2n+1
is getting smaller and smaller as n increases. The proposed fusion will have to stop, because the radius R2n+1
can not logically be infinitely small.
We deduced that the aether can not be completely free and is therefore more or less confined to an entity we have called the point volume. The proposed merger will stop when the radius R2n+1
reaches the size of the point volume. Further concentration of energy is no longer possible, or so we assume.
The proton is, like the electron, extremely stable. The charge of the proton is equal but opposite to that of the electron. The proposed merger of electrons and positrons come to an end when the energy of the n +1 positrons and n electrons are concentrated in the point volume.
W p = µoe2c2/8pRp + e2/8pe0Rp When we enter into the above formula, the total energy and the charge of the proton, we calculate the radius of the imagined proton Rp at 1.535.1018
meters. The calculated radius of the presumed proton is the first indication relating to the dimension of the point volume.
A neutron is not stable. It expires on average in 900 seconds into a proton and electron or a positron and an antiproton. Let us imagine that the merger process of electrons and positrons above is not ended, but that after the proton has arisen, one more electron is fused and the neutron arises. The fusion of protons and electrons is a reality in a supernova explosion, when a neutron star arises. The formula for the total energy of the neutron becomes:
W n
= µ0c2e2/8pRn + (Rnµ0c2sin 2(2p?t) + Rncos2(2p? t)/e0)e2/8pR2
The first term is the energy of the neutron spin and the second term represents the oscillation energy of the neutron. We assume that the neutron energy is equally divided between the available degrees of freedom, namely spin and oscillation. Then we calculate the radius of the neutron and obtain Rn = 1.533.1018
meters.
The calculated radius of the neutron is slightly smaller than that of the proton. This is because the neutron possesses a slightly larger mass/energy than the proton. From the formula for the total energy of the neutron, its instability is perceived. The electron and proton both have a charge. When these particles are excited, the electromagnetic vibration of the charge in the aether causes the excess energy to be disposed of by means of a photon. The neutron is neutral, which implies that the neutron can not eject energy by means of a photon.
The electromagnetic vibration of the neutron and the impossibility of disposing the excess energy causes the instability of the neutron. A schematic representation of the idea which we have sketched of the neutron is shown in the following.
Figure 29: The neutron The figure shows the situation where the negative and positive charge oscillate in the neutron, wherein the distance between the positive and negative charge in the neutron is maximum. As long as the neutron is in a stable oscillation, it will not fall apart. The neutron does not have enough energy to produce a proton and antiproton. If the oscillation in the neutron is disturbed by external influences, it is an average of 900 seconds before the neutron decays.
Theoretical Physics and Positivism The picture of the aether is perhaps farfetched, but I do not think so. To me it makes sense, but I can not be called objective in this respect. The picture that is emerging is at odds with the insights of Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity.
The theoretical basis for Quantum Mechanics is the Electromagnetic Theory (EM). Later it will be shown that there are serious questions about the validity of specific assumptions in EMtheory. These assumptions are crucial for the physical validity of the science of Quantum Mechanics.
The foundations of Quantum Mechanics are derived formulas based on experimental observations. This means that scientists have been able to mathematically describe observations with great accuracy. The main advantage of an exact science like Physics, compared to Economics or Psychology, is that all experiments and observations (should) be exactly reproducible. The math can therefore in principle, exactly predict the outcome of physical experiments.
When scientists have been able to mathematically represent a particle with great accuracy, then a theory is created. I myself did not know what I heard when I was told this. A formula can be a theory without any theoretical basis as long as it describes observations. This is assumed to be a theory under the regime of Positivism. When I heard this, I was stunned because I thought that a theory should be logically substantiated.
Why is a standalone formula to be considered a theory? The premise of positivism is that knowledge is only possible on the world of phenomena. Science is seen as the only valid source of knowledge and thereby only empirical observations and logical conclusions based thereon are considered valid knowledge. I can fully endorse the philosophy of positivism. The practice, however, is that there is no logic present in the mathematics leading to conclusions in the science of theoretical physics.
The mathematical formulation Einstein gives, for the relativity of time and space might seem logical but that is only because empirical observations have been interpreted incorrectly. The conclusion that no aether can exists is wrong, a fallacy. Consequently, all conclusions based on this erroneous omission, the whole theory of relativity, also the general theory where Einstein tries to explain gravity, becomes invalid.
