An Aether Model of the Universe

Allen Rothwarf
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Drexel University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 U.S.A.

Abstract

An aether model based upon a degenerate Fermion fluid, composed primarily of

electrons and positrons in a negative energy state relative to the null state or true vacuum, is

proposed and its consequences are explored for physics and cosmology. The model

provides both insight and quantitative results for a large number of phenomena for which

conventional theory provides no answers or unsatisfactory answers. Among the concepts

treated are: wave-particle duality, the nature of spin (a vortex in the aether), the derivation

of HubbleÕs law; electric fields (polarization of the aether); Zitterbewegung (a bare particle

orbiting within a vortex core); inflation in cosmology; the arrow of time; the Pauli exclusion

principle (repulsion between parallel spin vortices); the nature of the photon (a region of

rotating polarized aether propagating with a screw-like motion); neutrinos (a spin vortex

with no particle in its core); redshifts; g-ray bursters; and a number of other topics. A key

assumption is that the speed of light is the Fermi velocity of the degenerate electron-

positron plasma that dominates the aether. As a consequence the speed of light decreases

with time on the scale of the age of the universe.

Keywords: Aether, Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, Relativity, red-shift, HubbleÕs

law, speed of light, vortices, wave-particle duality.

1. Introduction

We live in a universe of interacting fluids. While oceans in which gases are

dissolved, and an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere with water vapor and other trace gases are

readily accepted, the third fluid, the aether, which penetrates everything is ridiculed as a

relic of a bygone era in science. Yet, while rejecting an aether, the science establishment

has no problems swallowing waves in vacuum, mysterious probability waves, ad hoc

cosmological constants, vacuum fluctuations that can generate anything, and time and space

expanding and shrinking. To the true believer, the fact that Òthey workÓ is the only

justification for the major theories in physics; MaxwellÕs equations, the Schrodinger

equation, and Relativity, and is used as evidence that we know everything, that ÒScience is

DeadÓ, and humanityÕs brightest should move on to more challenging tasks. Some of us,

however, are heretics. We would actually like to ÒunderstandÓ the physics, rather than just

use it as a magic wand to create technology. In this pursuit of ÒunderstandingÓ, which is

also ridiculed by the establishment as asking meaningless questions, we have found that the

aether is not only a useful concept, but that it is a real substance with an origin that

coincides with the birth of our universe and whose properties determine the speed of light,

the other physical constants, and the missing insight lacking in present theories.

Before expounding upon the aether and how it explains so many phenomena in a

simple way, let me point out that contrary to popular belief, science is not logically based.

Instead, it, like all human activity is based upon chance and trial and error. The chimp who

accidentally cracked the first nut with a stick or the baboon who first cracked an oyster or

clam with a rock, didnÕt ask about how much force needed to be applied or the properties

of shells. It was enough for them and those that followed that Òit workedÓ. In our text

books we mostly read about the approaches that worked. Occasionally failed approaches,

such as the aether, are mentioned to show how much better the current approach works.

2
Once something works there may be all sorts of explanations for why it works, but they are

irrelevant since they all necessarily result in what is known to work or they are discarded.

To the modern scientist, NewtonÕs misgivings about his theory of gravitation

because it had no medium in which to act and hence was action-at-a-distance, are not a

problem, nor does the notion that if light is a wave in what medium is it a wave. For

gravity we distort space-time (another mysterious property of the vacuum) and for light we

have the concepts of electric and magnetic fields (which have no clear pictures). For the

origin of our universe we have a big bang which originated not only all the matter but also

space-time itself. It is the expansion of space-time that gives us the expanding universe and

the redshift of light from distant galaxies. As to why space-time is expanding or what

determines the speed of light, thatÕs just the way it is. Still more mysterious is Quantum

Mechanics where the particles are also waves, and waves are also particles (photons, etc),

and the wave function is not in a medium but is a probability wave of some sort. The key

constant in Quantum Mechanics is PlanckÕs constant, h, and the key constant in Relativity

is, c, the speed of light. Conventional physicists wouldnÕt think of asking what determines

the values of these constants; they are God given.

In the subsequent sections we will give our model for the aether and then show

how it affords us deeper insight into many areas of physics. In section 2 we give the

physical model for the aether and mention some of the conceptual problems it resolves.

Section 3 details the mathematical model for the aether and derives the rate of expansion of

the universe, the variation of the speed of light with time, HubbleÕs law, and treats the

inflationary period of growth of the universe. Section 4 treats the relation of the aether to

Quantum Mechanics. Section 5 relates the aether to electricity and magnetism, gives a

detailed description of the photon, a plausible coupling mechanism between particles and

the aether, and another possible mechanism for the redshift of light from distant sources.

3
Section 6 discusses spin and statistics, with a model for spin as a vortex centered on a

ÒporeÓ in the aether, and shows how the magnetic moment of the electron is related to the

Zitterbewegung of the electron. Section 7 discusses our concerns about Relativity and

suggests a test of our model using the LIGO apparatus. Section 8 contains a long list of

topics ranging from the mechanism for energy production in the early universe, to the

arrow of time, the collapse of the wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics, and a possible

steady state universe that includes many mini big bangs. In section 9 we summarize our

results, and present our conclusion that our aether approach represents a fruitful approach

to understanding the universe.

2. The Real Aether Model

While I had never really swallowed Quantum Mechanics, and had harbored the

notion of a medium in which the particles moved and created waves that could interact with

obstacles and act back on the particle, the nature and origin of such a medium was not

obvious. Indeed, this has always been the problem with the aether. In ÒThe Evolution of

PhysicsÓ by Einstein and Infeld(1) at the end of section 2 - The Decline of the Mechanical

View, in their summary they state, ÒWaves spreading in a medium consisting of particles,

with mechanical forces acting between them, are certainly a mechanical concept. But what

is the medium through which light spreads and what are its mechanical properties? There is

no hope of reducing the optical phenomena to mechanical ones before this question is

answered. But the difficulties in solving this problem are so great that we have to give it up

and thus give up the mechanical view as wellÓ. Hence, it is necessary to have a specific

model for the aether, if we hope to explain the complex phenomena of electricity,

magnetism, radiation, and other phenomena.

4
 It is also of interest to note that Dirac in 1951 published a Letter to Nature titled ÒIs

There an Aether?Ó(2) in which he showed that the objections to an aether posed by Relativity

were removed by Quantum Mechanics, and that in his reformulation of electrodynamics the

vector potential was a velocity.(3) He concludes the Letter with ÒWe have now the

velocity(2) at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is

natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of

electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aetherÓ. Others have worked on aether

models, some similar to ours in many ways, and we will refer to their work later.

The key insight that our model presents is that it gives a natural origin to the aether

and hence links a vast array of phenomena that are often treated in disjointed ways or not at

all. In brief, the aether stems from the big-bang origin of our universe. During the period

of the big-bang, particles and anti-particles were created in great numbers. Conventional

physics asserts that almost all of these annihilated themselves, giving rise to radiation.(4)

Our picture differs from the conventional one in that particles and anti-particles do not

annihilate one another. Instead they form a bound state which is actually at a lower energy

than if they had annihilated. This lower energy results from the collective correlation

energy of the particles and anti-particles interacting with many others at high density. An

analogous state exists in semiconductors irradiated by a high intensity laser.(5) There, such

a high density of electrons and holes (absence of an electron in the bonding states) are

created, that degenerate gases of electrons and holes are formed. This Òelectron-hole dropÓ

shows a much longer lifetime and a large shift in energy, compared to those for an isolated

electron-hole pair. Extrapolating the electron-hole state to much higher density one can

expect a situation where the electron and hole plasma would be stable relative to

recombination and hence would persist after the laser was turned off. While such a state

hasnÕt been realized in semiconductors, we propose that the aether is such a state. We will

argue that electrons and positrons dominate the aether plasma, and from this deduce a

5
number of quantitative and qualitative results that greatly enhance our understanding of the

natural world.

At this point it may be occurring to the reader that when particles and antiparticles

come together and energy is released that equals the rest mass of the particles, then how can

we claim that the particles havenÕt recombined? Consider an isolated electron or positron.

One can show that the energy associated with the electric field around these charges is

given by

lim e2 1
U= (1)
r ® 0 8p Î0 r

and hence diverges if r ® 0. Here e is the charge on the electron, Î 0 the permittivity of

free space, and r the distance from the charged particle. In standard treatments of electricity

this energy is called the self energy of the particle, and the divergence is avoided by setting

this energy equal to the rest mass energy moc2, and defining a cutoff distance or radius for

the electron r0 = e2/(4pÎ0mc2) or by ÒrenormalizingÓ the theory to remove the infinity.(6)

We will deal with the infinity in another way later. Here, we simply point out that

ordinarily as the electron and positron approach one another the field energy is greatly

reduced, and at a distance on the order of r0 the reduction in energy is sufficient for each to

emit a g-ray equal in energy to the particleÕs rest mass energy m oc2. Hence there is no

contradiction or violation of conservation of energy in our picture, since the electron-

positron pair at a distance of ~ ro would be in a negative energy state relative to the free

particles, just as the electron-proton hydrogen atom is in a negative energy state relative to

the free particles. For our case we also claim that the electrons and positrons interact with

other pairs and reach an energy negative with respect to the null state. The null state is the

absence of the aether, is what one would classify as the ÒtrueÓ vacuum. (7)

It is already possible at this point to preview some of the results. First, since the

aether is a plasma of particles which obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, they will have a velocity,

6
and hence the region containing these particles will expand even after new particle-

antiparticle production ceases. Hence, in our picture the expansion of the aether replaces

the expansion of space-time, and indeed our aether replaces space-time. From the

mathematical model of the aether which we will present below, HubbleÕs law(4) for the

expanding universe is easily obtained. Another conceptual problem that the aether removes

is the particle-wave duality that arises from Quantum Mechanics. An object moving

through the aether creates a wave in the aether just as one moving through air or water

creates a wave. The wave also acts back on the object to determine its path. Thus, a flat-

faced boat approaching a solid dock has difficulty reaching the dock due to the water it

pushes ahead bouncing back, and moving the boat back. For a moving particle in Quantum

Mechanics there will be a disturbance in the aether that accompanies the particle and acts

back on it. Hence in the double slit experiment the aether waves enter both slits, while the

particle passes through only one. This is the approach taken by Bohm(8, 9, 10)
, but Bohm

still considered the waves to be probability waves rather than waves in a real medium.

The interference between the components of the aether waves then determines where the

particle will strike the detector. Since the particle and its wave disturbance are linked, what

affects one affects the other, giving the reason why the particle seems to be simultaneously

a particle and a wave. We will give other examples later.

3. Mathematical Treatment of the Aether Model and Cosmology

Having asserted that the aether is a plasma of particles and anti-particles in a

negative energy state (relative to the annihilation or null state), we would like to put this

picture on a quantitative basis and see what quantitative predictions can be obtained. First

we will assume that the aether is dominated by electrons and positrons. This is based upon

the standard picture of cosmology (even though we will be changing parts of that picture)

in which, as the big-bang cools down, there is a period during which electrons and

7
positrons dominate the matter in the universe, before annihilating to form g-rays. (4,7) We

envision that the ÒannihilationÓ is really a condensation into the aether. While we will be

reinterpreting Quantum Mechanics, we accept its mathematical validity. Hence, the

electron-positron plasma is subject to Quantum Mechanics, and will for high enough

density form a degenerate Fermi fluid, similar to the situation in metals, neutron stars, or

liquid He3.(11)

A universal feature of a degenerate Fermi fluid (gas or liquid) is the existence, due

to the Pauli exclusion principle of a highest energy (at zero temperature) for the particles

called the Fermi level, and a velocity associated with this level called the Fermi velocity.(11)

The expression for the Fermi velocity, vF, is

h kF h
vF = = (3p 2 n )1 / 3 (2)
m m
where h is PlanckÕs constant divided by 2p, m is the mass of the electron (positron), k F

the wavevector of electrons at the Fermi energy, and n is the density of the electrons

(positrons). One thing that becomes apparent from equation (2) is that once particle

production ceases as the big-bang cooled, n should decrease as the aether expands, and

hence vF should also decrease. The question arises at this point as to the significance of v F

and our observation that it will be decreasing with time.

