100%(2)Il 100% ha trovato utile questo documento (2 voti)

67 visualizzazioni14 pagineAether Science

Nov 11, 2008

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

DOC, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Aether Science

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

100%(2)Il 100% ha trovato utile questo documento (2 voti)

67 visualizzazioni14 pagineAether Science

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

FIRST PRINCIPLES

© Harold Aspden, 1997

Introducing Laws and Principles

In physics it is usual for the student to be introduced to what are termed 'laws' or 'principles' as these are

to be the basis on which one builds an understanding of the physical nature of the world around us and,

indeed, what we see as the enveloping universe.

Thus one is introduced to Newton's Law of Gravity, the Law of Conservation of Energy, Coulomb's

Law, Newton's Third Law, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Principle of Equivalence,

the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and so on. We are expected to regard these laws as sacrosanct

because we are assured that those who have pioneered to discover the secrets of Nature have never

encountered circumstances which run counter to what they prescribe.

Now, I expect you to question what I say in these tutorials, so I wonder if you are astute enough in your

study of physics to see a flaw in what I have just stated. It may be that you have heard, though possibly

not well understood, that Albert Einstein is renowned for discovering a new law, one formulated as

E=Mc2, and for also introducing a new law of gravity to replace that of Isaac Newton. So, you see, as

science advances laws can change.

Concerning those 'principles', these grow from tentative hypotheses until they appear almost self-evident

as being based on fundamental truth consistent with the logic by which we reason. The Law of

Conservation of Energy is often referred to as the Principle of Energy Conservation and otherwise as the

First Law of Thermodynamics. It is so firmly established that it has triple foothold in governing how we

build our picture of the scientific world. We shall not question its authenticity. Indeed, all you need to

accept is that one cannot take energy from nowhere and apply it to our needs, nor, indeed, can Nature

create matter out of nothing, given that Nature is governed by her own laws.

What you need then to ask yourself is: "What is energy?" Also, again if you are astute, you might ask the

question: "What is nothing?" Is 'nothing' a way of saying 'space devoid of matter'? If so, then you are

facing the question of the 'aether' and whether or not it exists, because the word 'aether' or 'ether', as

used in this context, is merely a word we use to mean 'space devoid of matter'. Indeed, to quote

dictionary definitions, the Concise Oxford Dictionary (a 1934 edition) that I have had since my school

days describes the 'ether', in its physics connotation, as being the 'subtle elastic fluid permeating space

and filling interstices between particles of air and other matter'. A Chambers Technical Dictionary (a

1958 edition) I have had for over 30 years has the entry 'ether or aether (Phys.): A hypothetical non-

material entity supposed to fill all space whether 'empty' or occupied by matter..., but it possesses no

properties in common with matter.' By 1992 in its first publication as Chambers Pocket Dictionary one

reads: 'ether (also aether): a substance formerly believed to fill all space, and to be responsible for

transmtting light'.

Is it not curious that a dictionary which is supposed only to tell you the meaning of specific words can

reflect change in scientific opinion. The word still has the same meaning that it had in the 19th century,

but between 1934 and 1958 it ceased to be 'a subtle elastic fluid that permeated space' and became 'a

hypothetical non-material entity possessing no properties in common with matter'? Furthermore,

between 1958 and 1992, it then ceased to be 'supposed to fill all space' and became a 'has been',

something that had a fleeting existence in an earlier era when it was supposed to fill all space. That tells

us that, whether or not there is an aether is not a question of fact, but a matter of opinion, as scientists

tolerate it in their language only so long as they can influence what the word means. As a result the

physics students of the 21st century are destined to live in a world of imaginary make-belief by thinking

that the aether can have played no part in the creation of matter. Instead, they will learn that the universe

emerged from nowhere, meaning from absolutely nothing, in an event billions of years ago which is

termed the 'Big Bang'. Those who compile dictionaries can feel relieved at this, because a two-word

expression need not have a dictionary definition. Otherwise, the word for that hypothetical event would

need defining in terms somewhat akin to the definition of 'aether'!

Now, we will have none of that nonsense in our tutorials, because we will hold firm in taking that word

'aether' as being that something which is non-material but fills all the interstices of space not occupied by

matter. We will use 'aether', rather than 'ether', because 'ether' has a different meaning in chemistry and

we do not wish to confuse the terminology.

I assume that you, the reader, will bear with me as I advance my case, because I assume that you think,

as I do, that it is logical for energy, whatever that is, to be conserved and so, if matter can be created

from energy and appear in our experiments as if from nowhere, then there is something in that 'nowhere'.

I note that scientists now believe that particles of matter, pairs of electrons and positrons, can appear 'as

if from nowhere', though they hide all this in their mathematical equations and refer to the phenomenon

as 'vacuum energy fluctuations'.

They still pretend that there is no aether but we, in these tutorials, will take a bold frontal position and

challenge the views of those who lead would-be theoretical physicists into their own non-aetherial field

of confusion. Our sights are on that 'energy' theme and the fundamental question of whether we can ever

ourselves mimic Nature by tapping into that sea of energy from which Nature created the protons and

electrons that form the matter we see as the universe.