In the science of quantum mechanics, the logical conclusions are based entirely on the empirically determined mathematical formulas. The logic used in quantum mechanics is not that of valid logical reasoning, but the "logical" implications of the empirically derived mathematical formulas. Mathematics is based on logic. When the understanding of the human mind fails, when the physics behind mathematics is no longer understood, positivism sees no problem. The philosophical logic is simply replaced with mathematical logic, because mathematics is logic.
In quantum mechanics, the philosophical logic of reasoning is replaced by the logic of mathematics. Vital for drawing valid logical conclusions from mathematical formulas is that the applied "mathematical logic" is also correct philosophically. Incorrect reasoning based on mathematics, leads to invalid inferences. An invalid inference is an argument that is not true, but is plausible. Mathematically invalid reasoning leads to incorrect inferences, to misconception. For correct inferences based on mathematical formulas, mathematical reasoning must meet the philosophy of logic.
Example of logical reasoning :
? All monkeys are brown.
? It is brown ? So it's a monkey This is a clear example of a fallacy. It may be a monkey, but that is not certain, so the inference is invalid.
? All monkeys are brown.
? It is yellow ? It is not a monkey.
This time the conclusion is correct. It is impossible that it is a monkey.
Stellar aberration, according to science, is explained by the special theory of relativity in a valid logical mathematically way. SRT is, if this is the case, therefore empirically confirmed by stellar aberration.
The applied mathematical logic in the science of theoretical physics leading to the scientific conclusion that SRT is empirically substantiated by stellar aberration is roughly as follows:
1. The stellar aberration depends on the angle of star with the plane of the orbit of the earth around the sun and the position of the earth in its orbit around the sun.
2. The Lorentz factor is a component of the derived formulas for the SRT.
3. The maximum stellar aberration is calculated with the Lorentz factor.
4. Stellar aberration confirms SRT The applied logic leads irrevocably to a fallacy (4), because the dependence of stellar aberration on the inclination of the star and the position of the earth in orbit around the sun are in no way mathematically or logically explained by SRT.
SRT is basically a very simple theory, because there is only one explanatory variable: the relative velocity V between two systems. The relative velocity can in no way give an explanation for the dependence of the inclination. It is also impossible with the relative velocity V to determine the dependence of aberration with the position of the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
There is no doubt that the conclusion that SRT is empirically validated by stellar aberration is erroneous; a fallacy.
The applied mathematical logic that quantum mechanics elevates to inescapable scientific knowledge is even more dramatic as it is combined with fundamentally incorrect physical formulas. The world famous "Standard Model" is based on mathematical fallacies. For applied mathematical logic to obtain valid scientific conclusions, the same conditions apply as for valid philosophical conclusions. Just randomly combining empirical factors in a mathematical formula to create an empirical mathematical "theory" that correctly describes the observations is erroneous.
Nuclei
The applied logic in nuclear physics is roughly as follows:
1. A strong nuclear force must exist to bind the protons and neutrons in the nucleus.
2. The observation that nuclei may be unstable means that also a weak nuclear force must exist.
3. The mathematical empirical formulas for particles are valid theories.
4. The Standard Model describes the mathematical relationship between the empirical formulas.
5. Interpretation of the mathematical relationships in the Standard Model leads to scientifically irrefutable physical findings.
The above applied mathematical "logic" leads, according to the science of theoretical physics, to the irrefutable scientific conclusions of the Standard Model.
The physical understanding of atomic physics is nil. There exists only mathematically derived "insight", sec based on ad hoc formulas. In aether theory, mathematics plays no more than a supporting role. The derived mathematical formulas are based on logical physical insight. The imagination can fabricate an endless number of possible solutions. Mathematical evaluation of possible solutions separates and determine which thoughts make sense and which don"t.
A nucleus, in aether theory, can be represented as a geometrical configuration where protons and neutrons are affixed by a nuclear force. Introducing a weak force is not necessary, as the physically derived formula for nuclei are intrinsically unstable. The observed instability of nuclei does not need to be superimposed as a condition in the mathematical model. The derived formula, a derivative of the physical configuration, implicitly demonstrates the intrinsic instability.
Stability and instability of particles in aether physics is explained by an atomic force, the geometric configuration of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, the destabilizing effect of the positive charge of the proton(s) and the negative impact that the oscillation energy imposes on the stability. With aether, each nucleus, isotope and other particles have a very specific geometric structure.
