[ Einstein-conspiracy ] [ Scalar energy ] [ Universal Seduction ] [ Morgan / Bearden ] [ Scientific Dictatorship ] [ Bright skies ] [ Free energy ] [ Geo science ] [ Suppressed archaeology ] [ Origins of oil ] [ True geology ] [ Education ]
Einstein Conspiracy -- Page
2 -- Page 3 -- Page 4
-- Page 5
I have been interested in the perspective that Albert Budden had on the UFO
Mystery, [B17] and have been to a lecture delivered by him. It was very
interesting, but there were many points that seemed very mysterious. From his
theories - the UFO phenomenon is the result of electromagnetic pollution
affecting people that he calls electro- hyper- sensitive (EH), who then
experience strange hallucinations and other associated strange phenomenon. In
the lecture he fervently argued his case that UFOs had nothing to do with
aliens, and could be explained instead by his theory or collection of theories.
He then showed a video of objects moving by what he claimed was a poltergeist
created by electromagnetic experiments of maverick scientists Hutchison. I
talked to several of the audience afterwards and they were sceptical that the
poltergeist was real, and not some conjuring trick. To Budden this was an
'electromagnetic poltergeist’. But it left the audience baffled on many
issues, not least of which is - if the video is genuine and it was a
demonstration of antigravity, what is then to stop possible aliens from visiting
us using a science based on such a technology?
In the UFO literature that has been going back since its beginnings, there has
been talk of supposed aliens visiting us using antigravity. It is even a theme
of many science fiction B movies. It seems very mysterious that Albert Budden
should be introducing this concept and be claiming that it supports his theory
that no aliens are here.
My interest has been in physics, and if one looks at the history of physics then
one finds many anomalies that have been written out of the revised physics
history that is often presented to physics students. For instance there was no
mention of Tesla when I did physics, but many maverick scientists claim that
the physics side of the UFO Mystery is centered around Tesla.
Just how great Tesla was can be illustrated by some of his discoveries [B18] :
1. Electron microscope. This was invented by Tesla before the electron was
discovered. He assumed that the effect was due to electrically charged atoms.
2. X- rays : Tesla reported in his 1892 lectures, "visible light black
light and a very special radiation." He was experimenting with this
radiation which, he reported, produced shadow graph pictures on plates in metal
containers, in his laboratory when it was destroyed by fire in March, 1895. When
Prof. Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen, in Germany, in December, 1895, announced the
discovery of X-rays, Tesla was able immediately to reproduce the same results by
means of his "very special radiation," indicating that these and
X-rays had very similar properties although produced in somewhat different ways.
Immediately upon reading Roentgen s announcement, Tesla forwarded to the German
scientist shadow graph pictures produced by his "very special
radiation." Roentgen replied: "The pictures are very interesting. If
you would only be so kind as to disclose the manner in which you obtained
them." Tesla did not consider that this situation gave him any priority in
the discovery of X-rays.
3. Cosmic rays
4. Artificial radioactivity
5. Disintegrating beam of electrified particles, or atom smasher;
O’Neill tells us that at least four of these innovations, when
"rediscovered" up to forty years later, won Nobel Prizes for others;
and Tesla's name is never mentioned in connection with them.
It is surprising that such a great scientist is hardly ever mentioned, or at
least not mentioned as much as he should be by the Physics Establishment.
The UFO conspiracy theorists have jumped on Tesla and connect him with all sorts
of strange ideas. But just sticking to the facts on Tesla, David Hatcher
Childress tells us:
Tesla was unquestionably a visionary and a mystic. Anti-gravity airships were
typically depicted in illustrations of his interviews and advanced predictions.
He often spoke of the coming world in which antigravity aircraft will carry
cargo across the continent, drawing power from centrally located power stations
along the earth grid. [B19]
Since Tesla was such an extraordinary man with at least 5 major discoveries
(that he did not get proper credit for), such seemingly outrageous claims cannot
be so easily dismissed.
When Albert Budden starts bringing in antigravity to his
theorising, how can we then overlook the claims of Tesla, in this subject?