Energy at Work

Now we come to a little mathematics in this opening lesson. You will know from Newtonian mechanics

that the motion of a particle of mass m around a circular orbit involves an acceleration f equal to v2/r

directed radially inwards towards the centre of that orbit. You will also have been told that action and

reaction are equal and opposite by virtue of Newton's Third Law of Motion and that, by Newton's

Second Law of Motion, the change of momentum of a particle is proportional to the impressed force

and takes place in the direction in which that force is acting. So the rate of change of mv which, with m

constant, becomes mf if this is the force directed towards the centre of that orbit and it has the form

mv2/r. This is elementary, but we are in the world of Newton's laws, his first law merely saying that the

particle would keep going in a straight line unless compelled to stray owing to the influence of external

forces.

Where, you may ask, is that Principle of Conservation of Energy in this very basic physical picture?

To answer this we will now approach this same problem rather differently by making that principle our

starting point and all we will do is to assert that there is a force F acting on the particle from a centre

about which it moves. Let r denote, as before, the radial distance from that centre. Then F.dr is the

negative work done by that force if dr is the small incremental distance by which r increases in a time

interval dt. Had r reduced that force would do work but, owing to r increasing, it stores energy instead.

Where does that energy come from and how is it stored?

The energy comes from the work done by the force mv2/r developed inertially by the tendency of that

particle of mass m in trying to get back to its preferred state of rectilinear motion if it were free from

that restraining force F. In creeping towards that state by increasing r the work done is simply m(v2/r)dr,

but you may now ask "What about the change of kinetic energy?"

So you have realized that the kinetic energy lost by the motion of the particle m has to equal this

quantity just deduced, which in turn supplies that energy F.dr stored as potential energy by the

displacement. Note that this energy change is (mv2/r).dr. This reduces the problem to a simple

mathematical exercise involving no laws of physics. Write vr=constant and form the differential

expression v.dr+r.dv=0. Rearrange this as (r/v)dv=(-dr) and replace dr in the above expression for work

done to get mv.dv as the added potential energy. Then from the integral of this, which is d(mv2/2), you

will see that we have conserved energy by balancing kinetic energy loss against the potential energy

gained.

From this analysis it is evident that, to conserve energy, the assumption just made that vr is constant has

to be an accepted fact.

Now take stock. We have only used mathematical principles based on a definition of acceleration f as

dv/dt and combined this with a physical statement that energy is conserved to show that F=mf. We have

not really gone beyond the recognition of what we may term the Principle of Inertia and it could be said

that we have deduced that principle from the assertion that energy is conserved. Acceleration is, after all,

just a mathematical (kinematic) definition based on what we refer to as distance and time. Why then

should we be ensnared by the magic of 'the law'? It suffices to accept that energy is conserved and to

recognize that there are three dimensions to physics, namely energy, space (as the cube of distance) and

time.

The real challenge of physics is to explain everything in terms of three such physical dimensions, M. L,

T, that is mass, length and time being those adopted by tradition, but energy, space and time being those

I believe that we should adopt in our ultimate quest to understand all that can become known about

fundamental physics. I even include here the representation of the polarity of an electric charge in terms

of a time dimension because I see positive and negative polarity as in-phase and anti-phase states of a

universal oscillation. However, apart from a few comments in Tutorial No. 2, I will not burden you by

saying more on that theme in these tutorial lessons.

No one will ever be able to reduce physics to fewer than three such physical dimensions. They are not

arbitrary, but are the facts of Nature. Ask yourself "What is energy?" and you can never answer that

question, except by ducking the issue and reverting to your own different choice of three fundamental

dimensions. Ask yourself " What is distance or space and to where does it extend?" and you will never

find an answer. Ask yourself "What is time?" and whatever you try to say about clocks or the rotation of

body Earth you will end up with no answer. Note that I am not asking how time is measured eg. "What

is a minute?" That you can answer. No, I am asking you to tell me what, in physics, determines the

onward flow of what we call time, meaning the universal rhythm of that something inherent in us all that

gives us the feeling that time is passing.

Strangely enough we will in these tutorials come to unravel that mystery as to the steady universal

rhythm of time, but we will not ever know what time really is other than a progressive change of state

that is ever ongoing. You will see that in the quantized motion of the electric charges that constitute a

structured system in the aether. Without time there could be no change in that aether. It would be a

sterile system frozen in something akin to a solid state. Without space nothing could have form and

without energy nothing could exist. Our physics has to build on the mysterious foundations of energy,

time and space and express itself in terms of these three quantities, but the only law or principle that we

really need build into our analysis could well be that Principle of Energy Conservation. Everything else is

open territory for advancing physics and breaking through a few of the arbitrary barriers put there as

man-made 'law'.

Now, take further stock of what has been said above and reexamine that statement that vr is a constant,

coupled with the need for m itself to be constant. If you have heard that mass increases with speed

owing to Einstein's theory of relativity, then you (quite rightly) will have your reservations, but we can

readily dispose of that problem. It arises from energy conservation. Add energy to a particle that is free

to move without any restraint and it gains in kinetic energy which is carried along with that particle.