We had mentioned in the introduction that others have considered an aether similar

to ours. There is a vast literature of recent work, which is most readily accessed through

the world wide web, as well as, through conventional journals. (12) We will mention only

two of these approaches to give the flavor of what is being considered by others, and

because they have some features in common with our model. Meno has an aether

composed of particles called gyrons, that are oblong in shape, and matter consists of

rotational flows (vortices) involving these gyrons. All phenomena are explained in terms

8
of various excitations of the aether. MenoÕs aether satisfies the necessary symmetry and

invariance conditions. Sinha et al showed that a particle-anti particle aether would satisfy

all the necessary symmetry and invariance relations to be consistent with known

physics.(12) They, however, tried to show the relevance of their aether to known

phenomena by equating vF to the critical velocity of a superconductor and exploiting some

of the known properties of superconductors to draw analogies to those of the aether. This

approach has had some success, but our assumption as to the physical meaning of v F

appears to be more fruitful, namely, we equate vF to the speed of light, c, and consider the

consequences! The rationale behind this assumption is that one can show that excitations in

such a system travel at velocities limited by v F . (13) Using equation (2) and v F = c, we

come to some interesting conclusions:

i) c depends upon the density of the particles in the aether, it isnÕt simply a

quantity that one must accept as given.

ii) Since n decreases with time as the aether expands, c will also be a

decreasing function of time.

iii) If c is a function of time, e, h and m may also be time dependent.(14, 15)

Taking equation (2) and v F = c0 the present speed of light, we can calculate n0 the

present value of the density of the aether electrons (positrons). This yields n0 =

6 ´ 1029/cm3. If we compare this to densities in metals of ~1023/cm3 or the density of

electron and holes in the Electron-Hole Drops,(5, 11) that was the model for our aether, of

2 ´ 1017/cm3, we see that we are many orders of magnitude denser, and hence, this is at

least consistent with the hypothesis that at high density the correlations could increase the

binding energy enough to make an electron-positron plasma negative in energy relative to

the null state. For the electron-hole plasma in Ge at 2 ´ 1017/cm3 the added binding energy

9
is 2 meV compared to the free exciton.(5, 11)
To extrapolate 12 powers of ten is not

possible, so the true energy diagram for the aether is not available yet. However, we do

know that the condensation energy is the present rest mass energy of the electron-positron

pair or 2 (0.511 MeV) = 1.02 MeV, and that the kinetic energy of the electrons and

1 2
positrons in the aether at the top of the distribution (the Fermi level) is mc » 0.25MeV.
2
We can thus picture the free electron and positron condensing with each releasing 0.51

MeV and gaining 0.25 MeV in kinetic energy. This suggests that the potential energy of

the aether particles at the Fermi level relative to free particles is given by:

1 2 3
mc + V = - mc2 or V = - mc2 (3)
2 2
We will leave this for now and return to it later when we treat the energy balance of

the universe.

There are other results that follow from Eq. (2) with v F = c, that have a direct
bearing on cosmology. First if we consider that as the aether expands and the big-bang

cools, particle production ceases at some point, and leaves a total number of electrons (or

positrons) N o in the aether. If R(t) is the radius of the aether, (also the radius of the

4
universe) then n = N 0 / pR 3 ( t ). Since the fastest particles in the aether are moving with
3

velocity c(t) some will always be crossing the outer radius, and thus expanding R(t). The

rate of expansion of the aether will be proportional to c(t). Ç ( t ) = a c( t ) and

Thus, R

rewriting Eq. (2) as

1/ 3
Ç (t)
R h æ 3p 2 N 0 ö 1 cR
c( t ) = = ç 4p ÷ = 0 0, (4)
a m è 3 ø R( t ) R( t )

Ç ( t ) is
where c0 is the present speed of light and R0 the present radius of the universe and R

the time derivative of R(t). This gives the differential equation:

10
 R( t ) RÇ ( t ) = a c 0 R 0 (5)

where a is a geometric factor on the order of one half.

Ç (t ) = 1 d R 2 (t ) :
The solution of this equation is, using R( t ) R ( )
2 dt

1/ 2
[
R( t ) = 2ac 0 R 0 ( t - t i ) + R 2i ] , t > ti (6)

where ti is the time at which particle production ceased and Ri is the radius of the universe
at that time. Since the present time t0 is much greater than ti and R0 is much greater than R i,

Eq. (6) predicts that the universe is expanding with a t1/2 time dependence.

Also from Eq. (6) and the second form of Eq (4) we see that the speed of light is

decreasing as t-1/2. These results have assumed that h and m have values independent of

time. The time dependence for R(t) given by Eq. (6) is nearly identical to that found from

relativity for an Einstein-DeSitter universe dominated by radiation.(15) Hence, despite our

unorthodox assumption of a real aether, our predictions are similar to those of traditional

theory at least for some properties. However, the speed of light is not considered as

variable in traditional theory, but the expansion rate of the universe does change with time

and has a value which just happens to be similar in magnitude to c.(15)

Another result that arises naturally from the aether fluid is HubbleÕs law. (4, 7) This

law which was deduced from experimental observations states that the farther away from

us a galaxy is, the greater is its velocity away from us. Mathematically this is

v(r) = Hr: where H is Hubbles constant (7)

For a fluid, conservation of the mass of the fluid gives the continuity equation

11
 ¶n r
= - Ñ · ( nv) (8)
¶t
r r
where n is the density and vthe velocity of the fluid and Ñ · ( nv) is the divergence of the

particle current. The velocity of the fluid is the coherent or drift velocity of the fluid, rather

than the velocity of the particles individually. In our treatment so far we have neglected any

spatial dependence of the density of the aether. The rationale for this is that the velocity of

the particles in the Fermi Dirac distribution range in each volume, from 0 to the speed of

light, and hence the fluid is well mixed. This will fail to some extent at the edge of the

expanding universe where particles are diffusing into the true vacuum. We will treat n as

independent of r in Eq (8). The time dependence of n follows from its definition and Eq.

(6). Thus, we can write

¶n dn d æ N 0 ö RÇ
= = ç4 = - 3n ( t ) (9)
¶t dt dt è 3 p R( t )3 ÷ø R
r
If we assume that v(r) depends only on r, then we need only consider the term in the

divergence in spherical coordinates that has the r dependence

r 1 ¶(r 2 v(r )) é 2v(r ) ¶v(r ) ù

Ñ · (nv) = n 2 = nê + (10)
r ¶r ë r ¶r úû

and (8) becomes

RÇ ( t ) 2 ¶v( r )
3 = v( r ) + = K( t ) (11)
R( t ) r ¶r

where K(t) is independent of r. A simpler form for Eq(11) is:

1 d 2
( r v( r )) = K( t ) (12)
r 2 dr
The general solution of this is:

K( t )r c1 R Ç (t) c
v( r ) = + 2 = r + 21 (13)
3 r R( t ) r

12
where c1 is a constant of integration, which from the second form of Eq (13) can be set to

zero, since v(R) = RÇ ( t ) satisfies the boundary condition at the edge of the universe. With

c1 = 0 we have HubbleÕs law with H(t) given by:

Ç (t ) a c R
R a c0 1
H( t ) = = 20 0 = @ (14)
R( t ) R (t ) R0 2t

Where the second form of Eq. (14) is obtained using Eq (5), and the third by setting R(t) =

R0 i.e. t = t0 the present time, and the final form using Eq. (6) in the limit t >> ti. The time t
is since the start of the big-bang (or more correctly, the time since particle production

stopped).

While Eqs. (13) and (14) are an apparent derivation of HubbleÕs law assuming that

the galaxies are swept along with the expanding aether, there are several loose ends that

need to be tied. First is the issue of where r is measured from. The observations measure
r
the distance to the light sources from earth, while the derivation in assuming that v was a

function of r only, implicitly took the origin for r to be the position of the big-bang, since it

is only in that reference frame that a spherical symmetric universe is a plausible

assumption. Second is the fact that the light being observed, and from which the velocity

is determined via the redshift of the wavelengths, was emitted at an earlier time. From Eqs.

(13) and (14) a higher velocity would have occurred for a given distance at an earlier time.

If there is a one to one correspondence between the time the light was emitted and the

distance computed to the source, then we would expect HubbleÕs constant to be smaller for

nearby sources since the light was emitted at a later time compared to distant sources.

Indeed, there seems to be some controversy about HubbleÕs constant, with values derived

from nearby sources differing by about a factor of two from those from distant sources. (4)
Other problems that must be addressed are related to the speed of light being a

function of time, and the possibility that other physical constants may also vary with time.

This raises the possibility that the redshift is not due to the expansion of space-time (the

13
aether) but is due to the fact that the emitted photons were already shifted when emitted,

since the physical constants at that time were different. Also it is possible that some distant

galaxies were formed not in our big-bang, but in another that overlaps ours, and have

aether properties different from ours that would produce discontinuities in redshifts from

adjacent galaxies. We will return to this point at a later stage.

The above treatment considered the situation after the big-bang had cooled

sufficiently so that particles were no longer being created and the aether had a fixed number

of particles N0. The natural question is whether anything can be said about the period prior

to ti. The answer is yes, if we return to the continuity equation and allow a generation term

to be present. We now write instead of Eq. (8):

¶n r
= - Ñ · ( nv) + g( t ) (15)
¶t
where g(t) describes the process through which new particles enter the aether. Later, we

will discuss a mechanism, through which the presence of the aether as a negative energy
state, provides the energy for additional particle production that results in an increase in the

density of the aether. Since the energy available for particle production depends upon the

density of the aether, we assume that g is proportional to a power of the density. Thus we

write(16)

g = g nb (16)

Since the generation process occurs at short times after the initiation of the big-bang when

the universe is very small and uniform we will consider what Eqs. (15) and (16) predict

when the divergence term is dropped. In particular if we take the case b = 1, we find(17)

n = ni exp (gt) (17)

where ni is the density at which the generation term g dominates in Eq. (15). From Eq(2)

and the assumption that RÇ ( t ) = a v F = ac the exponential growth in n given by Eq. (17)

translates into the exponential growth of the radius of the universe (aether) during the time t

14
< ti when particle production is occurring. Thus, a period of inflationary growth or

ÒinflationÓ occurs naturally in the aether model. Other models of cosmology have

introduced inflation as an ad hoc assumption, (18) in our picture it can emerge in a natural

way.

In summary, in this section we have demonstrated that the aether model can be put

into mathematical form and makes reasonable predictions, in agreement with experiment

and previous models, in relation to cosmology. It also introduces new concepts and

results, such as the time dependence of the speed of light on a cosmological scale.

4. Quantum Mechanics and the Aether Model

The key features of Quantum Mechanics are the Schrodinger Equation(19) and the

rules for determining the predicted value for observables. The quantity that the
r
Schrodinger Equation describes is the wavefunction Y ( r , t ) ; and the rules tell what

information can be determined once Y has been found. From the point of view of

predicting and accounting for experimental results in atoms, molecules and condensed

matter, Quantum Mechanics has been a very successful theory. Where it is flawed is in its

foundations, which are heuristic, and in the meaning of Y . (20) The usual interpretation of

Y is that it is a probability amplitude, such that |Y|2dV is the probability of finding a

particle within the volume dV. An alternate approach is the ensemble picture, which states

that if one had a large number of identical systems, then |Y|2dV would represent the

fraction of the systems that would be found to have a particle in the volume dV. Quantum

Mechanics is excellent in predicting energy levels in ÒstationaryÓ states such as the energy

levels of electrons in atoms or allowed energy bands in solids, and similar problems.

15
However, for the seemingly trivial case of a free particle it is incapable of providing a

reasonable solution.(20) Also there is no ÒderivationÓ of the Schrodinger Equation, and the

probability amplitude is not a wave in a real medium but rather an abstract concept.

The Schrodinger Equation for a particle of mass m is:

h2 2 r r ¶Y r r
- Ñ Y ( r , t ) + V( r ) Y ( r , t ) = i h ( r , t ) = EY ( r , t ) (18)
2m ¶t
where Ñ 2 is the Laplacian operator V(r) is the potential energy function, h is PlanckÕs

constant divided by 2p, and i = -1. For stationary states with constant energy E, such as

electrons in atoms, molecules, or condensed systems, the last equality is valid. Hence,

given V(r) one can solve for Y(r, t), and E, once the boundary conditions have been

specified. While there are a very limited number of potentials for which exact solutions can

be found for Y(r, t), these were the foundation of Quantum Mechanics for several

generations. But now one can routinely use computers to obtain solutions for even quite

complex potentials and non-stationary states.

For many scientists there is no problem with Quantum Mechanics as it is presently

formulated.(21) Others, such as Einstein, deBroglie, Bohm, Dirac, Bell and many many

others, find the lack of a convincing derivation for the Schrodinger Equation, the

ambiguous interpretation of Y, and some of the non-intuitive results predicted by Quantum

Mechanics are defects that require a search for a more fundamental theory.(8, 9, 10)
To the

list of objections to Quantum Mechanics, the fact that there is no way of determining h , the

key constant in Quantum Mechanics, from any more fundamental considerations should be

added. The aether model affords the opportunity to at least address some of these flaws in

Quantum Mechanics.

16
 Since the aether is a fluid, one would expect that a particle moving through it would

generate waves which could interact with other particles or objects in the aether and act

back on the particle. This view is reasonable since this is just what one sees for objects

moving through water or air. Hence, one would expect the Schrodinger Equation to be the

description of the motion of a particle through the aether. The natural variable to describe a

disturbance in a fluid in hydrodynamics or aerodynamics is the fluid density or its pressure.

If we use the density n, then the continuity equation (Eq. (8)) is a natural starting point.

The key question is how to relate the motion of the particle to the velocity of the fluid.