But putting aside the question of antigravity, Budden is concerned with the
damage to health caused by electro pollution. I have been looking into such
matters, and formed a theory as to how such an effect might be produced. In an
earlier draft of this paper, a reviewer asked for more details about such a
theory, he failed to miss the point being made that theories of how
electromagnetism could cause health problems, were not being properly looked
into by the scientific community. The reason, because there is a conspiracy, as
mentioned earlier by Dr. Robert O Becker MD pioneering researcher in the field
of biological electricity, twice nominated for Nobel Prize. He points out that
there are harmful effects in our modern misuse of electromagnetism, it causes an
increase in cancer, AIDS, and other modern diseases.
This is quite extraordinary from what appears at first to be a rational
scientific approach by Albert Budden to solving the UFO Mystery rapidly ends up
embroiled in CONSPIRACY. It is only supposed to be from the aliens issue that
there is a supposed conspiracy in UFOlogy. Both from investigating Anti-gravity, and investigating health problems due to electromagnetism, you end up
Believers in the ‘aliens are here’ make seemingly outrageous claims that
they cannot back up with physical evidence, i.e. such cases as the famous
Roswell where there was a supposed UFO crash, and where alien dead bodies were
allegedly found and covered up by US Military.
Shouting "Conspiracy" in these cases, makes it seem like the ‘aliens
are here’ idea is not a serious scientific question, because it makes it seem
like just an excuse for there not being anything ‘solid’ to study.
Budden’s theory seems at first more scientific, because at first there seems
to be claims that can be investigated. But Becker who has been into this issue
of electro pollution causing health problems, cries "Conspiracy."
Something seems very odd with Western Society. Whichever way the UFO Mystery
gets investigated, there suddenly appear claims of cover-up. And even if there
is no physical evidence, there is very clear evidence that something is
drastically wrong with what we are supposed to believe, if we merely take a
small look at history, it becomes apparent that scientists rewrite their popular
account of history.
Historian John Ralston Saul ( holds a Ph.D. in history from King’s College,
in his book Voltaire’s Bastards, has looked into the history of physics and
other sciences, and blames much of the breakdown in Society upon these people he
calls ‘technocrats.’ He says that the technocrats in control of society:
.......[technocrats in charge] do not understand why their talents fail to
produce the intended results. Their abstract view of the machinery of human
society prevents them from understanding the natural flow of events from
remembering when they themselves have erred and why.
The reason for this he says is:
That is to say they don’t seem to understand the historical process. Instead
they seem actually to believe that their definitions of the world will become
both real and permanent simply because they are the result of applied logic.
When these formulae refuse to stick, the technocratic mind, rather than deal
with failure, simply wipes the slate clean and writes a new definition. They
are, in that sense, slaves of dogma.
To hide the mistakes they make when they are in charge, they rewrite history, as
..... they tend to avoid the maintenance of linear memory. An accurate picture
of recent events would prevent the constant reorganizations which they use as a
means of erasing the past and justifying current actions.
Under these people, popular history is constantly being revised. It needs
digging around in the actual historical records to discover that the popularised
version of physics history as presented to physics students has been drastically
revised. Tesla’s ideas are seen as irrelevant in the context of modern physics
ideas, and is not mentioned.
In their revised popular physics history, physics students are presented with
how brilliant orthodox modern science. One reviewer made the claim that ‘we
have been duly using orthodox science in our lives for centuries.’ I deny
this. If we just take a small look at physics history we find - that most of the
modern scientific advances come through scientists such as Nikola Tesla, whose
ideas we no longer follow. And after WWII a false popular history of science was
presented to scientists.
For instance in the revised physics history we have - computers as supposedly an
amazing invention from modern physics (i.e. Quantum Mechanics). But - if you
care to take a little look under the surface you find that Tesla was patenting
logic gates in the 19th century, and he would have been using classical theory
not Quantum Mechanics. (AND logic gate filed in Tesla's United States patent No.
577,670 of February 23, 1897 (application filed Sept. 3, 1896).) [B21] The
‘hype’ for Quantum Mechanics seems unjustified. The real foundations of
modern advances come from scientists such as Tesla, who have been unfairly
It is from physics as per Tesla and the rest of the suppressed physics, that the
UFO Mystery can be made sense of. While it is from this false Modern Physics
created after WWII that the cover up can proceed unhindered, because of the
misguided fanatics who now do their best to defend it
2.15 References and Notes
Allowances should be made for the following books, because most of them assume
that modern physics is correct, while my perspective is contrary to that, namely
I take Einstein as being right from 1925 onwards:
 Cross Currents by Robert O Becker, Jeremy P Tarcher USA p 299
 Alain de Botton on British TV Sunday 30 April 2000 channel 4 at 7 pm
Philosophy: A group of people that Socrates upset conspired together and
arranged to condemn and convict Socrates, giving him a poisoned drink.