Once we can show that all energy is that of electric charge in motion and that an electric charge when

accelerated will not, under any circumstances, radiate itself, meaning its intrinsic energy, then we can

deduce E=Mc2 and the relativistic equation for mass increase with speed follows as a mathematical

consequence. If you need convincing then begin by looking up my books or the reference [1976b]

<../papers/bib/1976b.htm> in the bibliographic reference section of these Web pages ('Inertia of a Non-

Radiating Particle', International Journal of Theoretical Physics, v. 15, pp. 631-633 (1976)). So far as

these tutorial lessons are concerned we are dealing essentially with motion that is constrained by forces

which restrain freedom and, especially in the aether where that motion of mass is constrained to be

simple harmonic in form, we know that mass does not vary with speed.

I can therefore come back to the point that if vr is constant and m is constant for that state of motion of

m under the influence of that force F, we know that mvr is constant. It follows that we have deduced the

Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum as it applies in Newtonian theory, rather than simply

needing to accept it as a basic fact we have had to learn by indoctrination.

This, therefore, has been a lesson about principles and essentially about our scope for questioning

physical laws. It is our starting point for addressing in the next tutorial lesson the question of linear

momentum conservation and what that means in the context of 'perpetual motion', which keeps us on

track in our interest in getting energy from 'nowhere'. However, we will address the task by using

physics in a formal way, as the object of the exercise is to learn the scientific truths which govern us and

avoid mischievous speculation.

*

LESSON NO. 2

These lessons teach the physics that governs Aether Science theory

COLLISIONS

© Harold Aspden, 1997, 2002

In Lesson No. 1 we discussed the principles governing the motion of a particle of mass m when acted

upon by a force. In this Lesson No. 2 the same approach based on energy conservation will be applied to

the collision of two particles. We are, however, going to complicate the problem by declaring that all

particles of matter are, at the truly fundamental level, not just something having a mass we can denote as

m and then proceed by using Newtonian principles. Instead, we shall see them in their true form as being

minute particles of electric charge concentrated into a small volume of space so as to have an energy

which we know governs their mass.

Eventually we will need to explain how charge derives its polarity in terms of energy, space and time, in

order to justify our master plan of reducing everything in fundamental physics to these three dimensions.

However, we are obliged to proceed step by step and so we will accept that those fundamental charges

each have the unitary charge e equal in magnitude to that of the electron. Indeed, I admit that I cannot,

as yet, solve the riddle of charge polarity. It lies in unexplored territory and, apart from a few brief

excursions into that territory, I see it as uncharted ground.

Though electricity is everywhere in us and around us, just as is the aether, the question of what

determines whether an electric charge is positive or negative and why like polarity charges repel and

unlike polarity charges attract is a mystery. Note that I could say that the measure of energy density is

the square of field strength, that the polarity of the charge is the direction of that field and that, since

there are positive and negative square roots to a positive energy density expressed as the square of field

strength, so there must be two polarities of opposite sign. If that level of explanation satisfies your

curiosity then we can move on without concern but, if you share my thoughts, you would still wonder

whether there is an oscillation mode at the universal Compton electron frequency and whether phase

relationships are the governing factor.

Indeed, I see that question of charge polarity as a challenge and possibly the final frontier of our

conquest of physics. It surprises me that the subject is not even mentioned by physicists as something

warranting research investigation. It seems that it is easier to explore what happened in the first

moments of the 'Big Bang' than to look into what is happening within us and all around us here and now

on Earth.

Note also that I shall not be bringing relativistic mass increase into this enquiry. When two charged

particles come into collision at high speed they are normally moving 'freely' and my comments in Tutorial

No. 1 concerning relativistic mass increase do apply. Indeed, as I explained in my book 'Physics without

Einstein' on pp. 17-18 under the title 'Fast Electron Collision' I can draw attention to an experimental

study which confirms this in an interesting way. See the paper by F. C. Champion, Proc. Roy. Soc.

Lond., v. 136A, p. 630 (1932). There are two points of special interest raised by this paper. One is the

statement by Champion that:

"Considering the total number of collisions measured it would appear that, if any amount of

energy is lost by radiation during close encounters, the number of such inelastic collisions is not

greater than a few per cent of the total number."

Yet, your teachers will persist in telling you that there is such energy radiation, as given by the Larmor

formula, even though one cannot do the mathematics of deriving the formula for mass increase with

speed if there is such radiation. They know that energy is radiated by a radio antenna where, if there are

billions of electrons (say, N) all oscillating together as current, then that current squared is a measure of

the strength of that radiation. However, they do not seem to comprehend the fact that the individual

electrons will not radiate on their own. They can only act collectively and so the energy radiated by that

antenna is proportional to N(N-1) and not proportional to N2. To the radio world, with N measured in

billions, or rather many billions of billions, these two quantities are as good as the same, but the

individual mass of each of those electrons is quite small and that small difference in energy radiated is

what accounts for the inertial mass of the electron. Champion's experiment proved that they do not

radiate the energy that gives them that inertial mass. Even Einstein had to assume that, but teacher's

have swept the problem aside and they still teach that energy is radiated by the electron when

accelerated. Then, when confronted with electron acceleration within the atom, they hide behind the

notions of quantum theory to say that the electron only radiates when it jumps between two stable states

of motion in the atom.