The alldetermining geometry of the aether is discussed later. It is essential, however, that every atomic nuclei in aether has a specific geometric structure. This gives insight into how nuclear fusion can be realized. The way to create fusion with aether contradicts the thermonuclear approach in nuclear physics. The difference in approach between thermonuclear fusion and fusion with aether is metaphorically as follows:
The command is: Merge two cats. The thermonuclear approach is that two cats are put in a hydraulic press. The cats are in a brutal manner pressed towards each other. A terrible battle occurs, but with sufficient force and energy exerted the cats eventually merge into cat mush. The merger is successful! The aether approach is as follows: Put a cat in heat in a pipe. Send a tomcat after it. The merger happens voluntary and the encounter results in a nesting The difference in method is great. I will not bore you with further speculation about the geometric configuration of nuclei, there is no empirical evidence for this. It is logical, yet remains pure speculation. The treatise on the aether up to "Proton and Neutron" is pure speculation, but later follows irrefutable proof that the applied logic must be valid to a certain extent because reality is properly described.
The realization that with aether, a completely different understanding of atomic physics is obtained has had great influence on my attitude. Until now, the investigation was a fun exercise, but by understanding how fusion comes about, the stakes are greatly increased. It is not only an interesting exercise anymore, a challenge, something else to do. The possibility that the insight concerning the nuclear fusion process that quantum mechanics offers is completely wrong, motivated me to continue.
Recognition that the logical arguments on which SRT is based are incorrect, also puts the general theory of relativity, as a possible explanation for gravity, at risk. This is not a very big problem, because with aether, a logical explanation for gravity emerges spontaneously. Again, the followed reasoning is logically, but speculative due to the lack of empirical testing. The explanation for gravity I will therefore abstain. This story is not about speculation. What is science? It's the end of November 1998 and I am 2 ½ months into my sabbatical. For me personally I found very satisfactory answers to questions on the relativity of time and space, which obviously do not exist. In addition, there are serious doubts about the correctness of quantum mechanics.
Now, about two months after learned gentlemen were informed concerning the full theoretical explanation of stellar aberration with dragged aether, I have received no response. It is time to make contact. In short, the result is that the highly learned men believe that SRT supplies a more than adequate explanation for stellar aberration and that SRT over the past 100 years is a conclusively proven theory. Aether is passé and the article is therefore irrelevant.
I do not consider myself a scientist, but the assumptions of SRT are distressing. All "proofs" are, when examined, not more than observations where the Lorentz factor is significant. The Lorentz factor is not a unique product of SRT. Other explanations, theories, such as the Lorentz theory or aether, provide the same factor. According to the logic of science, all theories (ie formulas), which in one way or another incorporate the Lorentz factor yield empirical confirmation by astronomical observations, synchrotron radiation, satellite navigation etc. As soon as the Lorentz contraction is used, science says SRT is experimentally confirmed. Yet contradictions are completely ignored.
The objective scientific interpretation of experimental data? They are fallacies, invalid, incorrect conclusions. The observations do not falsify SRT, and that is all. It is symptomatic that all the observations that do not contradict SRT are considered proof! What SRT really proposes, are the numerous logical inconsistencies and conflicting perceptions that are completely ignored or are called "paradoxes". Science is not able to even explain one paradox in a satisfactory way. The "logical" explanations provided for paradoxes always introduce new, even more improbable theories. Why do scientists so jealously maintain a fairy tale? The photon and Planck's constant It is clear to me that science should look at the possibilities the aether provides to explain physical phenomena. Demonstrating that the aether was wrongly rejected, is not sufficient to interested scientists. Apparently, more evidence is needed.
It appears to my mind that Planck"s constant h, is a very important constant of nature and when aether is inferred, should be able to be deduced theoretically. Planck's constant is the dominant natural constant in quantum mechanics. Elimination of this constant is a very, very strong argument for the aether theory. The constant is very accurately determined by experiment and identifies the ratio between the energy and the frequency of the photon.
Efoton=hv The photon is an electromagnetic vibration presented as an alternating electric and magnetic field propagation in empty space at the speed of light. Science assumes that Maxwell's equations correctly describe electromagnetic waves. Much more is not known. The photon is for scientists, for the most part, still a mysterious phenomenon.