There are analogous problems in other fluids, such as the Brownian motion(22, 23) of small

particles in a gas, or the motion of particles through a metal. These are well-known

problems in statistical physics but are non-trivial mathematically. One well known result is

the diffusion equation which in one dimension is: (22, 23)

¶n ¶2 n
=D 2 (19)
¶t ¶x
where D is the diffusion coefficient determined by the properties of the fluid and n is the

density of the particles in the fluid which are diffusing. A very similar equation(22, 23)

¶z ¶2z
=D 2 (20)
¶t ¶x
represents the probability density z (x, t) of finding a particle at x at time t, and D is again

the diffusion coefficient which is related to frictional forces.

These equations are very similar to the Schrodinger Equation (Eq. 18) for a free

particle (V = 0), particularly Eq. (20) where the probability density is involved, while the

Schrodinger Equation is for the probability amplitude. A further point of interest is that if a

long cylinder is placed in a flowing fluid, classical hydrodynamics would predict that there

is no force on it.(24) Since this is at variance with observations for macroscopic objects, it
is necessary to introduce a boundary layer, which is related to frictional forces at the

surface. However, for a microscopic situation with irrotational flow and no friction, D

17
would need to be related to some other property of the fluid. If we compare Eqs. (19) and

(20) with Eq. (18) in one dimension they would be the same differential equation for V = 0

if D = i h (25)
Is there any way of showing how this can arise from our aether model?
2m.

The answer is probably yes, but we have not done it. It is sufficient at this point to note the

similarity of the form of the Schrodinger Equation to Brownian motion and diffusion in

fluids. The diffusion coefficient for Brownian motion is: (24)

kT
D= (21)
6 phR

where k is BoltzmannÕs constant, T the absolute temperature h the viscosity of the fluid

and R the particle radius. The temperature enters because kT is the characteristic energy of

the particles in the fluid. For the aether, T is zero and some other energy must control the

process.

For a picture of what is occurring one can visualize the particle being struck by

aether particles from all sides as it moves, with the reflected aether particles changing the

distribution in the aether from its equilibrium state. This disturbance is the y function of

the Schrodinger Equation. For the case of a potential energy term, V(r), it may polarize the

aether and hence affect y or scatter aether particles and affect y. The mass of the particle

would enter through its effectiveness in scattering, similar to the radius R in Eq. (21).

Thus we approach the Schrodinger equation from a physical point of view that stresses the

fluid in which the wave exists, rather than the mathematical approach through heuristic

manipulation of classical Hamilton-Jacob theory.(19)

One of the points that we mentioned previously, was that in Quantum Mechanics it

is only with great difficulty that a free particle can be represented, and then only by

violating conservation of energy. To quote Griffiths(20) after showing that the solutions for

Hy = Ey (the plane wave solutions) are not normalizable and hence not physically

18
realizable states; ÒA free particle cannot exist in a stationary state; or, to put it another way,

there is no such thing as a free particle with a definite energyÓ. Since this occurs early in

the Quantum Mechanics book, and the course goes on without batting an eye about this,

each generation of physicists is simply bulldozed into accepting what should have

precluded the validity of Quantum Mechanics in its present interpretation. In the aether

model, energy is shared between the particle and the aether, and the above result poses no

problem.

5. Electricity and Magnetism and the Aether

5a. General Considerations

Anyone who has considered electric or magnetic fields is confused by what these

concepts are. By definition these fields produce forces on electric charges or magnetic

poles respectively, but by what means is left unexplained.(26) Here we move the issue one

step further in understanding. The electric field exists when an electric polarization of the

aether occurs, whereby the minus charges (primarily electrons) in the aether are separated

from the plus charges (primarily positrons) in the aether by a distance that differs from the

equilibrium separation. This polarization is similar to our view of polarization in dielectric

materials, where the separation between the electrons and plus charge in the nuclei in atoms

and molecules reduce an applied electric field.(6) An object in the aether would experience a

force due to the stress in the aether that constitutes an electric field. This is similar to the

view that relativity takes with respect to gravity, namely that it is a bending of space

produced by mass.(4) The electric field is thus a disturbance of the aether that results from

changing the spacing in the aether between positive and negative charges. The picture of

the potential energy surfaces as peaks or valleys about plus and negative charges is

reasonable, with other charges tending to slide down these features.

19
 Magnetic fields on the other hand appear to be related not to the polarization of the

aether but rather to a flow in the aether. MaxwellÕs equations that pertain to magnetic fields

are: (6)
r
r r - ¶B
(a) Ñ · B = 0, (b) Ñ´E= , (22)
¶t
r r
r æ ¶P ¶E ö
and (c) Ñ ´ B = m 0 ç jtrue + + Ñ ´ M + e0
è ¶t ¶t ÷ø

where B is the magnetic induction, E the electric field, P the electric polarization, M the

magnetization, m 0 the permeability, and e 0 the permittivity of space (aether) and jtrue the
r r
current carried by charges. It is common to write B in terms of the vector potential, A , as:
r r
B=Ñ´A (23)
r
since then (22a) is automatically satisfied by the vector identity Ñ · (Ñ ´ u) = 0 for any
r r
vector u. It was long thought obvious that A could have no physical significance in itself,
r
since it was merely a mathematical artifact, and all physical effects should occur through B
r
alone. However, the Aharonov-Bohm Effect(20, 27) showed that A can affect the quantum
r r
behavior of charged particles in regions of space where B and E are zero. In addition,
prior to Aharonov and Bohm, the London equation(11, 28) indicated that the supercurrent in
r
superconductors was directly proportional to the vector potential A . Also Dirac had
pointed out that in electrodynamics the vector potential is the velocity of something,
r
presumably the aether. (2, 3) Thus, we expect A to represent a flow in the aether with the
r
magnetic induction B given by Eqs. 23 and 22b).
In regard to 22b it is common to write
r
r ¶A
E = -Ñj - (24)
¶t

20
where j is known as the scalar potential, and hence, since Ñ ´ Ñj = 0 for any scalar j ,

the left-hand side of Eq. 22b) together with the definition Eq. (23) give the right-hand side

of Eq. 22b). Thus, for time dependent problems, the vector potential determines both the

electric and magnetic fields.

It is common practice to view the electric and magnetic fields as containing an

energy U given in free space (aether) as:

1 æ B2 ö
U = òç + e 0 E 2 ÷ dV (25)
2 è m0 ø

Where the integral is over all space. Indeed, it is common to use the Maxwell stress
tensor(6) to represent the effects of electric and magnetic fields upon materials in such
fields, and also to discuss energy and momentum balance in electromagnetic waves. In
r
particular, the Poynting vector, N , is given by:
r r r 1 r r
N=E´H= E ´ B (in free space), (26)
m0

and its integral over a surface determines the rate that energy is being carried into or out of a

region. The stress tensor Ta b (a, b are coordinate axes designations i.e., Tx x , Tx y , etc.)

can be used to find the volume force through its divergence, and one finds that the

divergence reduces to two terms.(6)

r
¶Tab ér kk m ¶N ù
= êFev + 2 ú (27)
¶x b ë c ¶t û a

where c2 = (m 0 e 0 ) -1 and k and k m are respectively, the relative dielectric constant and
r
permeability of the material in question. Fev only exists in the presence of material bodies.

However, the second term exists even in free space where k = k m = 1. This caused a

problem, since it would fit a theory in which an aether capable of transmitting elastic waves

and sustaining a body force exists.(6) To avoid this, while accepting all other conclusions

drawn from MaxwellÕs equation, the second term is subtracted. To quote Panofsky and

21
Phillips,(6) Òin the absence of measurable physical properties for the ether, we are thus

forced to modify the law of conservation of momentum....The Poynting vector therefore

appears in a dual role, as carrying energy and also as carrying momentum.Ó Furthermore,
r r
Panofsky and Phillips note that by defining a momentum density g = N c2 which is

required to conserve momentum Ò..., the assumption of conservation of momentum and the

absence of an aether can be used to derive the mass-energy equivalence. In this way, the

relation E = mc2 can be obtained without introducing the entire relativistic kinematics.Ó

Hence, rather than traditional physics simply saying that an aether isnÕt necessary

and having everything turn out consistently, the absence of an aether causes problems, and

ad hoc changes have been introduced to hide the possible existence of an aether.

The question of what form of energy exists in these fields can be addressed in the

aether model. In essence the electric fields are a strain energy in the aether, analogous to

1 2
that in a solid, kx , with k a spring constant and x the displacement from equilibrium.
2
1
The magnetic field energy is analogous to kinetic energy, mv2 . As in other condensed
2
media, combinations of displacement and motion produce waves. Water and air are two of

the fluids with which we are intimately acquainted, and they can sustain a number of

different types of waves or excitations. In air there are sound waves, pressure waves

(highs and lows of weather fronts), hurricanes, tornadoes, wind patterns (trade winds, jet

stream), vortices, and possibly others. For water there are transverse surface waves,

longitudinal sound waves, whirlpools, ocean currents (gulf stream) and possibly others.

In the electron-ion plasma in condensed matter there are also a variety of excitations

including sound, spin waves, charge density waves, helicons, polaritons, plasmons,

etc.(11) We would expect the aether to exhibit an equally rich spectrum of excitations.(26)

5b The Photon - Electromagnetic Waves

22
 The most important excitation in the aether is the photon, since we perceive the

visual world through optical photons, and receive much of our communications through

electromagnetic waves (radio, TV). Consider how an optical photon is generated in the

hydrogen atom. Here we picture the Bohr model for the electron orbiting the proton.(29)

What do we expect based upon the aether picture? Clearly the electron is moving so one

expects it to disturb the aether, and hence a wavefunction is produced. At the same time

there exists a strain in the aether due to the fixed electric field of the proton and the rotating

electric field of the electron. In addition to this the spins of the proton and electron produce

flow patterns in the aether. Hence this ÒsimpleÓ case is in reality quite complex. If the

electron is in an excited state there is energy in the system that can be released. First we

need to ask what form the energy takes. Above we have mentioned the field energy

1
ò e 0 E 2 dV . (Eqs. (1) and (25)). However, only differences in this energy are considered
2
in conventional treatments because the total energy diverges unless artificial cutoff radii are

introduced for the electron and proton. When considered, the total energy is somehow

contained in the Òelectromagnetic massÓ of the charged particles.(6)

Hence, electricity and magnetism also rest on an untenable base, that contains

unresolved infinities which the student is to dutifully ignore; the emperor has no clothes,

but it isnÕt polite to mention it. How does the aether model address this same problem? In

the model there is a finite density of particles in the aether and hence a natural Òpore sizeÓ in

which there is no aether. Particles thus have no aether around them within a distance equal

to this pore size, and hence no electric field in the sense defined above. The field is

essentially transmitted by the particle ÒrattlingÓ around within the pore and transmitting the

impulse that polarizes the aether. As we will see later the pore is also the core of a vortex

which constitutes the spin of the particle. Hence, by different reasoning we conclude, as

do conventional treatments, that there is a field energy U0 that is carried by the electron and

proton, which doesnÕt diverge when they are isolated.

23
 When the electron orbits the proton, there is a region between them along the line

connecting them where the field is enhanced, and hence the energy is higher, and a region

beyond them where the fields tend to cancel lowering the energy compared to the isolated

electron and proton. In conventional theory, using the potential energy of the electron in

the presence of the proton, and its kinetic energy, one shows that the energy of the system

is lower than for a free electron or proton. The potential energy approach replaces the field

energy calculation, and is simpler, but it masks the true physics of the situation, namely

that there is a high energy dipole field region between the electron and proton that is

rotating with an angular velocity w about the electron-proton center of mass.

One can show that the closer the electron is to the proton, the lower the total energy

of the system, however the kinetic energy, T, actually increases. By the virial theorem(30)

T = -E; with E measured relative to the free particles, E is negative. Hence the more tightly

bound the system the higher its kinetic energy, and the higher its angular frequency. This

1 1
follows since T = mv2 = mr 2w 2 with w = v/r. Hence for larger T at smaller r, w = v/r
2 2

increases due to the rise in v and the decrease in r. The reason for the interest in w and the

rotating dipole field in the atom, is that to understand what a photon is we need to visualize

how it is generated.

The emission of the photon is mysterious, since in classical theory the radiation is
continuous, and in Quantum Mechanics (QM) it is discontinuous, but no details of the

process are available even in principle! In QM the quantized energy of the photon is E = hn

= hw, and it has an angular momentum h , usually referred to as right and left circular

polarizations along or opposite to the direction of motion of the photon, where h is

PlanckÕs constant divided by 2p. No physical meaning is attempted in explanation of what

w is or what the significance of h as a multiplier for w is, or what the photon is physically.

QM gives results ex-cathedra, and one is not encouraged to ask questions. In the aether

model, the photon can be visualized as a rotating polarized region of the aether that has

24
broken loose from the rotating dipole region in the atom that was described above. It is

emitted perpendicular to the plane of the orbit of the electron, when the electron is pulled in

closer to the proton. As it moves through the aether with the speed of light c, the rotating

polarized region completes a cycle in a time 2p/w = 1/n during which the disturbance has

traveled a distance l = c/n. The angular momentum of the aether region is along the

direction of or opposite to the direction of propagation, since one has clockwise or counter

clockwise motion for the rotating polarized region in the atom. A natural question is how

does this picture agree numerically with experiment?