The other point is rather subtle. There is some evidence hidden in the experimental data obtained by

Champion which leads me to think that there is a statistical chance that a hidden jitter motion, that of the

aether, can get involved in those fast electron collisions. Perhaps one day I shall discover my old notes

on that theme and put my findings into my Web pages.

Moving on, our reason for introducing electric charge in motion is the physical reality that energy

involved in all collision events between particles, as seen at the ultra-microscopic level, is essentially in

electrodynamic form and spreads over the field environment of the collision. It is not just something that

is seated in one or other of the particles and which gets pooled only at the instant of contact in the

collision. The dominating fact is that energy is conserved and, now assuming that the masses of the

individual particles do not change because the speeds involved are so low compared with the speed of

light, we will proceed here by relying on a force formula that we shall derive from first principles in the

next Lesson No. 3.

That formula declares that the electrodynamic force between two charges e, e' acts directly along the

line joining them and is proportional to ee', inversely proportional to the square of their separation

distance and directly proportional to the square of their relative velocity. Two electrically neutral

particles really comprise numerous such charges of opposite polarity and it is easy to suppose that those

individual forces between the numerous pairs of charges approaching collision will cancel out because

they all share the motion of their parent particle. However, our sole concern is what happens at the

moment of each individual impact between two charges as the parent particles crash into one another.

Each colliding pair will have a Coulomb potential ee'/x, if x is the distance between their charge centres

at the moment they suffer the change of speed. That remains the same, whether the collision is about to

occur or whether it has just occurred. The electrodynamic potential, according to our above

formulation, will similarly need to remain the same under these circumstances, since energy is conserved,

and so the square of relative velocity of the charges is unchanged as well. However, as you know from

mathematics, the square of a negative quantity is the same as the square of its positive equivalent. This

means that the event of collision can reverse the sign of the relative velocity as between the two

colliding charges.

What is here suggested is that two electrically neutral particles of matter can enter a collision and, given

no loss of energy in the process, emerge from that collision with their relative velocities reversed. Yet the

reason for this is their microscopic composition as an aggregation of numerous fundamental component

electric particles, such as electrons and positively charged atomic nuclei. This proposition has been

deduced by applying a force formula that we shall in turn derive from first principle analysis in Lesson

No. 3.

To proceed, the task at hand is to analyze in terms of mechanics the energy involved when two particles

of different masses m, M come into collision at velocities of u, U, respectively and emerge from that

collision at velocities v, V, respectively, assuming no loss of energy by radiation or otherwise. We

proceed, basing our analysis solely on the energy conservation requirement and the reversal of the

relative velocities in the collision.

Write:

U-u = v-V

and rearrange to give:

U+V = v+u

Equate the combined kinetic energies of the two particles before and after the collision:

mu2/2+MU2/2 = mv2/2+MV2/2

Now multiply throughout by 2, rearrange and factorize the terms to get:

m(u-v)(u+v) = M(V-U)(V+U)

Next, use the second equation to simplify the above expression and obtain:

m(u-v) = M(V-U)

Again rearrange:

mu+MU = mv+MV

The equation now obtained says that the combined linear momentum of the two particles before impact

is equal to that of the particles after impact and so shows that momentum is conserved when two

particles interact. In mechanics particle interaction is by contact and so, since rate of change of

momentum is a measure of force, we can say that no net force is generated by particle interaction. In

other words, if one part of a mechanical system acts on another part to set up forces between those

parts, the action equals the reaction because the two forces must sum to zero.

It follows that we have derived Newton's Third Law of Motion by applying first principles based solely

on energy conservation and a law of force involving relative motion.

Take note that the conservation of energy applies to the whole system and that the system is, in its

microcosmic sub-structure, comprised of electric charges, as is the aether itself. Therefore, at all times,

in applying Newton's Third Law of Motion, one must not be unduly surprised if anomalies are

encountered because the aether itself has got into the act. Isaac Newton had no authority to rule out

possible circumstances where, with energy conserved, the reaction of the aether intrudes into the picture

and asserts forces on matter. Indeed, it must if it is to shed energy that finds its way into the matter form

as by creating protons and electrons.

The starting point for determining what is possible and what is not possible concerning unbalanced

forces is the conservation of energy without the help of Newton's Third Law of Motion. The territory

where the force anomalies are to be found is that known as electrodynamics, which in turn gets us into

the world of gravitation. So let us proceed by moving to Tutorial No. 3 and deriving that electrodynamic

formula introduced above.

*

TUTORIAL NOTE 3

These notes teach the mathematical basis of Aether Science theory

ELECTRODYNAMIC FORCE FORMULA

© Harold Aspden, 1997

En Route to the Neumann Potential

After the Law of Conservation of Energy the next truly fundamental law is Coulomb's Law, by which the

electrostatic potential energy of the interaction between two electric charges e, e' separated by a distance

r is simply ee'/r. Note that here we are using a system of units in which the vacuum medium has a

dielectric constant of unity as well as unit magnetic permeability and that when we come to use units for

energy, space and time we shall use ergs, centimetres and seconds, meaning the Gaussian cgs system.