 The View from planet Earth by Vincent Cronin, Collins, UK 1981, p 121
 ibid... p 117
 Britannica, 1971 UK vol. 20 p 1074
 The Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch, Penguin, UK 1997 p 157
 Electromagnetic: History and Applications, Robert S Elliott p 10
 How scientists falsify their science is dealt with in Betrayers of the Truth
by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, Century Publishing, London, 1982. Described
on the blurb by New Scientist: ‘A commendable effort.. a scientific rogues
gallery ... an excellent job of documenting the countless ways in which
careerism has corrupted every field of science.’ From my perspective the book
does not go far enough in its expose. From my perspective, science has been
corrupted by the events of 1925/1926 in its handling of Einstein. The framework
of modern science is falsified by these ‘Betrayers of the Truth’.
 Dealt with in a lot of detail in Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald W
Clark, Hodder and Stoughton, UK 1973.
 Ronald W Clark p 494
 Jung for beginners, Jon Platania, Ph.D., Writers and Readers publishing
inc., UK 1997, p 28.
 ibid... p 35.
 ibid... p 37
 ibid... p 40
 The Born - Einstein Letters : correspondence between Albert Einstein and
Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955 with commentaries by Max Born, translated by Irene
Born, MacMillan , UK 1971, p 96
 Einstein during much of the latter half of his life got involved in trying
to find a theory that combined gravity and electricity, and would appear to have
lost interest in trying to find a theory to the subatomic realm. It seems most
likely that he was trying to place his quantum theory on a firmer footing.
 Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives edited by Gerald
Holton and Yehuda Elkana, Dover USA 1982, p 243-244
 Albert Einstein: a biography by Albrecht Folsing, Penguin books, USA, 1998
 ibid... p 695
 Einstein A relativity: the special and general theory, This translation
first published 1920 Fifteenth Edition Enlarged on January 1954 . Note from
Einstein on 1952 , 1996 by Routledge London, p36.
 Sidelights in Relativity, Albert Einstein, Dover, USA 1922
 A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking Guild Publishing, UK 1999, p 12
Einstein's Miraculous Year, J Stachel Princeton University Press, UK 1998, p
xiii- comment by Professor Penrose
 The Human condition, W Macneile Dixon, Edward Arnold, UK, original 1937,
1964, p 160
 Dictionary of Scientific Biography vol. II, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie,
Charles Scribner’s Sons, NY 1970 p 326
 Roger Joseph Boscovich S.J., F.R.S., 1711 - 1787 on the 250th Anniversary
of his birth, edited by Lancelot Law Whyte, published by George Allen and Unwin,
UK 1961 p 121-2
 The New Physics, ed. Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press, UK 1989 p 7
Renaissance of general relativity by Clifford Wills : "During the two
decades 1960 - 80, the subject of general relativity experienced a rebirth.
Despite its enormous influence on scientific thought in its early years, by the
late 1950s general relativity had become a sterile, formalistic subject, cut off
from the mainstream of physics. It was thought to have very little observational
contact, outside of cosmology and a few tests......" i.e. Physics Community
did not decide to look at general relativity properly, until after Einstein’s
death, and considered it 'sterile' when he was alive, conveniently waiting for
his death before reinventing it.
[B1] Ancient Inventions by Peter James and Nick Thorpe, Michael O’Mara books,
[B2] Ancient Cosmologies edited by Carmen Blacker and Michael Loewe, George
Allen, UK, 1975, p 207
[B3] The Chomsky Reader, Noam Chomsky, ed. James Peck, Serpent’s Tail, USA
1987, 1992 p vii
[B4] ibid.. p xiii
[B5] Einstein in Love: a scientific Romance, Dennis Overbye, Bloomsbury, UK
2000, 2001 p 369
[B9] ibid. p 369 - 370
[B10] ibid. p 370
[B11] Roger Joseph Boscovich S.J., F.R.S., 1711 - 1787 on the 250th Anniversary
of his birth, edited by Lancelot Law Whyte, published by George Allen and Unwin,
UK 1961 p 121-2
[B12] Roger Boscovich, S J (1711 - 1787): the forerunner of Modern Physical
Theories, H G Gill, S J, M H Gill and Sons Ltd., Dublin 1941, Foreword
[B13] Roger Joseph Boscovich, ed. Lancelot Law Whyte p 13
[B14] ibid. p 102
[B15] ibid. p 102
[B16] ibid. p 107
[B17] The lecture was given by Albert Budden in 1999 for the Institution of
British Telecom Engineers. His theories are explained in the book: Psychic Close
Encounters, Albert Budden, Blandford, UK 1999
[B18] John J O’Neill, Prodigal Genius : The life of Nikola Tesla, inventor
extraordinary, Neville Spearman, London, 1968: The author - John J O’Neill
from blurb - was inspired to write the first full length life of this great
Yugoslav- American inventor, after the death of Nikola Tesla in 1943. He is
eminently fitted for this task, not only by his record of scientific writing,
which won him the Pulitzer Prize, but also by his many years of personal
friendship with Tesla. p 153- 154.