It has already been mentioned that a high energy photon can split into a negative electron and a positron. The charge of the electron is represented by the symbol e, and is the smallest observed independent charge. That a high energy photon can split into an electron and positron does not exclude that in the photon a oscillation can take place between charges that are a fraction of the charge of the electron. That only electric charges are observable that are multiples of the charge of the electron doesn"t rule out the possibility of a vibration in the photon between charges smaller than the charge of the electron..
The attractive force between two opposite electrical charges in physics is experimentally expressed as Coulomb's law:
F =- Q2/4pe R2
The charge Qe, in the formula, always exist in experiments out of multiple elementary charges of the electron e. We now assume, however, that two opposite electric charges e/n oscillate in the photon, where n is an arbitrary number. We substitute these charges in Coulomb's law for Qe, then the formula for the Coulomb force between the two charges becomes:
F =- e2/4pe0R2n2
In the formula, R is the distance between the two electric charges. When the energy of a vibration is calculated, then the force F must be integrated, added up, over the distance over which the force is active. The beginning and the end of the vibration must therefore be known.
Figure 30: Schematic progress of the photon The fraction n is unknown in the formula for the Coulomb force. Of the photon it is known that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the energy. If the wavelength is two times as great, then the energy is two times as small. From the above formula, we can deduce that the force between the two electric charges, and therefore also the energy of the vibration, is inversely proportional to n in the square. Therefore, the wavelength of the oscillation must be proportional to 
This means that the wavelength of the photon can be described according to where ? (lambda) is the wavelength of the vibration. The unknown n in the Coulomb formula is now replaced by the wavelength and the unknown factor a.
We do not know the value of a, but what we do know is that when n= 1, the charge in the vibration is equal to the charge of the electron e. The radius of the electron is known as the Comptonradius, the classical Rc. The most direct and therefore the most obvious value for a is therefore the Comptonradius Rc.
Figure 31: A snapshot of the photon traveling through the aether. The distance at which the vibration reverses, when the charges are furthest from each other, is of minor importance for the determination of the energy of the vibration. The distance at which they separate is estimated ¼ Lambda. Lambda is the wavelength of the oscillation. There is now only one unknown factor left in the formula for the Coulomb force, which we have to determine before the energy of the vibration can be calculated and that is the distance between the two charges to which the Coulomb force is employed.
When the distance in the Coulomb formula approaches zero (R=0), the force becomes infinitely large and creates a mathematical singularity. It is assumed that aether consists of point volumes. No assumptions have been made with regard to the dimensions of the volume point. In the chapter "The proton and the neutron" we have speculated that the calculated size of the proton and neutron might be an indication of the size of the point volume. If we now assume that the radius of the neutron Rn is an approximation for the size of the point volume, all factors in the Coulomb formula are known and the energy of the oscillation can be calculated at:
W ? = e2Re/16pe0Rn? This equation represents the energy of the vibration as a function of the wavelength. The photon does not only vibrate. It also moves in space with the speed of light c and this motion also represent energy. The photon has two degrees of freedom to store energy: oscillation and motion. As in nature the equipartition principle distributes the energy equally over the available degrees of freedom, it can be expected that the kinetic energy of the photon is equal to the vibrational energy.
Figure 32: The photon vibrating and moving through space The total energy of the photon becomes then:
W f = e2Re/8pe0Rn? = H ? H is the theoretical calculated value of Planck"s constant derived from the above formula, based on the calculated radius of the neutron Rn. Calculation shows that H deviates 6% from the experimentally determined value of h. A deviation of 6% means that no exact valuation took place. It might not be an exact equality, but a deviation of 6% is in a historical perspective, good enough for a postulated theory to say that the derived formula for Planck"s constant is experimentally confirmed. The measurements of Fizeau, according to science, confirmed the drag factor of Fresnel when the deviation was 10%, so a deviation of 6% should be acceptable.
The thought that the point volume in one way or another "deforms", when it transforms from point volume to neutron or proton should not be excluded, so the hypothesis that the calculated dimensions of the neutron is an indication of the size of the point volume is reasonable.
When the assumption is verified that the neutron provides evidence of the dimension of the point volume, then it is, in turn, the experimental value of Planck's constant that provides a much more accurate measure of the dimensions of the volume point. The value of the radius of the point volume based on the empirical value of Planck's constant h gives the radius of the point volume in the formula:
Given the highly speculative nature of the derivation and the realization that the point volume evokes an image of a "flexible" entity I am very satisfied. Remember that the derivation is based on assumption on assumption on assumption. The chance that with an accuracy of 6% Planck"s constant is "accidentally" calculated is extremely small.