One can show a mathematical relation between the frequency of the emitted photon

and the angular velocities in the initial and final orbits of the electron namely from the Bohr

model: (29)

1
w if = (n f w f - n i w i ) (28)
2
where the nÕs are the principal quantum numbers of the orbits and w ns the angular

velocities. The value of the wnÕs go as n-3 and hence wf is greater than w i. For ni = 2 and

nf = 1, w 21 = 3w i = 3 w f 8 . For the special case ni = ¥ and nf = 2, w¥2 = w2, while for ni =

¥ and nf > 2, w¥f > wf. The states of the H atom are quantized according to the rule:

1
En = nhw n (29)
2
From these results it is clear that the angular velocities of the electron in Bohr orbits

are similar in magnitude to the angular frequency of the emitted photon and support the

picture presented above. What is lacking in the standard picture of QM is how the angular

momentum is carried. We have mentioned, that because the aether was dismissed as a real
r r r
entity,(6) the Poynting vector N = E ´ H must be given the task of carrying not only the
r r
energy of a wave but also the momentum density per unit volume g = N c2 , where c is the
r r
speed of light. The cross product of r , the position vector, and g integrated over all space

gives the angular momentum of the electromagnetic field. Yet despite the importance of

25
photons, to our knowledge no treatment of the region over which the E and H (or B) fields

exist in the photon (i.e., the length and transverse extent) nor the magnitudes of the fields,

appear in texts on light or QM. Since the aether is not supposed to exist, no account of

how it carries momentum or angular momentum is expected to exist. However, there is a

clue from the volume force on the vacuum that comes out of the Maxwell stress tensor,

namely:(6)

kk m ¶( E ´ H)
(30)
c2 ¶t
as well as other terms which previously have been ascribed to media only i.e.(6)

e0 2 m
- E Ñk - 0 H 2Ñk m (31)
2 2
where k and k m are the relative dielectric and magnetic permeabilities of a material. These

terms, depend on the density of a medium, which is modified by the passage of particles

and waves. Hence, since we consider the aether to be a fluid with a density of electric and

magnetic dipoles that determine k and km, we expect forces from the terms in Eq(31) when

a particle moves through the aether. We thus, have a plausible mechanism for the

interaction between particles and waves and the aether. In particular, we have pointed out

that there are ÒporesÓ in the aether due to the finite density of the electrons and positrons, in

which particles are trapped within vortices. Clearly there will be gradients in k and km near

such ÒporesÓ and the forces will tend to keep any trapped particles in the pores.

To return to the nature of the photon, the electron in orbit in an atom with its

rotating polarization field is pulled in from an outer orbit to an inner orbit shrinking the

rotating polarized region while simultaneously increasing its angular velocity. At some

point in this process a rotating polarized region of aether breaks away, carrying with it

energy hw and angular momentum h . The rotating polarized region constitutes the

photon. Based upon this picture we expect the lateral extent of the photon to be on the

order of the size of the initial atomic orbit or less. Yet interference experiments done with

26
light from distant stars with lenses or mirrors spaced meters apart and an average of one

photon at a time coming in, suggest an entity of much larger in extent(26) (meters, compared

to the 10-10 meters size of the atom). How can we reconcile these seemingly contradictory

results? The entity, which we identified as the photon as it travels through the aether

creates an additional disturbance in the aether as it travels, just as an electron or other

particle does. While the rotating aether region that constitutes the photon remains localized

as it moves, the aether disturbance can spread out creating a pattern which can steer the

photon when these waves encounter lenses or diffraction gratings, etc. his is basically

what HuygenÕs principle states. That the photon is small and localized is attested to by the

photoelectric effect,(31) where a single photon ejects an electron locally from a material, and

also by photographic plates where the photon deposits its energy locally to produce a

chemical change. We can thus account for the non-intuitive behavior of photons

consistently with the aether picture.

A further question about the disturbance in the aether caused by either photons or

particles, is whether these disturbances carry energy and momentum, distinct from the

particle or photon. It would be logical to assume that they do, and that under proper

conditions this might be demonstrated. The situation is analogous to that in radiation

theory when scattering occurs. There it is known, that other non-radiating fields exist,

these Ònear-fieldsÓ (or induction or quasi-stationary fields) die out quickly and hence donÕt

carry energy in the conventional sense.(6) However, their presence can be demonstrated

and measured. In the case of photons from distant sources,(26) we have mentioned the very

large transverse width over which coherence has been demonstrated, and attributed this to

the disturbance in the aether generated by the photon. Since this disturbance has energy, it

must have drawn this energy from the photon, and hence lowered the photonÕs energy,

giving a redshift to the light.(32) This redshift explanation differs from other approaches,

such as of the expansion of the universe,(4) or the Doppler shift due to relativity,(4) and to

the different physical constants in distant regions, which we will treat subsequently.

27
6. Spin and Statistics

One of the earliest indications of the non-classical properties of particles is the spin

quantum number in Quantum Mechanics.(33) The three coordinates (x, y, z, or r, q, j) that

classically describe a particleÕs position, in Quantum Mechanics become three quantum

numbers per electron in the atom, n, l, and ml. These, respectively, determine the orbit an

electron is in, its orbital angular momentum magnitude, and the orientation of that angular

momentum with respect to a coordinate axis, usually the z-axis. In addition, the electron

was found to have an internal coordinate.(33) This internal coordinate could have two

values, and also had a magnetic moment associated with it, and by inference an angular

momentum. In analogy with the planets which not only revolve about the sun, but also

spin about their axes, the electron was postulated to have an intrinsic spin with an angular

momentum of h 2, and a magnetic moment. In a magnetic field the electronÕs magnetic

moment could align primarily with the field or against the field, giving two possible states.

This picture gives excellent agreement with a host of properties in atoms and solids. There

is just one flaw in the picture; there is no way of having the intrinsic angular momentum of

1
h and a mass m and an acceptable radius without violating the limit on the speed of light,
2
i.e. for a spinning sphere.(20)

1 2
For Iw = h = mvr one finds on setting v £ c,
2 5
5h
r³ = 1.25 l c = 4.8 ´ 10 -11 cm (32)
4 mc
where lc is the Compton wavelength. This value of r is larger than r 0 (2.82 ´ 10 -13 cm) the

so-called classical radius of the electron and much larger than the radius deduced by

scattering which is less than 10-16 cm.(20)

28
 1
The proton, neutron, neutrino, muon, and many other particles also have spin (in units
2
1
of h ) and are called Fermions. The reason spin particles are called Fermions is because
2
the statistics they obey is Fermi Dirac statistics(20) which stem from the Pauli exclusion

1
principle.(20) This principle states that no two interacting spin particles can have the
2
same set of quantum numbers (n, l, ml, s), and hence in an atom at most two electrons can
have the same n, l, ml values since the spin quantum number is either + 1/2 or - 1/2. This

principle explains the Periodic Table of Elements and in its more mathematical form

explains many of the properties of metals and other condensed matter.(11) The only flaw in

this picture is there is no physical reason given why identical Fermions with the same spin

should repel one another.

In Section 5, in our discussion of the photon we noted that it carried an angular

momentum of h oriented along or opposite to its direction of motion (right and left

circularly polarized). The photon is an example of a class of particles, bosons, which have

integer values of angular momentum (in units of h ) and obey Bose-Einstein statistics.(20)

There is no prohibition against having an arbitrary number of bosons in the same quantum

state. No explanation of why particles with spin 1 should behave so differently from those

with spin 1/2 is provided in present theories. Since Fermions are embedded in vortices

which ineract, while bosons have no vortices, a difference in behavior is expected from the

aether model.

A reasonable question to ask is what constitutes the angular momentum of a

particle. For the photon, which has no rest mass, conventional theory assigns the
r r r 2
momentum to the Poynting vector N, through the relation ò rxN c dv , while excluding
the term in Eq (27) or Eq (30) due to disbelief in the aether. Our aether picture viewed the

29
fields as polarizations and flows in the aether, with the photon being a region of polarized

aether rotating about the direction of propagation. The angular momentum is clearly carried

by the aether. For the electron with mass m 0, one could assert that it could have a

mechanical angular momentum, although we saw above accounting for it reasonably was

not acceptable.(20) However, for the neutrino which has no rest mass (34) (although theories

giving it mass arise from time to time) conventional theory can only be silent as to where

the angular momentum resides. In our aether model we propose that the spin of the

Fermions is a manifestation of the presence of a vortex in the aether with angular

momentum h 2. Thus, the electron is a charged particle that is trapped in the core of a

vortex, and the neutrino is a vortex with angular momentum h 2 with no particle within its

core.

There are immediate predictions from such a picture, namely that aligned vortices or

spins will stay away from each other due to the repulsion of the flow patterns of the

vortices. Such a repulsion is seen between the current distribution of vortices in type II

superconductors in a magnetic field, or trapped vortices with no applied magnetic field.(35)

This interaction between the aether flows of the vortices can be used to account for the

Pauli exclusion principle for spin 1/2 particles, since the flow pattern is expected to persist

over fairly long distances.

r
The magnetic moment M of a spinning charge is related to its angular momentum
r
L classically by the relation: (36)
r q r
M= L (33)
2m
where q is the charge and m the mass of the object. Experimentally for the electron the

factor relating M and the spin angular momentum is q/m, or twice the classical value. In

standard physics the factor of 2 is explained in terms of relativistic electrodynamics,(36) but

30
since one canÕt think of the spin as arising from a spinning charge in the standard theory, it

is hard to know what the factor should be. For the aether model we picture the bare

electron as not spinning but moving around within the core radius of the vortex. In steady

state we would expect the electron to be correlated with the velocity of the aether at the core

radius rc. To account for the factor of 2 between the observed intrinsic angular momentum

q
of h 2 and the observed magnetic moment M = h we consider that the electron is
2m
ÒorbitingÓ within the core radius rc with angular momentum mvrc = h and that the vortex

has an angular momentum in the opposite direction of h 2. Thus, the total intrinsic angular

momentum would be h 2. For the total magnetic moment we use Eq. (33) for the electron

part and assume the vortex to carry no magnetic moment. The result is that the total

intrinsic angular momentum is h 2 and the magnetic moment is eh 2 m in agreement with

observation. (e is the charge on the electron)

One could raise the question of why the vortex angular momentum should be

opposite to that of the electron in the core and whether our assumption of zero magnetic

moment for the vortex is justified. Since we are claiming that a neutrino is the vortex

without a particle, what are its properties and are they consistent with our assumptions?

First is the fact that despite extensive searches for it the neutrino has no magnetic

moment.(34) Second is a strange property of the neutrino namely that it always has its spin

aligned opposite to its direction of motion.(37) This is contrary to the situation for the

photon where right and left circular polarizations occur. The assumptions that the electron

and its vortex have oppositely oriented magnetic moments is to be expected from energy

considerations, since generally the lower the total angular momentum, the lower the

energy.

31
 It is known that for the electron the factor in the magnetic moment to angular

momentum ratio is not exactly 2. This correction is referred to as the anomalous magnetic

moment of the election.(36) The factor of 2 was simply accepted as one of the quirks of

nature, but that it differed from exactly 2 was taken to be of great significance. The

difference from 2 is 2.319 ... x 10 -3, and is known to seven significant figures. The

magnitude and cause of this correction can be obtained in the above picture. Since the

electron has a charge, its electric field polarizes the aether, and since the aether in the vortex

is moving, the magnetization is caused by the rotating polarized aether. A correction of the

same magnitude as that observed experimentally is obtained based on a rough calculation.

Since the calculation of the exact values of this correction is viewed Ò... as one of the

greatest achievements of theoretical physics,Ó(36) a rigorous calculation using the aether

model might prove interesting.

Another interesting point is that if the particle in the core had its angular momentum

and that of the vortex in the same direction, one would have a particle with spin 3/2.

Particles with spin 3/2 do exist, namely, the omega particles.(34) However, its spin of 3/2

is explained in terms of its composition being 3 spin 1/2 strange quarks.

Let us now turn to the question of the vortex core radius rc and why it exists. In a

vortex the velocity varies with radius as r -1 and hence would diverge as r goes to zero

unless something changes as r gets smaller.(38) In any real fluid there are material

properties and forces that come into play. Thus, if we consider the force needed to keep a

particle in circular motion, the so-called centripetal force, it is mv2/r, and in a fluid this

force would be supplied by pressure gradients and produce density variations or vice versa

(density variations that produce pressure gradients). For v ~ r -1, the force needed as r

becomes small becomes too great, and when the pressure and density drop near the center

to nearly zero there is no longer a velocity. Hence, we expect a low pressure region at the

32
center of a vortex. Indeed, a tornado acts like a giant vacuum cleaner, the lower the

centerÕs pressure the stronger the storm is, since it can sustain higher velocity winds.(38)

If one assumes a continuous medium, then one finds for a vortex in a Fermion fluid

a cutoff radius that occurs when the velocity of the fluid reaches the highest velocity of the

particle in the fluid v F , which for the aether is c the speed of light, and at that radius the

density has dropped to zero. The expression for the particle density can be found to be:
32
é æ rc ö 2 ù
n( r ) = n 0 ê1 - ; r > rc (34)
è rø ú
ë û
where n0 is the density of Eq. (2) that holds far from the vortex. If we knew the length of

the vortex and its behavior at long distances, we could calculate the angular momentum in

the vortex directly and calculate rc. The only condition we can obtain is that:(24)

K
rc = (35)
2pc
where K is the circulation of the vortex and c the speed of light.