Where space means a volume of space, the units used are cm3.

Thus the electrostatic force acting between those two charges is ee'/r2 directed along the line joining the

charges and, as potential energy tends to reduce, that force is one of repulsion if e and e' have the same

polarity. This is, of course, extremely elementary, but it ceases to be so the moment we ask what

happens should e and e' be in motion. Motion is a word which cannot be given meaning just by writing a

number of cm/s. One needs to specify a direction and indicate the frame of reference. If there is an

aether then that can give such a reference, but otherwise one is left in a quandary. Motion relative to the

'inertial frame' has no meaning because uniform motion does not 'see' that frame. Motion relative to the

other charge does, however, have meaning and so we shall see how far we can get on that basis. Also, if

we introduce c, the speed of light, then again we complicate the picture, but that cannot be avoided, as

we now will discover.

We proceed by assuming that the Coulomb interaction is instantaneous, meaning that the electric

influence asserted at a remote point by charge e is not affected by retardation should e be moving

relative to that point. So, however e and e' are moving, the Coulomb potential is unaffected by that

motion, as such, but it is affected as a function of changing separation distance. Should the two charges

be separating to increase r, then that energy potential is reduced and each charge, or at least the system

as a whole, must, somehow, shed energy to the aether. It does that by radiation as a collective act

involving both charges, because, simultaneously, the charges each experience the reaction effect of an

energy quantum dE shed in directions that are opposed so that the Coulomb force ee'/r2 is offset by a

radiation reaction force (1/c)dE/dt. Note that we are here accepting that energy radiation occurs at

speed c. Note also that we are discussing what happens to the mutual energy of that two-charge

interaction and not the self-interaction energy locked up in the individual charges. Energy shed to the

aether has a way of regenerating itself as matter which adds mass to the system but it suffices here to

consider those energy quanta dE.

We see that 2dE is the net background energy component that accompanies the event under

consideration. It is energy that has been borrowed from or added to the radiation field, disturbing the

equilibrium from which it then seeks to recover. Somewhere in the electric field system that sets up the

Coulomb force there is energy that has been shed to the background owing to the change of the

separation distance r.

Now, rigorous analysis of the energy deployment in the Coulomb field shows that, as viewed from either

charge, there is no net energy within the sphere bounded by the range r from either charge. This is

surprising but true but the proof is given elsewhere. It can be seen by referring to reference [1979a]

<../papers/bib/1979a.htm>. It follows that any energy transfer between that Coulomb field and the

individual charge locations must involve transfer over a mean distance equal to r. Radiation in the

electromagnetic background will traverse that distance in a time T of r/c. Thus we can formulate the

energy 2dE in transit as being:

2dE = TdP/dt

where P is the Coulomb potential ee'/r.

It is now very important to realize that E is never negative, so a reduction in P has to be treated as a

positive rate of change in computing dE from the above equation. Similarly, all components of the rate

of change of momentum of the energy dE have to be assigned a direction that amounts to a reaction

opposing the Coulomb force. Indeed, the radiation reaction arising from transverse relative motion has

to be separated from the radiation reaction resulting from relative radial velocity in setting these

directions. This explains why the sign in the next equation is positive rather than negative.

The offset force, or electrodynamic force, acting on e or e' is then determined as 1/2c times the time

derivative of (r/c)dP/dt. Since P is a simple function of r, we then readily obtain:

F = (ee'/2c2)[(dr/dt)2/r2+(d2r/dt2)/r].

This equation simplifies if we write the relative radial velocity dr/dt as u and the relative radial

acceleration d2r/dt2 as v2/r, where v is the relative transverse velocity. These two velocities u and v are

at right angles and so the sum of their squares can be written as V2, where V is the relative velocity

between the two charges e and e'. It then follows that:

F = (ee'/2r2)(V/c)2.

This is the formula which we set out to derive from first principle analysis. It will seem unfamiliar to

physics teachers but it is in fact the electrokinetic potential assumed by classical physicists as a basis for

deriving the Neumann potential. This derivation just presented appears in the author's Hadronic Journal

paper, reference [1988a] <../papers/bib/1988a.htm>. In that paper it was noted that: " So far as this

author is aware, this electrokinetic potential term has never before been deduced directly from the

Coulomb potential. Hitherto it has been introduced by assumption, owing to its analogy with the kinetic

energy of electromagnetic mass. It is believed, therefore, that the argument presented above is an

important advance, especially in view of its intrinsic simplicity and its direct relevance and applicability

to electromagnetic problems."

Our next tutorial task is to make progress towards the unifying connection between electrodynamic

force law and the law of gravitation. You see, we are going to aim directly at that territory which

Einstein could not conquer, but first we must digress a little to learn something about the way in which

electrons move though space.

If you fear that the mathematics involved is going to get more complicated then rest assured, the

analysis you have just confronted in this Tutorial is more demanding than anything which now follows.