[B19] The Fantastic Inventions of Nikola Tesla, David Hatcher Childress,
Adventures Unlimited Stelle, Illinois, 1993 p 278.
[B20] Voltaire’s Bastards, John Ralston Saul, Sinclair - Stevenson, UK 1992 p
[B21] Nikola Tesla: Lecture before the New York academy of Sciences - April 6,
1897 by Leland I Anderson, editor, Twenty first century books, USA 1994, p 9 AND
logic gate filed in Tesla's United States patent No. 577,670 of February 23,
1897 (application filed Sept. 3, 1896).
3. 1 The Revised Einstein versus the Original Einstein
Modern Physics is based on a misunderstanding of Einstein, and does not follow
what Einstein originally said.
In Einstein's theory of special relativity - light speed (in vacuum, free of
forces) is constant. But if you read the 'original Einstein' and not the
'revised Einstein' you find that in the general theory of relativity - Einstein
says that the speed of light is variable and depends upon it[s] frequency and other
Its only in the restricted, incomplete theory of relativity that light speed is
constant; that theory is Special Relativity, where ‘special’ is referring to
But Modern Science is NOT based on the 'original Einstein' its based on a
revision. The Establishment accepted Special Relativity, but did not accept
In the 1920s Heisenberg +co came up with their Quantum theory based on Special
Relativity and not on Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein said that this
Quantum Theory was wrong. But everyone in the Physics Community conspired
against Einstein, and mocked Einstein for believing that "God does not play
dice with the universe." (Conspired in this sense - meaning ganging up
The Establishment now works from Einstein's Special Relativity and NOT his
General theory - which is Einstein's proper physics.
But the Establishment is into revising history of physics, and you have to dig
back to older texts on physics to find out what they are really doing. In more
modern revised versions of physics, you don't find this account above. Instead
you get some myth about them still following Einstein's 'original General
Relativity.' If you look at things like Britannica
printed 1971 vol. 20 p 1074 you find an account where it states that Einstein's
General Relativity has been revised:
"... For, according to the Heisenberg relations [of Quantum theory], it is
not possible to measure the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously
and precisely. On the other hand, if the gravitational field of the body can be
measured, the General Theory permits just that. Thus, the General Theory must be
modified to make it consistent with quantum theory......"
If you read more modern REVISED versions of physics history, it does NOT
tell you that Einstein's General Relativity, as taught physics students, has
The Establishment suppresses the ‘Original Einstein’ in favour of the
A similar situation occurred after Newton, where the Science Establishment
suppressed one point of view in favour of another point of view. There was a
fight between believers in the wave theory of light and the particle theory of
light. The wave theory of light was suppressed for over a century. The reason
given by Electromagnetic: History and Applications by Robert S Elliott p 10:
"... Although neither theory [wave and particle theories of light] were
adequate, the esteem in which Newton was held by his contemporaries and
followers was so great that the wave theory was rejected and allowed to
remain unnourished for over a century. If the fact that Newton found the
corpuscular hypothesis more acceptable retarded the growth of the theory of
light, as some have claimed, the fault lay with those who blindly espoused all
History repeats itself, and the Science Establishment once again upholds one
point of view, while suppressing the other point of view.
But now has made the situation far more complicated with its revision made to
Einstein’s theory. It leads to Establishment defending a version of Einstein
that has been revised, and disguised this by presenting a fictional version of
history taught to physics students.
Thus those who believe the fictional version of history are then deceived into
thinking that they defend the 'original Einstein' when they are in fact
defending a 'revised Einstein.'