In the aether model, the fluid is made up primarily of electrons and positrons and

hence is not continuous at small distances on the order of n 0 -1/3 . There are thus, natural
ÒporesÓ in the aether that make it multiply connected, and able to support irrotational flow

while at the same time contain vortices centered on the pores. We thus propose that the

radius of the vortex core, rc, and the radius of the pores due to the finite density of the

aether coincide.

In contrast to the situation in crystalline solids, where for a given crystal structure

and atom size, one can determine the placement and size of interstices, for a fluid one can

only get an estimate based upon the average spacing of the particles. From Eq. (2) with v F

33
 4 pr13
= c one can write = n 0 -1 and find r1 = 1.92 lc = 1.92 h mc, where r1 is the radius of
3
a sphere that would on average contain one electron-positron pair. Hence for distances

smaller than r1 one expects to find regions with no electron or positron. If we compare this

value to the r in Eq. (32) we see that r1 is greater than the r given there. However, in

discussing Eq. (32) we were thinking of a spinning spherical electron. Here we are

looking at a particle contained within a vortex core with an angular momentum mvr = h. If

h c
we set v = c, then r = h mc = lc = 0.52 r1. If we set r = r 1 , then v = = =0.52c.
mr1 1.92

Either limit gives a reasonable picture.

From Eq. (35) if we set rc = h mc = lc corresponding to the velocity of the electron

within the core equal to c, we find K = 2pc lc = h m. The choice may seem arbitrary, and

the whole picture of the electron running around within a vortex core of radius lc highly

suspect. However, if we go to the standard model of relativistic quantum mechanics using

the Dirac equation, there is a curious result in solving for the position of a free particle as a

function of time. There are three terms.(39) ÒThe first two terms on the right-hand side

describe simply the uniform motion of a free particle. The last term is a feature of

relativistic quantum mechanics and connotes a high-frequency vibration (ÒZitterbewegungÓ)

of the particle with frequency @ mc 2 h and amplitude h mc, the Compton wavelength of

the particle.Ó In this quote m is the mass of the particle and the frequency given is its

angular frequency. If we take the core radius as lc corresponding to v = c, the angular

frequency w = v/r = c/ lc = mc2 h is exactly what relativistic quantum mechanics finds,

with the amplitude the radius of the core l c. We thus have a physical picture for the

Zitterbewegung. In the standard theory the frequency is viewed as somehow a transition

frequency between positive and negative energy states, but the amplitude is completely

34
unexplained. Schršdinger interpreted this as showing that the particle moved in a tight

spiral, but when he found its angular momentum to be h instead of h 2 he abandoned the

picture.(19)

Let us review what this picture seems to accomplish. By taking the neutrino which

1
has no mass or charge, but has an angular momentum of h , to be a vortex in the aether,
2
we have a physical picture for the origin of the spin of the Fermions, and from the

interaction between vortices an explanation for the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and hence

Fermi-Dirac statistics. For the electron we picture the charged particle as trapped in the

core of the vortex and moving with it. However, the electron has a magnetic moment that

canÕt be explained in conventional theory, if one attributes it only to a spinning charge with

angular momentum h 2. Its magnetic moment would have the right value if it

corresponded to a charge with angular momentum h . To account for this we assumed that

the electron circulates in the vortex with velocity c in a direction counter to the spin on the

vortex so that the total angular momentum of the vortex and electron in the core is h 2,

while the magnetic moment has the correct value, since the magnetic moment of the vortex

as illustrated by the neutrino has no magnetic moment (at least in a field free region). The

core radius we demonstrated should have a value of lc = h mc and the electron an angular

frequency of mc2 h. These last two results ÒaccidentallyÓ coincide with a prediction of the

relativistic Dirac equation, giving a physical interpretation for the predicted

ÒZitterbewegungÓ of particles.

Thus, we have plausibly explained spin, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the magnetic

moment of the electron, and Zitterbewegung by simply pursuing where the aether picture

leads.

So far we have concentrated solely on the electron-positron component of the

aether. Yet we expect that protons and antiprotons and perhaps other particle-antiparticle

35
pairs may exist, if they are stable. For the sake of argument we will assume that a proton-

antiproton p - p component exists in the aether. The questions that arise are what fraction

of the aether is composed of p - p , and how is it distributed? In view of the mass

difference between electron and proton, if the p - p component were uniformly distributed

and also had a Fermi velocity equal to the speed of light, Eq. (2) would indicate a density

on the order of 1010 that of the electron-positron aether. This is contrary to our assumption

based upon the energy to create the particle in a hot big bang,(4) that electrons and positrons

dominate the aether. An acceptable alternative is that the p - p component occurs as

condensed separate regions within the electron-positron aether, similar to an emulsion,

mimicking the known situation in matter where the nuclear particles are separated from the

electrons. The question then remains what are the size and distribution of such regions,

and what role do they play in the properties of the aether and other phenomena? The

answers to these questions are not obvious, but we can make some suggestions.

First, we would like to keep the number of arbitrary assumptions to a minimum.

Since the assumption that spin 1/2 particles were contained within a vortex with angular

momentum h 2 worked so well for the electron we would like to retain it. But now we can

ask what happens if instead of a particle being trapped in the core of the vortex we have a

region of p - p aether. Since a vortex by itself was a neutrino, which is an excitation of

the aether with no mass or charge, this new entity is also a neutrino but of a different type.

In the standard model there are thought to be three types of neutrinos,(34) one related to the

electron, one related to the muon, and one related to the tau meson. The purpose of the

muon which is 208 times the mass of the electron and the tau which is about 17 times

heavier than the muon or about 3500 times heavier than the electron remains unexplained in

the standard model of fundamental particles. The added feature of the inclusion of regions

of p - p aether within the core radius of the spin vortex is that these regions by interacting

with the electron, could conceivably create the muon and tau meson, but such a pattern is

36
not obvious at this time. If one takes the neutrino as a vortex in the electron-positron

aether, the m-neutrino as a vortex with mixed electron-positron and p - p components, and

the t neutrino as purely a vortex in the p - p component of the aether, with the electron

within the core giving the particles themselves, one can account for the known situation.

For the proton we propose that the spin vortex is within the p - p component of the

aether, with the bare proton moving around to give angular momentum h in opposition to

the vortex angular momentum. Here, however, since the p - p aether is embedded within

the electron-positron aether the magnetic moment is not as simple as for the electron case.

If we assume that the p - p aether has a relatively large dielectric constant compared to that

of the electron-positron aether which has a dielectric constant of unity, then the correction

term due to the rotating aether is no longer small, and one can account for the proton g-

factor. In the standard model the proton g-factor comes from a similar source, only there it

is said to be due to Òvacuum fluctuations of the pion field and other fields of strongly

interacting particles.Ó(41)

It is apparent that given the complexity of the field of elementary particles, with 3

leptons (electron, muon, and tau) with mass, and their 3 massless neutrinos, plus 3 sets of

quarks, and their antiparticles, and all the particles that can be constructed from the quarks,

that one person working with a new theory is not instantaneously going to account for all

the known phenomena. However, the aether model provides a possible means of doing so

that avoids multi-dimensional spaces that canÕt be visualized.(42)

7. Relativity and the Aether

Relativity is one of the areas of physics which was instrumental in the demise of the

traditional aether, and is also one which could benefit most from a plausible aether. Among

the questions that an aether can hope to answer for Relativity are: why is the speed of light

37
the same in all frames of reference? what determines the speed of light? what causes the

apparent increase in mass as an object approaches the speed of light? what causes the time

dilation and space contraction in moving systems? and how can Relativity and Quantum

Mechanics be reconciled? The last question has remained as the outstanding problem in

theoretical physics for the past seven decades.

In our opinion Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, despite their apparent attention

to measurements and definitions of measurements, are both ill-defined fields. Their

common failing is the lack of a medium in which the particles they hope to describe move.

Thus Quantum Mechanics has a wavefunction that is a probability amplitude in an abstract

Hilbert space, and Relativity has an abstract curved space-time. Neither of these spaces is

based upon a ÒrealÓ world. We have already discussed how we believe Quantum

Mechanics should be modified, namely that the wavefunction should be viewed as a

disturbance in the aether caused by the motion or presence of particles or objects. For

relativity the procedure will be similar. Observers and objects move through the aether

which is a real medium. In some experiments the aether is pulled along and in other cases

it is not. Hence, in contrast to the predictions of Relativity, it should be possible to detect

the aether, by using the proposed Laser Interference Gravitational Observatory (LIGO),

and perhaps other tests as well.

In many of the elementary discussions of Relativity(6) and in deriving the space and

time relations, light beams are designated which give misleading results. In one of the

classic derivations, a moving train has a light beam, which to an observer on the train

travels vertically to a mirror which reflects it back to the source. To a ÒstationaryÓ

observer on the ground, the light beam is seen as traveling at an angle striking the mirror

and being reflected at an angle back to the source which has now moved with the train a

distance d = vt, in the time it took the light to make the round trip. The fallacy in this

38
experiment is in the nature of the light beam which is assumed to spread in all directions. If

one were to do the experiment with a well collimated vertical beam with a small mirror,

then if the light doesnÕt have a component of velocity in the direction of the trainÕs motion it

will miss the mirror and not be reflected. If the train is in fact stationary then the beam is

indeed vertical. However, an observer moving relative to the train in either case will see

the beam make an angle to the vertical. Contrary to relativity, we claim that these situations

are quite different, and a careful analysis will either show that relativity is wrong or deduce

a physical condition that the aether must satisfy.

Consider a stationary train and a moving observer, whether there is a light source or

simply a rod with a light at its tip that moves vertically upward and then stops and moves

down, the moving observer will ÒseeÓ the lighted tip moving at an angle to the vertical.

Clearly in the case of the rod, only vertical motion occurs and the horizontal component of

its velocity is an ÒillusionÓ caused by the motion of the observer. For a moving train and a

stationary observer things are a little more complex. The example of a light source and the

rising vertical rod with a light at its end are now not necessarily equivalent. For the rod,

since its carried along with the train, the tip has both a vertical and a horizontal component

which the stationary observer will correctly ÒseeÓ, while the observer on the train will only

ÒseeÓ the vertically moving rod just as when the train was stationary. For an actual light

beam or a single photon, two situations, at least, can occur. The first is that by virtue of

the trainÕs motion, as it is emitted the photon has a component of velocity in the direction of

the train that is independent of its vertical component, so that it can travel vertically with

velocity c and simultaneously with any velocity v in the horizontal direction. This would

mean that its actual velocity exceeded c. This case would correspond to the tip of the rod

case discussed above. A second possibility is that the photon emitted is limited to velocity

c, and hence, when the observer on the train orients the beam to appear vertical, it actually

has a horizontal component as well, and thus a velocity less than c in the vertical direction.

39
These are the only possibilities in the absence of an aether and neither one corresponds to

EinsteinÕs assertion that both observers should be able to measure the velocity of the light

beam to be c, since in the first case the observer on the train would measure c, and the

stationary observer would measure a velocity greater than c, and in the second case the

observer on the train would find a smaller velocity than c. This analysis assumes ÒtimeÓ is

the same for both observers and so is distance. In Relativity these assumptions are

discarded.

When an aether is present and the train is moving, additional possibilities arise. If c

is the velocity of light relative to its local aether, then for the moving train one can ask

whether the train is ÒopenÓ or ÒclosedÓ with respect to the aether, in analogy with an open

or closed train in air, i.e. does the train carry the aether with it, or does the aether flow

through it, the way air would for an open train. If the train is ÒclosedÓ and carries the

aether with it, then a photon traveling vertically will also have the local aether velocity

imposed upon it similar to the first case mentioned above or the tip of the vertically moving

rod. For the stationary observer a velocity greater than c should be measured. For the

ÒopenÓ train the aether is stationary for both observers, the photon doesnÕt acquire the

trainÕs velocity from the aether and we appear to have case two again. However, there is

another possibility that since the atom emitting the photon is moving with respect to the

aether the emitted photon will have this added velocity in addition to its propagation

velocity c. This would take us back to the first case again. The stationary train and moving

observer with an aether, raises the issues of the state of the aether for the observer, and

how the moving observer ÒseesÓ what is happening on the train. As the vertical rodÕs

illuminated tip illustrated, the moving observer is mistaken in attributing a lateral motion to

the photon.

40
 If one analyzes the length measurement which purportedly ÒderivesÓ the Lorentz

contraction(6) similar fallacious arguments are found. They are most readily seen when the

bar is stationary and the observer is moving, i.e., the moving observer perceives that the

light has traveled a greater distance, when in fact the observer has moved an additional

distance, while the light was in flight.