*

TUTORIAL NOTE 4

These notes teach the mathematical basis of Aether Science theory

NEUMANN POTENTIAL

© Harold Aspden, 1997

Introduction

Faraday, Ampere, Neumann, Gauss, Weber and Fechner are names one finds amongst the pioneers of

early and mid-19th century electrical science. That was the period during which the empirical

foundations of the electrodynamic interaction of currents in separate circuits were thoroughly

established. Key to this work was a potential function which came to be known as the Neumann

potential. It can be expressed in various ways, for example as the energy potential expressed as the

integral of two current circuit elements i.ds and i'.ds', presented in the form:

ii'(ds.ds')/r

where the (ds.ds') term is the scalar product of the two interacting circuit elements. If ds and ds' are

segments of circuits separated by the distance r and mutually inclined by the angle A, then (ds.ds') is

(ds)x(ds')x(cosA).

Another way of expressing the potential is in the form that applies to two separate electric charges in

motion:

ee'(v.v')/rc2

where e, e' are the two electric charges and v, v' are their respective velocities, r being their separation

distance.

Now whereas the integral of that first Neumann potential expression, as a circuit integral, represents the

mutual potential energy of an electrodynamic interaction involving a closed current circuit and is

something that can be established empirically, the other elemental version cannot be proved

experimentally because the electrodynamic interaction of two isolated charges in motion has not, as yet,

been possible. Accordingly, the validity of the charged particle version has only been inferred from the

closed circuit tests of the current circuit version.

The issue is extremely important scientifically, because gravitation, if it is to yield to unification with

electrodynamic force law, concerns action between discrete elements and not circuital systems. The task

we confront, therefore, is that of determining from very first principles the true force law and the true

electrodynamic potential that applies to the action between two discrete electric charges in motion. Even

that is only part of the full solution to the gravitational problem, but it is an essential part.

Now I do wish in these tutorials to adhere to proving the grounds on which I rely by building from first

principles, but it helps in the presentation here to advance by using a hypothesis that is well documented

in science history. To prove it I would need to show that when an electron is deemed to move from A to

B it really is part of a team active in the aether owing to the induction at B of electron-positron pairs

from 'nowhere'. The electron moves only half way from A to B as the positron moves from B to that

half-way point. They meet and are annihilated to disappear into that 'nowhere' world of the aether. This

leaves the electron at B ready to move on in such quantum steps. This is my interpretation of the actual

physical process which is implicit in Fechner's hypothesis, a hypothesis advanced on empirical evidence

even before the electron was discovered and long before the positron was discovered. Well, this does

not amount to a 'proof', but you will see that it serves as an adequate foundation for our onward

analysis. As to that materialization of electron-positron pairs from the vacuum, albeit thanks to there

being some energy present, that is something physicists accept in spite of their disbelief in the existence

of the aether. It is a feature of quantum electrodynamics.

Fechner's hypothesis requires acceptance that the flow of electric current in a circuit element is really a

counterflow of electric charge of opposite polarity. Thus a charge e moving at velocity v/2 and a charge

-e moving at velocity -v/2 is equivalent to a single charge e moving at velocity v, so far as its

electrodynamic effect or effect as an electric current are concerned. The notion of electrons and

positrons was unheard of in the 19th century, but those who pioneered electrical science in the latter part

of that century could, guided by the Fechner hypothesis, derive the Neumann potential from that formula

we deduced in Tutorial No. 3.

Consider two electric charges, e, -e having velocities v/2, -v/2, respectively at P distant r from Q and

interacting with e', -e' having velocities v'/, -v'/2, respectively, at Q. Use that force formula involving the

relative velocity V:

F = ee'(V/c)2/2r2

and you should be able to show that the addition of the four force components set up by the particle

interactions have velocity squared terms which cancel, but have cross product terms which sum to give a

net force:

F = -(ee')(v.v')/rc2

This is a force and, if it were expressed as an energy potential by multiplying by r, it would be the

Neumann potential duly derived by using the Fechner hypothesis. F is a force acting directly between the

charges and directly proportional to their separation distance r, regardless of the relative disposition of

those charges in relation to the separation vector r. Furthermore the force is always an attractive force

whose strength is independent of the relative disposition of those charges in relation to the separation

vector, if those charges move in mutually parallel directions. This, it is stressed, applies regardless of the

angle between the separation vector r and those velocity vectors and this is extremely important in our

quest to resolve the riddle of unification of gravity and electromagnetism. Our quest to develop that link

with the force of gravity has got easier, since we now know that the requirement is a mutually parallel

charge system at the very heart of the action accounting for the phenomenon of gravitation.

Now, physicists had reached this position, but not appreciated it, well before the end of the 19th century

but there was something they missed in their efforts to understand actions in real electric circuits. They

were determined to adhere to that law of Newton which requires action and action to be equal and

opposite. They had seen how the Neumann potential affected charge interaction and that seemed to

work well provided they restricted attention to interactions involving a closed circuit, but they did not

make that scientific leap across the gap that was then directly before them.