Similarly the opposition to Establishment physics are often unaware of the
revision to physics history. Thus one of the fights between the two factions in
physics, when it comes to Einstein, is over a strawman that NEVER existed.
This is one the many diversions from the real issues in physics still being
played out, so as to ensure the UFO Mystery stays unsolvable.
3.2 Einstein’s theories misunderstood
The word ‘relativity’ in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, and
General Theory of Relativity, diverts the student from what the theories really
David Bodanis, in his book E = mc2, tells us:
"Einstein never especially liked the label relativity for what he’d
created. He thought it gave the wrong impression, suggesting that anything goes:
that no exact results any longer occur. That’s not so. The predictions are
"The label is also misleading because all Einstein’s equations are
cohesive and exactly linked up. Although each of us might view things in the
universe differently, there will be enough synchronisation where these different
views join to ensure that it all fits. The old notions that mass never changes
and that time flows at the same rate for everyone made sense when people only
noticed the ordinary, slow - moving objects around them. In the wider universe,
however, they’re not correct - but there are exact laws to explain how they
"..Einstein never used the phrase ‘theory of relativity’ in his
original 1905 paper; this was only suggested by Planck and others a year later.
The name he really liked came from Minkowski, in 1908, who referred, accurately,
to Einstein’s "Invariant Postulates". If that had been taken, we’d
talk about Albert Einstein and his famous "theory of invariants". But
by the time there was a wider move to make such a change, in the 1920s, the
original, unwanted label had stuck." 
"........"The meaning of relativity has been widely
misunderstood," Einstein explained in 1929. "Philosophers play with
the word, like a child with a doll.... It [relativity] does not mean that
everything in life is relative. Einstein was misinterpreted, in large part,
because many people were ready to misinterpret him." 
Einstein’s theories of Relativity, is not about everything being relative,
which would make it Relativism, rather it is about how different observers have
different perceptions of the same thing, an idea that ties in with Ancient
Mysticism’s idea about the Absolute, of Unity etc.
 E = mc2, David Bodanis, Macmillan, UK 2000 p 84
 p 84
 p 258
 p 258 - 9
4. Newton- Boscovich Research programme
Newton set in place a research programme that led to Boscovich’s theory (a
theory that unified Relativity and Quantum Ideas in its own version of physics).
It is another part of History that the Science Community chooses to ignore,
because it does not want to believe in a Unified Theory any more.
In the A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee tells
"...In Query 31 of Opticks, he [Newton] set forth a research programme to
uncover the forces that govern the interactions of the minute parts of bodies.
Newton expressed the hope that the study of short-range forces would achieve an
integration of physico - chemical phenomena such as changes of state, solution,
and the formation of compounds, in much the same way as the principle of
universal gravitation had achieved the integration of terrestrial and celestial
dynamics. Subsequently, Newton’s research programme received theoretical
development from Boscovich and Mossotti, and practical implementation in the
electromagnetic researches of Faraday and the various attempts to measure the
elective affinities of the chemical elements."
Here the queries left by Newton in his book Opticks is seen as a research
programme. This research programme was Newton- Boscovichian and was what many
scientists were using up to circa 1920s. After the Physics Revolution, the
Boscovich bit was dropped, leaving Newton theory defined with its queries
becoming its assumptions and the Modern Physics as taking a different stance to
that Newton theory.
The theory Newton- Boscovich disappeared. Parts of Boscovich’s theory were
used in Modern Physics and other parts were not used.
The progression of Newton theory to Boscovich theory - call this History 1
Under the belief of Modern Physics, Newton theory was redefined, without the
Boscovich tag-on, and it was made to appear as a Revolution against Newton from
1919. - call this History 2.
Thus some books will describe Newton’s queries as his assumptions i.e. those
believing History 2, and other books describe it as research programme that
would be History 1.
In History 1, Physics is unified, but in History 2 physics is not.
Many mavericks opposed to mainstream physics go back to working from Newton, and
whether they are aware of it or not they are often rediscovering the physics of
Boscovich, as per Newton’s Research programme.
The response of the Mainstream is to try to debunk the mavericks. And this
concerted attack against the mavericks has destroyed a proper account of their
History 1, leading them to keep going over the same old theoretical groundwork
which was covered in the 18th century by Boscovich.