If the standard derivations are in fact faulty for relativity, what is its content and

why has it apparently been successful in predicting experimentally verified results? In

terms of the aether model we have no general picture such as for Quantum Mechanics, that

allows us to take the whole theory as correct subject to a reinterpretation of some concept in

the theory. Hence, we must consider separately the various mathematical and conceptual

aspects of relativity and see how and if they can fit into the aether model.

Conceptionally the expanding aether can replace an expanding space-time, so that

warping of space-time to visualize the effects of gravity or other forces can be transferred to

the aether model. The increase of inertial mass as a particleÕs speed increases can likewise

be visualized in the aether model as due to the inability of the aether particles to move fast

enough to get out of the way of a speeding particle. (Deriving the standard form found

from relativity is not easily accomplished). The concepts of the dilation of time and the

Lorentz contraction of space in a moving reference frame do not seem to emerge as a

natural consequence, so far, from the aether picture. The constancy of the speed of light in

all reference frames would follow only if one assumes that the aether is not dragged along

by any object. If one assumes that only an extremely small displacement of the aether is

produced by an object, i.e., primarily the nuclear particles which comprise roughly 10 -12 of

the volume of the atom, then no aether drag would occur for most objects. However,

massive bodies would have a region of aether moving with them, the thickness of which

depends upon the precise displacement factor. For the earth, if the displacement factor is

41
indeed only 10-12, then a ÒskinÓ of aether on the order of a few microns would move with

the earth. However, if the polarized aether region between the positively charged nucleus

of atoms and their electrons is dragged along, and/or the vortices in the aether, which

comprise the spin of the particles, are dragged along, then the displacement factor can

become on the order of unity, and a region of thickness on the order of the radius of the

earth could be dragged along.(6)

Hence, depending upon whether the aether is dragged along with the earth or not,

the Michelson-Morely experimental results agree or disagree with the aether model

respectively.(6)

Yet there are supposedly experiments that show the time dilation. In particular, the

decay time of unstable particles in their Òrest frameÓ is much shorter than that observed in

the laboratory frame of reference. Since the ÒcauseÓ of the decay of particles may indeed be

affected by the impact of aether particles as the particle moves through the aether, a change

in lifetime may be a real phenomenon. However, for two observers to note the ÒsameÓ

event and one to say my clock says it took x seconds, and the other to say it took x

multiplied by some factor seconds, has no physical content, unless one proposes a

mechanism for how the aether affects the aging process or clock mechanisms. What is

missing from Relativity is any rationale for why nature should behave the way it does.

What is missing as yet from our aether model is the derivation of the equations of Relativity

from the basic properties of the aether. Despite this failing of the aether picture, it at least

allows one to pursue a deeper level of nature, rather than to simply state that thatÕs the way

nature behaves and donÕt ask ÒmeaninglessÓ questions.

One can view Relativity as in some sense similar to thermodynamics before the

advent of the kinetic theory and statistical mechanics. Globally true statements can be

42
deduced, but detailed mechanisms are lacking. The equivalence of mass and energy arises

in Relativity from several points of view. In our aether model the energy levels discussed

in Eq. (3) explicitly used this and we will return to it in section 8a.

We have stated that it should be possible to test whether the aether is present. If

one considers a long evacuated tube such as those proposed for the LIGO (Laser

Interference Gravitational Observatory) experiments, where several 4 km tubes are under

construction, and if sections of their walls were moveable, then the following experiment

could be carried out: With two laser beams being bounced back and forth within the

evacuated tube and interfering to show optical path differences, ÒcompressÓ the aether in

one of those paths by suddenly moving the walls in. With a higher aether density the speed

of light increases, and hence an imbalance in the two paths should be recorded. The

sensitivity of the method is such that even with a 10-12 displacement factor the effect should

be easily observed. In addition the LIGO apparatus can easily measure the speed of light to

very high accuracy. Since our model predicts that c is changing with time according to Eqn

c
(4), we can see that its present rate of change is: cÇ = - 0 2 t , where c0 is the present speed
0

of light and t0 the time since the big bang. (t0 ~ 1010 years). Hence c is changing by about

1 part in 1010 per year, and depending upon the accuracy of the LIGO (or any other)

determination of c, the accumulated change in c should be seen after an appropriate time.

8. Miscellaneous Effects - Speculations

a) Energy and particle production in the early universe and inflation

We have shown in section 3 that at present the expanding aether has a fixed

number of particles N0, but that a period of particle production preceded this

and caused the universe to expand exponentially, a process that is referred

43
to in the standard theories as inflation.(4) We have also pointed out that in

the aether the particles and anti-particles due to mutual interactions or

Òcorrelation energyÓ are in an energy state lower than the null state or true

vacuum. Here we will expand upon these points, and speculate on some of

the consequences that are implied.

If we maintain that the aether has a total energy below that of the true

vacuum, where has the energy released in forming the aether gone? One

place that it has gone, is into the cosmic background radiation(4, 43) (CBR)

which has a mean temperature of about 2.7°K. However, we propose that

in addition to CBR the aetherÕs total negative energy equals the positive

energy of the universe. We can envision the process by noting that photons

require the aether to propagate. Hence, when particles and antiparticles

were created in the big-bang, if they recombined to give g-rays, the g-rays

would not have been able to propagate away, and one would expect the

energy released could help create additional particles and anti-particles.

Since the big-bang itself is unknowable at present, we will shift to a time

shortly after t = 0, and assume that an aether has formed but the initial spark
that initiated the process has disappeared leaving a hot region that continues

to generate particles and anti-particles. If the mean free path for

recombination (annihilation) is less than the radius of the aether, the

particles will generate g-rays and other decay products. But since the g-

rays are reflected at the boundary of the expanding aether they return to the

central region. With the aether at a lower energy than the null state, the

energy content of the g-rays emitted exceeds the energy needed to generate

the particles that gave rise to the g-rays. This is an exothermic reaction

which releases energy, which then generates more reactants. This Òchain

44
reactionÓ can proceed until the expansion of the aether lowers the

temperature of the production region below that needed to generate electron-

positron pairs. The time during which particle production dominates we

called ÒinflationÓ and Eqs. (15-17) controlled the evolution of the aether.

Given that the density of the aether prior to time ti and radius R i, was much

greater than the present value, the negative energy per aether particle pair

was much greater, as was the speed of light. Hence the Òenergy gainÓ per

cycle could have been very high with a rapid build-up of positive energy in

particles and radiation, as the energy of the aether became more negative.

After particle production ceased the aether continued to expand, since its

particles have intrinsic velocities due to Fermi-Dirac statistics. As the aether

expands its density decreases, which lowers the kinetic energy, but an

increase in the drift velocity occurs (HubbleÕs law), and simultaneously a

smaller negative correlation energy in the aether as the density decreases.

What is unknown in our picture is the ÒtrueÓ annihilation energy of

particles. Our energy diagram discussed in section 2, would determine an

absolute zero of energy corresponding to the null state or true vacuum. The

energy mc2 in our aether picture simply corresponds to the condensation

energy into the present aether, but as we have demonstrated c depends upon

the density of the aether, and m may also. From Eq. (2) the density of the

aether is proportional to ( mc / h) 3 and changes with time. Hence the ratio

mc / h changes with time. Since at this juncture we have no clear origin for

mass nor for h, their dependence on aether density remains unsettled. One

can obtain a reasonably consistent picture as we have done so far by treating

m and h as true constants. This is supported somewhat by noting that, if

angular momentum is conserved as the aether expands, then with the

45
angular momentum of an electron in the core of a vortex given by

æ ö
mcrc = h, h is a constant. We expect rc to vary with r1 ç n = 3 3 ÷ so
è (4p r1 )ø
that mcr1 is also a constant from Eq.(2). This still allows m to vary as well

but we have no explicit indication of this. The issue of variation of the fine

structure constant over time based on the occurrence of a natural fission

reaction is treated in reference 14, where a limit for a change of less than

one part in 107 in 2 ´ 109 years is obtained.

To return to the importance of the null energy level, we note that the net

energy of the universe in our model is essentially zero relative to this null

energy. The particleÕs rest mass energy, the CBR and anything else with

positive energy is pictured as a result of the inflationary period that created

the negative energy aether. The negative energy of the aether stems from its

density dependent correlation energy and coulomb energy. Hence as the

aether expands the magnitude of its negative energy decreases, and so does

the positive energy of particles, since mc2 decreases as c decreases. This

leads to the possibility that at some future time the universe will simply fade

away as c ® 0, as the density of the aether goes to zero. A more

catastrophic end might occur at a density of the aether at which it is no

longer at a negative energy relative to the null state, and the aether

disappears. The critical density at which this occurs is important because it

defines not only when the aether ceases to exist, but also when the aether

comes into existence during the start of the universe. While theories of

dense Fermi fluids exist, the correlation energy is not one of the properties

that is easily obtained. Hence, even an estimate of such a critical density, n c

46
 is not possible. However, it is certainly greater than the value of 1023/cm3

seen in metals. Since the critical time, tc, is related to the present density no

1/ 3
n
and age of the universe, to, by tc = to æè 0 n öø ,unless we are very close
c

to nc, this is not an imminent worry. Hence, if nc were a factor of 10 lower

than no, the universe would last to at least twice its present age.

If we accept as plausible the scenario that the net energy of the universe is

essentially zero, then the barrier to creating the universe is low. We may

then contemplate that there have been and continue to be mini big-bangs

(MBB) outside of our expanding universe. The reason for stipulating that

they occur outside our universe is that the inflationary period requires that

the g-rays be trapped and recycled. If a ÒsparkÓ occurred in a region with

an aether present already the Òphoton recyclingÓ mechanism would not be

operative, since the g-rays would escape through the existing aether.

Without the exothermic process, the ÒsparkÓ is quickly extinguished with no

trace. Is there any evidence for such mini big-bangs? Yes. We will

discuss several phenomena which may be evidence for MBBs, g-ray

bursters, blackholes, and anomalous redshifts.

b) Gamma-ray bursters

At a rate of one or two events per day, sources of high energy g-rays are

detected by satellite instruments.(44) The g-rays last for time periods

ranging from seconds to hours, appear to come from sources in random

directions, and recent data seems to confirm that the sources are at distances

near the edge of our universe.(45, 46) The intensity of these g-rays is such

47
that if theenergy detected had been radiated in all directions, the integrated

energy would be comparable to the total energy of the big-bang.(47)

Given the picture we have presented of the early universe with g-rays

trapped by the limited extent of the aether, consider what would have

happened had our universe expanded and contacted a pre-existing region of

aether. The g-rays would be transmitted into the region of aether emptying

the universe of radiation in a time on the order of R(t)/c(t), where R(t) is the

radius of the universe at a time t after the big-gang, and c(t) the speed of
light at that time. Since it is unlikely that the densities of the aethers would

be identical at the time of intersection, one would expect a reflection

coefficient at the interface which would send the g-rays on additional trips

around the universe extending the duration of the g-ray burst. If the

universe had been in the inflationary stage, any further development would

have ceased once the recycling of the g-rays was no longer possible.

Depending upon the stage of the universeÕs development other radiation (x-

rays, optical, microwave) would have been present and also would have

been vented at contact.

What the recent well-documented g-burst has shown is that the initial burst

of g-rays decayed within hours, followed by longer wavelength radiation

that continued for days. (45,46) The slow arrival of the longer radiation is

what one would expect due to the dispersion in the index of refraction of the

interstellar medium. Since the speed of light in a medium depends upon its

index of refraction, and the longer the wavelength the slower the speed, a

few days delay in a trip that took on the order of 109 years amounts to a one

48
 part in 1012 difference in index of refraction between g-rays and optical

radiation. This is consistent with what one would expect in the very

tenuous interstellar medium. The explanations offered so far by

conventional theories is that a neutron star or other explosion occurred

giving the g-rays, followed later by a fireball, that generated the optical

radiation.(44) The conventional explanation doesnÕt account for the initial g-

rays in any detail, i.e., the time scale, and has a separate explanation for the

longer wavelength radiation, while our explanation is detailed and self

contained.

Based upon the picture above we propose that the g-bursterÕs are evidence

that MBBs exist and are constantly being incorporated into our universe.

Does this picture imply any other observable consequences? Yes, the

existence of blackholes.

c) Blackholes, mini big-bangs, and galaxy formation

One of the tenets of modern cosmology is, that at the center of the big-bang

there must be a singularity.(48) By a singularity is meant a point or region

where conventional physical laws are no longer valid, and what occurs is

unknown. Another entity that is believed to have a singularity at its center is

a blackhole.(49, 50) Blackholes are thought to be objects with sufficient mass

packed into such a small region that their gravitational attraction prevents

even light from escaping. While the big-bang and blackholes have

postulated singularities, we should remember that electrons and protons

have singularities also, if something doesnÕt give them a finite radius.

Given our picture of MBBs being incorporated into our universe, one can

ask what happened to the singularities associated with them? A simple

49
 answer is that they are still present and constitute the singularities in

blackholes.

