Sei sulla pagina 1di 14


These notes teach the mathematical basis of Aether Science theory

© 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
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
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
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.

These lessons teach the physics that governs Aether Science theory
© Harold Aspden, 1997, 2002

Electric Particles in Action

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.

Why Action equals Reaction

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.

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.

These notes teach the mathematical basis of Aether Science theory
© 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.

These notes teach the mathematical basis of Aether Science theory
© Harold Aspden, 1997
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:
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
Another way of expressing the potential is in the form that applies to two separate electric charges in
where e, e' are the two electric charges and v, v' are their respective velocities, r being their separation
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
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
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
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.