 A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee, Oxford
University Press, UK 1993, p 98. The role of Newton’s research programme in
18th century science has been discussed by A Thackray in Atoms and Powers
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970).
5.1 The Split between Classical (Newtonian) and Modern (QM) Physics
When Newton came up with his theory of gravity, it had the problem of how did
the force of gravity operate over empty space, this was called Action at a
distance (AAD), it was conceived that there was a hidden mechanism at work.
Berkeley criticised this as an ‘occult’ force (occult meaning hidden). The
usual mechanism was conceived as waves through a medium, or as particles
(Newton’s term 'corpuscles'). There were lots of mediums conceived for
different waves, light was conceived by some as waves on a medium called the
‘'luminous ether.’ The Newtonian Research Program was set up to investigate
this and other questions that Newton in his day did not know the answer to.
Maxwell established some of the characteristics of the light medium, and SR was
based in part on Maxwell’s theory. Under the conditions of Michelson Morley
experiment, this theory Maxwell and SR predict that no aether drift will be
detected, i.e. it is a property of this aether.
The Physics Community however decided that the absence of aether drift in the
Michelson Morley experiment proved that the aether did not exist. This was
despite Maxwell basing his theory on the existence of aether, and Einstein
claiming that the aether existed.
After deciding that the aether did not exist, the Physics Community then dropped
Maxwell’s description of the aether from his theory of electromagnetism, and
taught that theory ever afterwards without mention of the aether. Einstein who
claimed that the aether existed, was cited as proving the aether did exist
through his theory SR, and was then often misquoted as saying the aether did not
1. Maxwell who was establishing the existence of the aether, had his theory
amended to claim the opposite of his intentions.
2. Einstein was misquoted to cover up the fact that he was saying the opposite
of what the students are expected to believe about Relativity.
In this manner the history of Physics is falsified: The Physics Community wants
its students to believe its heroes such as Maxwell and Einstein were saying the
opposite to what they were really saying.
i.e. Modern Physics requires the rewrite of its history to make it consistent
with what it wants Modern Physicists to believe.
This falsification of its History spreads out in ever increasing amounts from
In GR it is established that space itself has some of the properties of what was
assigned to the aether: space is supposed to curve under gravity etc., so is
acting in a sense like a substance.
What one thinks is ‘empty space’ is not really ‘empty’, instead it
really acts like a ‘medium.’ Nothing has happened in Physics to establish
anything else. Unfortunately, what has happened is that the concept of ‘empty
space’ has be retained and the concept of ‘aether/medium’ has been
dropped. It was probably by the use of Occam’s Razor that the concept of
‘aether’ was seen as superfluous, and then deleted from the accepted terms
to be talked about in Modern Physics, leaving just the term ’empty space.’
This would be acceptable, if it was emphasised that ‘empty space’ was not
really ‘empty’ and was acting instead as a medium/aether. But this is often
not emphasised. And the concept that most people are left with is that such a
thing as ‘empty’ - complete absence of any type of substance can exist, when
in fact the ideal of ‘emptiness’ is now by GR etc., impossible. Space, time,
energy, matter etc., become intermingled so closely that one cannot talk of
‘space’ divorced from energy, matter etc. In other words there is always a
‘medium’ in existence even in what we might think to be emptiness.
If a person thinks of the ideal of ‘empty space’ (i.e. as complete
nothingness ) as existing, then he can be led into numerous errors. For instance
he can be led into failing to recognise that ‘Quantum Tunnelling’ is the
same as ‘ Resonance’.
When we usually think of ‘Quantum Tunnelling’, we think of a particle at one
side of a potential barrier able to penetrate that barrier to get to the other
side, despite Classical Physics saying that the particle does not have enough
energy to do that.
There is however another way of describing this phenomenon, when we remember the
wave- particle duality nature: a particle can behave like a wave, and vice
versa. So, we can also describe this phenomenon by a wave able to get from one
side of the barrier to the other. And when we think of waves in Classical
Physics, we naturally think of Resonance.
In early physics text books ‘Quantum Tunnelling’ was also known as
‘Resonance’, but in later books calling it ‘Resonance’ was dropped.
Resonance is a well understood effect in Classical physics. The usual example of
Resonance is to think about is a skilled singer maintaining a certain musical
note that shatters a glass.
This phenomenon of resonance occurs for all types of classical waves. In the
case of a wave on one side of a barrier, a classical description suggests that
resonance creates a wave on the other side of the barrier. And further in
classical physics the transfer of the energy would happen through a medium.