One of the speculations in present cosmological theories is that there is a

blackhole present at the center of each galaxy.(51) No specific reason for

this is given. A problem in cosmology is that there is no simple model that

gives the distribution of galaxies in the universe. The reasoning is that there

must have been some precursor inhomogeneties that gave rise to the

galaxies. Hence in the studies of the CBR, variations were sought that

would trace the structure back to the time before matter and radiation

decoupled.(43) Such inhomgeneities are not needed if blackholes act as

nuclei for the galaxies attracting stars around them, and have been

incorporated into our universe at random times and places since the

Òbeginning.Ó The quotation marks on the word are to indicate that we have

no criteria for determining the age of the universe.

d) The age of the universe and a possible steady state cosmology.

In cosmology the theories have alternated between the big-bang picture and

possible steady state models. Einstein had originally thought that only a

static universe was possible and even added an ad hoc constant to his

relativistic field equations, the so called cosmological constant, so that this

could be true.(4) When HubbleÕs law was discovered, and time dependent

solutions to EinsteinÕs equations were found, the world view shifted toward

the big-bang model. The counter movement toward a steady-state universe

around 1950 gained support for a while, but current evidence and theories

have placed the big-bang model in the ascendancy again.(4)

50
We have, so far, explicitly embraced the big-bang picture of cosmology. In

our local part of the universe which includes as far as our instruments can

see, there seems to be an expansion of our big-bang. However, if we take

the MBB picture seriously then we are constantly incorporating new

supplies of aether and matter into our universe. If our big-bang is not

unique then neither is the origin of time. Eventually as our universe

expands it should encounter a larger ÒolderÓ big-bang with galaxies older

than the time since our local big-bang. This may already have happened.

Repeatedly in the history of cosmology there have been inconsistencies

where the then accepted time since our big-bang, appeared to be less than

the age of some feature dated by accepted techniques. In each case the age

of the universe has been increased and the discrepancy removed. At present

the accepted age of the universe (the time since our big-bang) is 10-15

billion years, and there are structures which are believed to be at least that

age. Hence the conventional picture continues to teeter on the edge of

believability.

We thus propose that the universe is essentially in steady-state, but big-

bangs occur which initiate the growth of an aether and matter which expand

and link with other big-bangs and incorporate mini-big bangs. Eventually

these regions expand to the point that the aether fades away or its density

reaches a critical value and that part of the universe reverts to a true vacuum.

Since the big-bang can only grow in the presence of the true vacuum, that

part of the universe can restart the process. The singularities that start the

big-bangs or MBBs are unknown at present. The process resembles the

regrowth of areas after a major forest fire, where long dormant seeds

suddenly sprout. It may be that the singularities are Òimmortal,Ó and

survive the destruction of the aether to restart the process. Obviously in

51
 such a picture of the universe there is no big crunch and no missing dark

matter.

e) Redshifts and Anomalous Redshifts

Earlier we had expressed misgivings about the accepted explanation of the

cosmological redshifts and blueshifts seen in light from distant sources.

The accepted explanation for the blue shift, which is rarely seen, is that it is

the Doppler shift due to the relative velocity of an approaching source. In

sound an approaching sound source has a higher frequency and a receding

one a lower frequency. For light the issue is more complex, since the

frequency of a photon is directly related to its energy through E = hn.

Hence, if a photon leaves a source with energy E s, and travels through a

vacuum with no interactions, how does its energy increase or decrease

based upon the motion of the receiver? For the redshift, the expansion of

the universe is the supposed cause, but the explanations are postulatedrather

than proved, since the Doppler effect and Relativity are invokedwithout

critical evaluation of whether they are in fact applicable. Since others have

also found the standard explanation of the redshift unconvincing,

suggestions that the mass of the electron, in distant galaxies might be

different have been made.(52) Our aether model lends itself to an alternate

picture of the origin of the redshift. Indeed there are several possible causes

for the redshift that emerge from our model.

i) We have indicated that the speed of light changes with time due to the

expansion of the aether, with the subsequent decrease in its density and

consequently a decrease in its Fermi velocity (Eq. (2)) which we have

assumed is the value of c(t). Light which is reaching earth now was emitted

52
 at earlier times when c(t) and perhaps other physical constants m and e had

different values. The more distant the light source, the earlier in time its

light was emitted, and the greater the difference in physical constants from

our values it would be expected to have. Since in the hydrogen atom the

emitted photonÕs energy depend upon the constants as:

me 4
E= (36)
8 Î20 h 2

where Î0-1 = m 0 c 2 , the emitted photons would have longer wavelengths

from distant sources as long as the combination of constants was smaller in

the past. Since, HubbleÕs law as derived from the aether model shows

more distant sources moving with higher velocity (assuming the galaxies are

carried along with the expanding aether), one would have the ingredients for

a consistent explanation for the observed redshifts, although not a numerical

agreement, since the time dependences of m and e, if any, are not yet

known14.

ii) The mini-big-bang picture raises the possibility that there are and were

regions that have an aether that is not yet in equilibrium with the aether that

originated in our big-bang. These regions would have physical constants

differing from those expected at a given distance, since the origin in time

and space of a MBB is different than for our big-bang. Hence, the redshift

from such a region would differ from its neighbors at equal distances from

the earth. Anomalous redshifts of this nature have been reported.(52)

Indeed discrete or quantum differences in the redshifts from neighboring

galaxies have been found. (52,53) The aether model with the redshift due to

the physical constants being different rather than velocity or the expansion

53
 controlling the wavelength, can account for such phenomena more readily

than the standard picture of cosmology.

iii) The third explanation for the redshift that the aether model allows, is as

mentioned earlier, that as the photons travel through the aether they lose

energy to the disturbance that they create as they move. This allows the

ÒparticleÓ part of the photon to remain localized on the scale of the atom,

while the accompanying wave disturbance can extend over a region meters

in diameter. Thus, light from distant stars can show interference effects

with lenses or mirrors meters apart,(26) and still produce a photoelectric

effect or a chemical reaction in a photographic material at the atomic scale.

f) The arrow of time -

In the area of irreversible statistical mechanics, a question remains as to the

reason for the apparent irreversibility of physical and chemical phenomena,

since both the classical and quantum laws of physics seem to be symmetric

in time.(54) The problem is often associated with the statistical observation

that entropy increases in all natural processes.(54) The aether model gives a

natural direction to time through the fact that as the aether expands, the

speed of light and perhaps other constants are changed monotonically.

Hence, at a later time the universe has changed, and in reversing a process

one has a different set of physical constants to deal with, as well as

propagating disturbances in the aether, which means that reversing a

process to restore the identical conditions which prevailed previously, is

literally impossible.

g) PlanckÕs Constant -

54
One of our hopes in developing the aether model was to obtain a

relationships among the physical constants. In particular, PlanckÕs constant

which is the fundamental constant in Quantum Mechanics is key. It appears

in a number of interrelated ways:

i) In the deBroglie relation lp = h

ii) In SchrodingerÕs Equation (Eq(18))

iii) The Heisenberg uncertainty relations D x Dp x ³ h 2

( )
iv) Spin angular momentum h 2 ( )
v) Orbital angular momentum (units of h) and photon angular

momentum

vi) In quantum statistical mechanics as the smallest volume in phase

3
space (h )

vii) Quantized energies (E = hn)

In our expression for the speed of light Eq. (2), we have used the quantum

theory and hence h appears immediately without any prior definition. The

intrinsic spin angular momentum of h 2 has been identified with a vortex in

the aether. Hence, if we could calculate simply the angular momentum of a

vortex perhaps the relation between h and the aether density could be

established. Likewise we have identified the photon to be a rotating

polarized region of aether with angular momentum h and energy hw. The

common thread in all of these appearances of h is the variation scale of the

aether. Thus, in the Schrodinger Equation h multiplies the gradient of the

wavefunction to give a momentum. An alternate view is to say the

55
momentum of a particle generates a disturbance in the aether, with a spatial

variation such that h Ñ y » p. This is basically the content of the deBroglie

relation which identifies the gradient of y with the wavelength of the

disturbance i.e. Ñ y » k = 2 p l .

Thus, the momentum of a particle creates a disturbance on the scale of h p

in the aether. As we have seen there are ÒporesÓ in the aether with a size on

the order of rc = l c = h mc and spacing on the order of r1 = 1.92 rc = 1.92

lc. This would give a ÒnaturalÓ gradient in the particle density on the order

of l-1
c and a ÒnaturalÓ momentum on the scale of mc. Indeed, the

momentum of the particles in the aether that can move at the Fermi surface,

is mc. The variation in y due to a particle of momentum p can be viewed as

if the particle were stationary and the aether streaming by with velocity v.

There exists a vortex around the particle with a coherent velocity that

extends many times rc (3.84 ´ 10-11 cm). It is interesting to note that the

ratio of rc to ab the Bohr radius is exactly the fine structure constant

2
a = e 4 p Î hc = 1137.036 .
0

It is likely that the vortex patterns that extend out from the electron and the

proton together determine the appearance of h or h in all the situations

indicted above.

Thus, the use of h m = K the circulation of spin 1 2 vortices, is the ultimate

source of the appearance of PlanckÕs constant in physics. This in turn came

from the pore size or core size of the vortex in the aether, which is tied to

56
 the density of the aether, which changes with time as the aether expands.

We had earlier speculated that if angular momentum were conserved as the

aether expands then h could remain constant with time (Section 8a). This

would mean that h is set by factors not contained within the aether model.

This is also the situation for the particle masses, although we will discuss

mass below.

The uncertainty principle can be viewed for Fermions at least, in terms of

the spin vortex around the center or ÒpositionÓ of the particle, the closer one

comes to the center the higher the aether velocity, and the stronger the

interaction with any probe that is present there, and the larger the change in

momentum the particle will sustain. The faster a top spins the greater its

rebound in touching a wall or other obstacle. The fact that D x Dp ³ h 2

and the spin angular momentum is h 2 , may not be a coincidence.

The orbital angular momentum of electrons in atoms is given by n h in the

Bohr model for stationary states. If we note that the moving electron and its
aether vortex will cause a disturbance in the aether along the path of the

electron, that for steady state should smoothly mesh with the spin vortex,

we have a criterion for why only certain stationary orbits are permitted.

h) Mass and Charge

These concepts are at the heart of all substance and yet remain unexplained

in all theories. The fact that there are three charged leptons with different

masses, the electron, the muon, and the tau meson, and that these also have

different neutrinos associated with them still lie outside of the standard

model of particle physics. From the point of view of our aether model

57
where the neutrino is a vortex in the aether, there may be a way to account

for three different neutrinos, and perhaps the three different masses for the

charged leptons.

We have maintained that the aether is primarily composed of electrons and

positrons in a bound Fermion fluid, but that embedded within the electron-

positron aether are inclusions of a proton-antiproton fluid or other baryons.

The three types of neutrinos can be visualized as follows: the electron

neutrino is a vortex in the electron-positron component of the aether; the

muon neutrino is a vortex with a region of proton and anti-proton aether in

its core, and the tau meson neutrino is a vortex entirely within a region of

proton and anti-proton aether.

Having proposed this for the associated neutrinos, what constitutes the

ÒparticlesÓ. In solids, electrons have different effective masses based upon

the band structure of the material and the chemical constituents. An electron

in an ionic material polarizes a region around it, thus distorting the lattice.

Hence, when it moves it has a high inertial mass (13), because the

polarization must move with it. This polaron idea can be carried over into

the masses of the elementary particles. Thus, for the electron we can picture

a ÒbareÓ electron within a vortex core of the electron-positron aether giving

us me the observed electron mass, while the same bare electron within a

vortex consisting of both electron and positron and proton and anti-proton

aether gives the mass of the muon. When the bare electron is within the

vortex of protons and anti-protons, it gives the tau meson mass.

58
While this picture would give some systematics to the lepton masses, if we

could calculate the masses m e, m m, m t, from some simple equation, it

would still not tell us what the bare mass is numerically or what mass is

conceptually. In addition, all the particles that have mass also have charge

or like the neutron can be considered to be composed of charged particles.

Hence, we also need to consider the nature of charge and why there is a

single unit of charge observed (the quarks have charges of 2 - 1 3 of

3 and

the electronic charge, but are not directly observable.) The existence of

charge is known through the fact that a charge has an electric field, around

it, a moving charge creates a magnetic field as well, and an accelerating

charge emits electro-magnetic radiation. The effects produced by these

fields or radiation are readily detected with appropriate instruments.

The fact that charge and mass seem to be closely connected, and that Eq. (1)

is often used to define a cutoff radius to the charge distribution by equating

the field energy associated with the charge to the rest mass energy of the

particle, shows the close relationship envisioned in standard physics. Since

most of the field energy occurs at very small distances, even the neutron

with no long range field could also be treated this way. However, mass and

charge are generally believed to be separate concepts and have different

origins, i.e., while the electron and proton have equal and opposite charges,

or positron and proton have identical charge, their masses differ by a factor

of nearly 2,000. If we followed the logic of Eq(1) a cutoff radius 2,000

times smaller would be required for the proton (and neutron). Indeed we

have asserted that the vortex core radius for the proton is smaller i.e. the

Compton wavelength of the proton l p = h

M pC . However, this cutoff

59
 doesnÕt coincide with the ÒclassicalÓ radius needed when field energy is set

equal to rest mass. Hence, if the concept of the field energy equaling the

rest mass energy were true, we would be forced to introduce artificially the

ÒclassicalÓ radius.