There is no doubt that I stumbled on something extraordinary. The possible social consequences, when I"m correct, can be phenomenal. The possibility of an aether must therefore be investigated by science. Even if the chance is only one in a million, then it is from a scientific, economic and social perspective opportune to explore the possibilities of aether in depth.
The imminent threat of global warming and the economic importance of an inexhaustible clean and safe source of energy to sustain the growth of the world economy, should be enough for scientists and politicians to pay attention to possible incorrect insights in theoretical physics.
From Paradox to Paradigm The following months I have tried to interest scientists to consider the scientific possibilities of an aether seriously. This proved impossible. Letters are not answered, commitments are not met. I am completely ignored and not taken seriously at all, at least that is the impression. There is enough evidence for science to at least consider the possibility of aether seriously, especially when the economic and social stakes are so high. Furthermore logical thinking scientists and people like you and me find a reality with only 3 dimensions, and a fundamental constant of nature h less much more acceptable as reality than the current tales of the relativity of time and space, 7 dimensions, parallel universes, wormholes and the innumerable logical contradictions.
Therefore I decided that a book should be published. With the help of Anja and Renee we published in November 1999 the book "From Paradox to Paradigm". The book was sent in advance to scientists, science journalists, newspapers, political parties, ministries, environmental organizations and all other imaginable characters. A contest was devised for the 10 invited scientific journalists in which they could win 10,000 guilders, in order to encourage them. The prize was guaranteed. In addition, 15,000 guilders was spent on marketing. A conference room was rented in Nieuwspoort. The turnout was disappointing, only Anja, Renee and I were present. There was at least enough coffee for the three of us.
In 1999, the Internet was not as pervasive as it is now. After the debacle of the press conference, someone advised me to explore the possibilities the internet afforded. He also noted that Dutch scientists, compared to their American brethren, are narrow and shortsighted. For Americans, the success rate should be a lot bigger, so I was told. Slowly I started to realize that my high expectations are the result of a great naivety on my part regarding the supposed independent thinking by others.
There is nothing else than to write a scientific article about stellar aberration and aether. In the year 2000, manuscripts for publication in scientific journals such as Science, Nature, Physics Letters and European Physical Journal were required in hard copy. A further condition is that the article, as long as it is under consideration, is not allowed to be offered to any other science journal. Most often, no answer was received from the journal. In other cases it took months to receive a rejection with the argument that the article is not relevant, not actual.
How can an omission 100 years ago, that put theoretical physics on the wrong track, ever be not relevant or not actual? The 2005 article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Aether" was published in the dissident scientific journal "Galilean Electrodynamics", after all mainstream journals had given no answer or no intrinsic reason to reject publication. "Galilean Electrodynamics" is considered irrelevant by the establishment, so the article is unlikely to lead to investigation.
Of course I have not been idle since the book was published in 1999. The book has been translated into English and posted on the Internet. I looked up thousands of addresses on the Internet of scientists, science journalists, editors etc., and sent them letters and/or mailings. After each mailing, which highlighted many individual logical inconsistencies of the SRT, visits to the website increased considerably, but did not result in much correspondence.
On one of my emails I got response from a Dutchman who had studied theoretical physics at the Free University of Amsterdam, and is now a professor at a major American university where he teaches the theory of relativity. The reason why he answered my email was not concealed. He wants his students to get acquainted with the arguments and reasoning of a real idiot, a crackpot. Someone who does not agree with the findings of Einstein. He said that if I am aware of why he is willing to correspond, I would not squander the opportunity to finally have the chance to tell a real scientist my story. The arrogance was palpable, but it did not prevent me from beginning a discussion.
The correspondence did not last long. He did not want to discuss my article about stellar aberration. Considering the empirical foundation of SRT, his opinion was that the theory was proven correct many times, while my argumentation was that the experimental data was only circumstantial. I asked him whether SRT explained the observed stellar aberration, upon which he conclusively answered that this was certainly the case. I argued that the only explanation SRT can provide is the relative velocity between stars and the Earth, since the relative velocity is the only explanatory factor of the theory.
Here he had to agree, because otherwise he would have to admit that the SRT can not explain stellar aberration. I argued that when that is the case, the stellar aberration of a binary star system must depend on the motion of the Earth around the Sun and the cycle of the binary star circling its companion.