They had, in fact, forgotten the reality of their problem, which is that two charges never, ever, exist in

isolation from other charge unless they restrict their interactions to oscillations in modes that ensure

their respective motions are mutually parallel. In the real world of electrical engineering and laboratory

science tests on electricity the Neumann potential and its equivalent force formulation are strictly

component forces of a partial system. Newton's Third Law of Motion need not apply to each and every

pair of charges in such a case, meaning that other forces can be acting on the individual charges, as set

up by the influence of other electric charge in motion in the environment. The reason is that energy is

pooled as between the separate charge interactions. The sole governing requirement is that the energy of

the Neumann potential is conserved overall in its deployment into and from the kinetic energy of the

motion of the charges involved in setting up that potential.

Now, I am going to try, in presenting these tutorials, to avoid reference to textbook back-up but I do

mention at this stage that much of what I will be presenting is of convenient record in my book 'Physics

Unified' which is available and can be ordered from booksellers or as indicated in the book and report

section of these Web pages. At this point in developing the onward argument I shall be following fairly

closely the text to be found on pp. 3-17 of that book, though some of that detail that adds considerable

weight to what I say will be omitted here. Indeed, the points I am making are so simple that it really

does not need such treatment. It is just that the task of getting scientists to wake up to the realities of

where Einstein went wrong has proved to be such a struggle that proof and over-proof seemed

warranted when I wrote 'Physics Unified' and its earlier version 'Physics without Einstein'.

The Electrodynamic Force

Merely by taking full account of the conservation of energy there are certain general aspects of the force

which acts on a charged particle in motion that we can investigate.

Referring to the figure below, imagine two electric particles q, Q of mass m, M moving at velocity v, V,

respectively and subject to a mutual force F acting directly between them along their line of separation.

Note that F is not the only force acting on the particles, because we will be taking into account inertial

reaction forces and extraneous interaction effects owing to the presence of other charge in the near

environment.

Consider next the energy deployment as charge Q moves under the action of the force F in the direction

-r. This is depicted in the next figure:

Note that force is merely a manifestation of an effect which occurs as energy seeks to redeploy as a

function of time and distance, taking into account the energy package wrapped up as 'mass' in the

intrinsic state of the particle on which it acts.

Now, key to the argument I am following here with regard to the above figure is the assumption that V

is a velocity which, for some reason, is sustained at a constant value. Therefore, if the action is deemed

to be purely electrodynamic in origin, we simply cannot have the charge Q moving at a constant velocity

V solely under the action of the force F. The force F expends work at a rate expressed by the scalar

product (F.V) and the energy has to go somewhere. We might expect V to change, but we are

considering what happens if V does not change, namely the circumstance prevailing if there are energy

transfer processes at work within the electrodynamic system itself. This implies the 'field', but I prefer to

avoid use of that term in this analysis.

The consequence of this, if we are to assure energy conservation, is that Nature must assert another

force component on Q. We denote this as the force Z as shown in the next figure and write the energy

conservation equation:

(F.V) + (Z.V) = 0

We now take note that, whereas F acts through the centre of mass of the two-body system formed by q

and Q, the force Z must assert a turning moment on Q about that centre of mass. Z cannot act through

that mass centre because, if it did, then, to satisfy the above equation, it would merely cancel F

completely and there would be no electrodynamic action to consider.

Now, at this point I am going to declare that no material body in its completeness can develop a spin of

its own accord, meaning by the agency of its own internally produced forces. It can develop a spin if,

somehow, it can push in a rotational sense against something non-material, meaning the aether. I believe

that is possible for reasons explained elsewhere in these Web pages (notably in my Lecture No. 5 where

I discuss the creation of stars and planets), but that action is basically seated in the electrostatic

displacement state in the vacuum medium and is not a function of what can be termed electrodynamic

action. So far as the electrodynamic action is concerned there is no way in which that two-body charged

particle system can develop spin, which means it cannot acquire angular momentum by virtue of its self-

interaction and the induction of forces such as that we term Z above. Remember also that I shall, as we

proceed in these tutorials, be proving that gravitation is of electrodynamic origin.

It is well established by experiments on the measurement of gyromagnetic properties in magnetized

pivotally-mounted rods that when the direction of intrinsic ferromagnetism is reversed so the electrons in

the atoms within that rod impart a rotational kick on the rod, the reason being that angular momentum is

conserved. If the rod is seen to spin clockwise, the electrons spin unseen in the anticlockwise sense and

this is detected by measurements which relate to the individual charge to mass ratios of those electrons.

Now you know what I mean by the word 'completeness' as used above. That rod and those electrons

within it must be considered together as a whole system. The rod may spin and lead you to think that a

law of physics has been disproved, but angular momentum is still conserved because you need to take

account of the change of angular motion of those electrons.

Reverting to our problem of the two charges q, Q, to balance the turning action of Z, there has to be a

third force component acting on Q in the above figure. This third force P is an extraneous force arising

as the inertial reaction. As is usual with reaction phenomena, this reaction force is that associated with a

maximization of the amount of energy transferred, corresponding to a minimization of the potential

energy associated with the primary action. Thus, for optimum reaction involving maximum energy

transfer as Q is displaced, the force P has to be in line with the velocity vector V.