While charge and mass are undoubtedly closely linked, even if we

subscribed to the rest mass being equal to the field energy concept, the

unique value of the electronic charge (1.6 ´ 10-19 Coulomb) still remains to

be accounted for, and also the difference in rest mass for electron (positron)

and proton. Our two component aether model (electron-positron, with

proton-antiproton inclusions) also envisions that at least two distinct entities

exist. Hence at this stage in the evolution of the aether model the charge and

mass of the electron and proton must be considered to arise from an even

more basic model, which has yet to be devised. Of course this same issue

is also unresolved in the standard model of particle physics.

i) The collapse of the wavefunction(20)

In Quantum Mechanics a long standing problem has been that in systems in

superposition states, where the expectation value of some measurable

quantity is a weighted average of eigenstate values, when the measurement

is made, one of the eigenvalues occurs. The question is what determines

which eigenvalue will occur? This question is often referred to as the

collapse of the wavefunction. The question is in what state was the system

prior to the measurement? Can the aether model resolve this issue? It can at

least provide some insight.

60
 In the aether model a particle has a definite position and produces a

disturbance pattern in the aether. The particle and its disturbance (or wave

function) are an entity which in Quantum Mechanics replaces the particle

concept. In the process of making a measurement the particle and its

wavefunction must interact with the measuring apparatus in some way. One

could view the wavefunction as the particleÕs ÒfeelersÓ, similar to antennae

on insects or whiskers on animals, that interacts with the surroundings and

acts back on the particle to direct its motion or other properties. The

ÒmeasurementÓ forces the particle to choose a definite position or state, in

the same way a roulette wheel in stopping forces the ball to pick a definite

number. Prior to coming to rest the ball was not in a particular slot, it was

traveling around passing all the possible numbers until it used up its kinetic

energy by bouncing in and out of the slots before coming to rest in one of

them. The wavefunction as modified by the interaction with the measuring

apparatus, and acting back on the particle (or quantum system) determines

the final measured state of the particle.

9. Summary and Conclusions

In this work we have replaced the abstract aether of the nineteenth century with a

specific fluid composed primarily of electrons and positrons in a negative energy state

relative to the null state. We have thus replied to the Einstein and Infeld(1) objection to a

mechanical view of the universe. This model of the aether allows insights into many

phenomena in physics and cosmology for which conventional theory provides no answers

or unsatisfactory answers. Among the most interesting results are:

61
i) wave-particle duality (the particle creates a disturbance in the aether which

travels with the particle while interacting with the environment and back

upon the particle);

ii) spin (a vortex in the aether);

iii) electric field (polarization of the aether);

iv) Zitterbewegung (bare particle orbits within the core of the spin vortex);

v) HubbleÕs law (solution of the continuity equation for the expanding aether,

yields an outflow velocity proportional to distance);

vi) Inflation (solution of the continuity equation for the aether during the period

of particle production, yields an exponential growth to the radius of the

aether);

vii) the arrow of time (due to the expansion of the aether the speed of light

changes with time and perhaps also some of the other fundamental

constants, changing the universe monatonically with time, and removing the

seeming reversibility in time of NewtonÕs, MaxwellÕs, and SchrodingerÕs

equations);

viii) Pauli exclusion principle (repulsive interaction between parallel spin vortices

keeps Fermions apart);

ix) Photon (a region of rotating polarized aether propagating through the aether

with a screw-like motion, with lateral extent on the order of atomic

dimensions, and accompanied by an additional disturbance in the aether

analogous to the wavefunction associated with particles);

x) redshift (the shift to longer wavelengths in the light from distant sources is

attributed to three non-standard causes: different physical constants at the

time the light was emitted due to the earlier stage of the universe, or due to

the aether in that region of the universe originating in a different big-bang

62
 than ours; and loss of energy of the photon to its expanding aether

disturbance mentioned in ix above.)

Other important results include the mechanism by which the aether is formed, which can

explain the source of energy and matter in our universe, and the likelihood that other mini-

big-bangs (MBBs) have occurred and continue to occur outside our expanding universe.

We have also speculated that evidence for such MBBs is in the g bursters that are observed

to occur at the rate of about one per day, and that the remnants of these MBBS that have

been incorporated into our universe are the singularities associated with black holes, which

have then attracted galaxies around them. Mass, charge, PlanckÕs constant, relativity, the

three types of neutrinos, the magnetic moments of electrons and protons, possible models

for muon and t meson masses, and the collapse of the wavefunctions in Quantum

Mechanics were also discussed.

While our treatment of the various topics is quite uneven, with quantitative results

in some and qualitative results and speculation for others, the aether model proposed

enables one to pose questions and answer them in ways that are unaccessible in the

presently accepted picture of the universe.

It is unlikely that all the features of the model and all our speculations will turn out

to be correct on closer examination. However, the approach reopens a mode of thinking

that has been largely prohibited for the past century. From our results it appears to be a

fruitful approach.

63
References and Endnotes

1. A Einstein and L. Infeld, ÒThe Evolution of PhysicsÓ (Simon and Schuster, N.Y.

1951) P126.

2. P.A.M. Dirac, Nature 168, 906 (1951).

3. P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy Soc. A209, 291 (1951)

4. P.J.E. Peebles ÒPrinciples of Physical CosmologyÓ (Princeton University Press,

Princieton, N.J. 1993.)

5. C.D. Jefferies and L.V. Keldysh, ÒElectron-Hole Droplets in SemiconductorsÓ,

(North Holland-Amsterdam 1983.)

6. W.K.H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, ÒClassical Electricity and MagnetismÓ,

(Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Inc. Reading, MA 1955;) P 164, 271, 315, 300.

7. I. Ciufolini and J. A. Wheeler, ÒGravitation and InertiaÓ, (Princeton University

Press, Princeton, N.J. 1995,) P218.

8. D. Z. Albert, ÒBohmÕs alternative to Quantum MechanicsÓ, Scientific American,

May 1994, P58. S. Goldstein, ÒQuantum Theory without observersÓ Physics

Today Vol. 51, No. 3, 42; No. 4, 38 (1998).

9. J.S. Bell, ÒSpeakable and Unspeakable in Quantum MechanicsÓ (Cambridge

University Press 1987.)

10. D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952); 85, 180 (1952); 89, 1458 (1953).

11. C. Kittel, ÒIntroduction to Solid State PhysicsÓ 5th ed. (John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., New York 1976.)

12. K.P. Sinha, E.C.G. Suarshan, and J.P. Vigier, Phys. Lett. 114A, 298 (1986): F .

M. Meno Physics Essays 4, 94 (1991); 7, 450 (1994). 8, 245(1995); 10, 304

(1997); and http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~meno/ Aether Theories A collection of

Scientific Theories of the aether http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html.

13. C. Kittel, ÒQuantum Theory of SolidsÓ, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1963,) P144.

64
14. P.A.M. Dirac, Nature, 139, 323 (1937). Proc. Roy Soc. A165, 199 (1938).

Recently Dyson has summarized the evidence on whether the fundamental constants

have varied with time in the paper T. Damour and F. Dyson, Nuclear Physics

B480, 37 (1996).

15. P. Coles and F. Lucchin, ÒCosmologyÓ (Wiley & Sons 1995,) P53, 35.

16. In condensed matter physics processes with b = 1, 2 and 3 occur.

17. The choice of b = 1 is to keep the calculations simple, b = 2 or 3 are more likely at

the densities involved.

18. A. Guth and P. Steinhardt, ÒThe Inflationary UniverseÓ (Scientific American, Jan

1990,) P 116.

19. W. Moore, ÒSchrodinger life and thoughtÓ, (Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge,) 1989, P 256.

20. D. J. Griffiths, ÒIntroduction to Quantum MechanicsÓ (Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, N.J. 1995,) P1, 45, 155.

21. Phillip R. Wallace, ÒParadox Lost-Images of the QuantumÓ, (Springer 1996.)

22. A. Einstein, Ann d. Physik 17, 549 (1905)

23. G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein, Phys. Rev. 36, 823 (1930).

24. See for instance G. Joos ÒTheoretical PhysicsÓ, (G. E. Stechert & Co. N. Y.,

1934,) P 189, P 566.

25. G. Baym, ÒLectures on Quantum MechanicsÓ, (The Benjamin/Cummings Pub.

Co. Inc., Reading, MA 1969,) P 50.

26. E. Whittaker, ÒA History of the Theories of Aether and ElectricityÓ Vol I,

(Thomas Nelson and Sons. Ltd. London, 1951,) Vol II (Philosophical Library,

New York 1954.) These volumes cover aether theories and the development of

physics up to 1926. K.E. Schaffner, ÒNineteenth Century Aether Theories,Ó

(Pergomon, 1972).

65
27. Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys Rev. 115, 485 (1959).

28. F. London and H. London, Proc. Roy, Soc. (London) A 149, 72 (1935).

29 . BohrÕs model for the atom is treated in most elementary physics texts, and is

discussed in a historical context in ref. 19, P 135.

30. For Central forces with potential energy V = a rn+1 the average kinetic energy T is
n +1
related to the average potential energy V by T = 2 V. Hence for an inverse

square law n = -2, T = - V 2 and E = T + V = T - 2 T = - T . See H. Goldstein

ÒClassical MechanicsÓ, 2nd ed., (Addison Wesley Pub. Co. Inc. 1980,) P 82.

31. A. Einstein, Ann Phys. 17, 132 (1905) (See English translation in D. Ter Haar,

ÒThe Old Quantum TheoryÓ, (Pergamon, Oxford 1967).

32. Any mechanism by which a photon loses energy will shift the light to longer

wavelengths since E = hn = h c/l.

33. See any text on quantum mechanics, such as ref 20.

34. See any text on elementary particles; also Handbook of Chemistry and Physics

(CRC Press Inc.,) any recent edition for tables of particle properties.

35. P. G. deGennes, ÒSuperconductivity of Metals and AlloysÓ, (W. A. Benjamin

Inc., New York 1966;) P 66.

36. See ref 20, P 240-41.

37. See for instance S. Flugge, ÒPractical Quantum MechanicsÓ, (Springer-Verlag,

New York 1974,) Problem 200.

38. See texts on fluid dynamics, also ÒFluid VorticesÓ G. J. Green (Ed.) (Kliwer

Academic Pub. Dorchecht, The Netherlands 1995.) Different types of vortices

exist.

39. E. Merzbacher, ÒQuantum MechanicsÓ, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York

1961) P 597-98.

66
40. See ref 19 P 256-58.

41. See ref 25 P 546.

42. See for instance the discussion of twenty-six dimensional string theory in ÒThe End

of PhysicsÓ, David Lindley (Basic Books, Harper Collins Pub. Inc. 1993;) P 224-

25.

43. G. Smoot and K. Davidson, ÒWrinkles in TimeÓ, (William Morrow and Co. Inc.,

New York 1993.)

44. See July 1997 Physics Today (Vol 50, no. 7, P 17) for a brief description of the

history and recent results on the gamma burst of May 8, 1997.

45. M. Metzger, S. G. Djorgovski, S. R. Kulkarni, C. C. Steidel, K. L. Adelberge, D.

A. Frail, E. Costa, and F. Frontera, Nature 387, 878 (1997).

46. S. G. Djorgovski, M. R. Metzger, S. R. Kulkarni, S. C. Odewahn, R. R. Gal, M.

A. Pahre, D. A. Frail, M. Feroci, E. Costa, and E. Palazzi; Nature 387, 876

(1997).

47. J. P. Norris, R. J. Nemiroff, J. T. Bonnell, J. D. Scargle, C. Kouveliotou, W. S .

Paciesas, C. A. Meegan, and G. J. Fishman; The Astro-Physical Jour. 459, 393

(1996).

48. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, ÒThe Large Scale Structure of Space-TimeÓ,

(Cambridge University Pres 1973.)

49. R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 (1965).

50. S. W. Hawking and Penrose, Proc. Royal Soc. Lond., A314, 529 (1970).

51. K. S. Thorne, ÒBlack Holes & Time WarpsÓ, (W. W. Norton & Co., N. Y.

1994,) P 354.

52. See papers in ÒNew Ideas in AstronomyÓ editors F. Bertola, J. W. Sulentic, and

B. F. Madre, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1988,) G. Burbridge P

223, mentions suggestion by Hoyle and Narlikar that mass of electron was different

in distant galaxies and would give an intrinsic redshift.

67
53. See also in ÒNew Ideas in AstronomyÓ, paper by W. Tifft P. 173.

54. I. Prigogine, ÒThe End of CertaintyÓ, (The Free Press, N. Y. 1996.)

68