In a binary star system one star orbits another star, similar to the way the Moon revolves around the Earth. When the relative velocity determines the observed stellar aberration, as science claims with SRT, then the stellar aberration of a binary star should depend on the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the orbit of the binary to his partner. He agreed with this. I asked him to inquire at the Department of Astronomy whether this dependence is indeed observed by astronomers. This he would do immediately, as the astronomy faculty was around the corner. That was the last I heard from him. Emails were not answered.
It is irrevocable that when the only explanatory factor of a theory is relative speed and this explains stellar aberration, than stellar aberration of binary stars must differ from ordinary stars. The sad truth is that in astronomy, such an effect has never been observed. This observation empirically contradicts the validity of SRT and therefore falsifies the theory. Sadly this observation is systematically ignored by science! It is a practice of theoretical physicists to ignore observations that falsify the theory, while observations that are circumstantial like time dilation, the necessary correction of global position satellites, astronomical data etc are used to verify the theory conclusively. The scientific substantiation the audience hears is strongly colored. Science or fiction? The equivalence of magnetic and kinetic energy During my attempts to get the article about stellar aberration published, it became clear that it was not sufficient to motivate scientists to address the discovered inaccuracies. More scientific evidence is needed to let scientists realize that not everything is okay in theoretical physics. Another even more convincing article than "The Unjustified Denial of Dragged Ether" is necessary.
The analysis of physical phenomena with aether reveals that only two forms of energy, and associated forces, are necessary to describe all observed forms of energy and forces from the subnuclear to gravitational. This observation implies that kinetic energy must be identical to magnetic energy. If this is true, then all the kinetic energy of a moving car must be traced back to magnetic energy. This is however contradicting the findings of the science of quantum mechanics. This science states that the kinetic energy of an electrically charged particle, like a moving electron, can not fully be attributed to the magnetic energy of that particle.
During the second half of the 19th century, the electromagnetic theory (EMtheory) was in development. It describes the assumed relationships between electric charges, magnetics, electrostatics and electromagnetic fields. In 1881 the British scholar and Nobel Prizewinner Sir JJ Thomson (18561940) attempted to calculate the electromagnetic mass of the electron. For this he uses the developed vector calculations of EMtheory. Thomson calculated with the help of EMtheory, the impulse of a moving electron. He calculated the electromagnetic mass of the moving electron to be 2/3 of the real mass of the electron. The conclusion of science, based on this analysis, is that 1/3 of the mass can not be explained with the electromagnetic properties and that therefore the missing part of the mass must be "mechanical".
The judgement with aether is that a mechanical mass doesn"t exist. For that reason I examined Thomson"s work on this subject. I discovered that Thomson made a fundamental mistake during his derivation of the electromagnetic mass of the electron. This mistake explains exactly the 1/3 of the mass that Thomson missed, for the electromagnetic mass to be the equal to the observed mass of the electron. (For the exact representation of the calculations and discovered error I must refer to the subchapter "The Electromagnetic mass" of the article "The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy" on the website).
Thomson is a famous scholar and Nobel Prize winner, and the question arises how this omission occurred and why this was not discovered? The answer is that the EMtheory, an empirical science, provides empirically derived formulas. The experimental formulas of EMtheory states scientific data when the physical conditions are identical to the circumstances when the experimental formulas were derived. An empirically derived formula supports empirical science, and is by definition, correct under the same circumstances. When the formulas are used in other situations, their validity should be questioned first, before conclusions are reached.
This was not done by Thompson. He used the empirically derived vector characteristics of the EMtheory under circumstances that are substantially different. The calculations of Thompson violates the most important physical law, the conservation of energy. The different circumstances exactly explain the missing 1/3 of the mass of the electron. This false analysis is also the cause of the wellknown "4/3 problem" in physics.
In his derivation of the electromagnetic mass of the electron Thomson regards the energy density of the electrostatic field as a vector, while it is obvious a scalar. Therefore the applied vector calculations by Thompson are invalid, but the error is never discovered.
Now you may wonder: "Why was it never discovered?" The EMtheory describes mathematically the empirical established relationship of electromagnetic fields. An electric current normally consists of an infinite number of electrons. Each individual electron makes its contribution to the magnetic field. This is a completely different situation than where Thomson takes only one electron and then uses the EM/vector calculations. There is an essential and fundamental difference in circumstances.