The figure shows both charges with forces Z' and P' designated as the counterparts of Z and P that act

on charge q. Now, to avoid any turning effect owing to the self-interaction of q and Q, the forces shown

must combine to accelerate the two particles in the same direction and at the same linear rate. When

formulated, this condition just deduced leads to:

Z = (M/m)P'

Z' = (m/M)P

with Z parallel to P' and Z' parallel to P.

In this analysis I have avoided discussing the change of kinetic energy associated with the forces P and P'

acting in those directions v and V, respectively. Analysis on those lines is found in my book 'Physics

without Einstein' [1969b] or in my Journal of the franklin Institute paper [1969a]. The result is the

same as we find by proceeding from the equations already formulated.

I did, on pp. 7-10 of my book 'Physics Unified' include an argument based essentially on symmetry

considerations by which I derived the form of the Neumann Potential and so the force F. However, I

later discovered how to prove the true origin of that force and it was published in Hadronic Journal.

See reference [1988a] and note that a full copy of that paper is reproduced in my 1996 book 'Aether

Science Papers'. For our purposes here it suffices to proceed by writing the force F attributable to the

Neumann Potential as:

F = -K(v.V)r

where:

K = qQ/r3

and then, from the energy balance equation involving Z and F above derive:

-K(v.V)(V.r) = (Z.V) = 0

From this:

Z = K(V.r)v

Conversely:

Z' = -K(v.r)V

Replacing Z' by (m/M)P then gives:

P = -K(M/m)(v.r)V

and, as a result, the total force acting on Q, which is F+Z+P, is:

FQ = (qQ/r3)[(V.r)v - (M/m)(v.r)V -(v.V)r]

This is the complete and general law of electrodynamics to which we have been led by straightforward

analysis. It will form the basis of the unified theory by which we shall explain gravitation as an

electrodynamic force.

I may add here that some detailed background which refers to Clerk Maxwell's study of this same

problem can be found in my Lecture No. 5 in these Web pages. That M/m term is interesting from the

viewpoint of plasma experiments where there are anomalous interaction forces asserted between

electrons and heavy ions. It is also of interest in connection with the prospect of extracting energy from

the aether, which is the subject of the research findings of Dr. Correa and Alexandra Correa, as

described in my Energy Science Report No. 8. However, from the viewpoint of gravity, the first two

terms in that general law of electrodynamics cancel to leave only the last term. The first term,

incidentally, when combined with the last term, gives the Lorentz force law.

Remember here that you are taught to think that electromagnetic action on moving charge can only be at

right angles to the charge motion. You ought to ask your teacher how the charge can lose or gain energy

by transfer to the magnetic field if its reaction with that field prevents it from slowing down or speeding

up. If Faraday's name is then mentioned or that of Lenz, then ask how that affects the form of the law of

electrodynamics, which should stand on its own to explain the phenomenon of electrodynamic action.

On the gravity theme, we shall soon see in these tutorials that the aether includes electric charges that

share an organized synchronous motion on a universal scale and it also contains energy in the form of

electric charges that migrate around at random. The organized system is in two parts which are

dynamically balanced. Any matter present shares the motion of one part and, in spite of that motion, is

effectively at rest in the electromagnetic frame of reference, because that 'part' of the aether constitutes

that frame of reference. The other 'part' comprises charges that I term 'gravitons' because they are the

seat of the gravitational action. They move relative to the electromagnetic reference frame and always

share motion that is mutually parallel as between all the gravitons. They are held in place by powerful

electrostatic forces which keep them in step with limited freedom of movement. They are not 'free' in the

sense that their masses can affect electrodynamic interaction as opposed to dynamic balance in the

permitted degree of freedom. In short, the first two terms in the general law of electrodynamics are

ineffective and this leaves the force:

F = -(qQ/r3)(v.V)r

which establishes the form of law we seek for correspondence with Newton's law of gravitation.

Note that the general form of the law of electrodynamics or the Lorentz version of that law, meaning the

versions adding terms to the equation just presented, play no role in the theory of interactions between

charges within atoms. Nor can they affect interaction between moving atoms (as opposed to ions).

Those charges are not free to move solely under electrodynamic constraints. They are not akin to the

effects of steady state current flow through electrical circuits, where electrostatic interactions are fully

neutralized. The dominant forces in atomic systems are electrostatic in origin and the same applies to the

aether, except for that one type of interaction as between the gravitons in that half of the vacuum

medium which provides dynamic balance for matter and the aether's related electromagnetic reference

frame. If those gravitons can attract one another, that attraction is communicated to the matter they are

balancing and we see that as gravitation. Gravitation is not an electrodynamic force acting directly on

matter. Its effect is indirect and is communicated by the dynamic linkage with the graviton system.

I must now conclude this tutorial. I set out to explain the Neumann Potential and the role it plays in

determining the form of the law of electrodynamics. This is part of my plan to work towards that

account of gravitation by which we shall evaluate G, the constant of gravity in terms of the electron's

charge/mass ratio. However, I have gone just a little too far in opening the door to show how the aether

performs on the gravity stage. We must halt that discussion now to examine in Tutorial No. 5 a

traditional feature of the aether which concerns the speed of light.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.