In the article "The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy" Thompsons error is irrevocably demonstrated. When Thomson's mistake is corrected, the calculated electromagnetic mass of the moving electron becomes exactly equal to the experimental determined mass of the electron.
The article "The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy" was sent for publication to all scientific journals. The rejections were again, not based on any inaccuracies, but based on the argument that the article was irrelevant, not actual! The story becomes too technical, but it is necessary to mention, that the discovered erroneous vector/scalar interpretation is also represented in the famous, not empirically derived nor empirically verified, equations of Maxwell.
Maxwell´s equations are the theoretical basis of quantum mechanics on which all the experimental formulas of Particle Physics are based. Maxwell's equations describe the supposed electromagnetic properties of the electromagnetic field. Maxwell's equations are mathematically correct, but it appears that the physical characteristics of the equations misrepresent physical reality. In them, the law of conservation of energy is violated.
Now the gate is completely open. The empirically derived formulas for particles in the quantum mechanics of nuclear physics are based on the electromagnetic equations of Maxwell. Maxwell's equations form the theoretical basis of subatomic quantum mechanics, the famous "Standard Model". The formulas for particles cannot in principle be correct, because a particle itself, can never violate the most important law in physics.
Now you may be thinking: "That does not matter because the formulas are empirically derived from measurements thus the formulas describe reality." Empirically derived formulas describe observations and indeed in this respect they are correct. However do the experimental derived formulas also validly represent the physical properties of the particle? Then one must unmistakably answer "No". The essence of what this book tries to make clear comes to the fore.
Improper physical insights derived from empirical equations. The computational results of the formulas in quantum mechanics are correct, but the physical interpretation, the insight that the scholars deduce are false. A mathematical formula that calculates the mass of a particle correctly is fundamentally incorrect for deducing physical properties when that the formula violates fundamental physics laws. The theoretical understanding of the physical processes of quantum mechanics is derived from the physical characteristics of the empirical equations, and these are, by definition, incorrect, when the formulas are physically impossible. The derived physical insights will then be false.
Mathematics is a powerful scientific tool that is available to scientists. For each observation there are basically many mathematical solutions. Are all these empirical, mathematical solutions theoretically correct? Of course not! In physics, the mathematical solutions have to comply with the laws of nature. Physics therefore imposes restrictions on the use of mathematics when describing physical processes or phenomena physically correct. Mathematical solutions for observations can calculate correct results, but for physical correct conclusions the math must also be valid in physical sense. Formulas that describe observations 100% accurately can simultaneously be 100% physically incorrect.
The worldfamous "Standard Model" consists of empirical equations derived for the different particles. The physical interpretation, the insight acquired, is incorrect because the mathematical representation of the particles is physical incorrect. The result of the calculations are correct, but not the physical interpretation.
It is therefore not a wonder the "scientific" conclusions of theoretical physics ends up in the "reality" of relativity of time and space, 7 or more dimensions, parallel worlds, wormholes, dark mass, dark energy et cetera.
The science Theoretical Physics in discredit You can imagine that theoretical physicists are not crying out for people that tell them that what they are doing is wrong. Over 100 years of relativity theory and quantum mechanics will not disappear because someone claims that they made really bad mistakes. It is therefore not surprising that the article was not accepted for publication by mainstream scientific journals. A referee who has performed 20 or more years of scientific research would then have to admit that his insights and scientific work are fiction. That an article is rejected for no scientific reason is unacceptable, but completely understandable from the human perspective.
It is humanly impossible for a scientist or Nobel laureate, to admit that throughout their careers they have not understood what they were doing. The inescapable scientific conclusions of the relativity of space and time, 7 dimensions or more, parallel universes, wormholes, string theories etc appear to be based on fundamental errors. Admitting the theoretical findings are incorrect is by no means in the selfinterest of scientists. There is no motivation for them to publish the article. Selfinterest, respect, honor, and whatever more, may motivate scientists to ignore the errors or deny they exist.
You'll be thinking that what is claimed is impossible to be true. Science can not be so terribly wrong?
Quantum mechanics and the aether
After having written the article "The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy" I am well aware that acceptance of this article is extremely difficult, if not impossible. To sweep away a generally accepted scientific theory is virtually impossible as the resistance is enormous. At least an alternative theory should be offered. I must return to the drawing board and come up with even more convincing evidence.
| Página siguiente |