Calling the phenomenon ‘Resonance’ instead of ‘Quantum Tunnelling’, then
suggests that Classical Wave theory can explain the phenomenon, contrary to what
we are supposed to believe.
Now, QM has the description of a Probability wave, where there are particles,
but how the particles move is described by a wave that gives the probability of
the positions and momenta of particles subject to Heisenberg Uncertainty. Max
Born received a Nobel Prize for this description, but admitted that it was
philosophy and not physics. What Born means by this is that the description of
Probability wave was not proven. The description of probability wave was deemed
necessary to make sense of the description that QM in the 1920s was developing,
but it was a description that could not be proved through experiment. Given that
QM probability wave description need not be true, we then have licence to think
that the classical wave description might be true. Before QM, the classical wave
description would still have been the Mainstream belief of what waves were, and
no experiment has ever proved since that such a description is wrong.
This enables us to do the following, namely create two different descriptions of
QM. The first based on probability waves, as normal, and the other based on a
more classical understanding. Call the first version QM1 and the second QM2. The
main difference between the two theories is that the first theory takes the
stance ‘no aether’ and the second theory takes the stance ‘aether
exists.’ The Mainstream version of QM is QM1, but there is talk of a medium
-like substance from some theorisers of that theory, so the difference between
QM1 and QM2 is not too vast.
Einstein claimed that QM was wrong, or at best incomplete. The version of QM he
was talking about was QM1. It seems to me, that add ‘aether’ to QM1 making
it nearer to QM2, and Einstein would have been more willing to accept it. Just
adding ‘aether’ to QM1 does not immediately change it into QM2; other things
would also need amending, but adding the ‘aether’ concept goes a long way in
making the step to QM2.
The followers of QM1 have been corrupting physics, first by their need to
falsify history, because their heroes (Maxwell, Einstein et al) do not agree
with what they want their heroes to say. But second because the ‘roots’ of
QM come from classical physics via the Newtonian Research Program, and it
involves the deleting of classical concepts such as ‘aether,’ which the QM1
perspective has deemed obsolete.
The QM1 approach to physics seems to be heavily based on the use of Occam’s
Razor. First use of the Razor was to erroneously deem that the concept of
‘aether’ was obsolete, and then delete that term, leaving only the term
‘empty space.’ It would have been more appropriate to have deleted the term
‘empty space’ and left instead ‘aether’, to avoid the erroneous idea
that space of ‘absolute nothingness’ can exist. But this was not done.
When first the idea of ‘Quantum Tunnelling’ was introduced to the Physics
Community, it was also known by the name ‘Resonance.’ This was probably done
to try to help the old generation of physicists following Newtonian physics
accept the new way of thinking about things through the new physics of QM1. When
told the relevant phenomenon was ‘Quantum Tunnelling,' it would not have made
much sense to the older generation still thinking in Newtonian terms. But when
told it was really ‘Resonance,’ they could ignore QM1 and continue to think
of it in their usual Newtonian description. However, as time passed then
Occam’s Razor came into effect once again, and calling the same effect by two
different names was deemed unnecessary, meaning the old term ‘Resonance’ was
then cut from what was being taught the next generation.
In this manner the followers of QM1 have been continuing to use their Razor, and
slowly deleting the connections of their physics to its classical ‘roots’,
making physics a more and more disunified description of nature.
A brief look at Modern Physics under its QM1 description reveals that phenomenon
that would be described simply by QM2 as due to aether, has instead from the QM1
perspective been inventing numerous new terminologies, calling things quantum
‘this’ and quantum ‘that.’
A study of how Modern Physics came about, reveals that it arose from a change
in Philosophy. Physics before 1920s (classical) was based on a different
philosophy from that used after 1920s (Modern Physics - QM1). There is talk of
thirty years that revolutionised physics: the Quantum Revolution; what it really
was about was a change in the Philosophy of Science.
Up until the 1920s Classical Physics as per the Newtonian Research Program was
based upon the acceptance of numerous concepts such as the aether, which were
not directly proven to exist from any experiments. Indeed the research program
was set up to find these experimentally unproven concepts. Maxwell was following
that research program, so for him he was discovering the properties of the
aether which he already assumed existed. He was not working from an assumption
of ‘no aether’, looking for proof of aether. He was operating from the
opposite way round to the philosophy of science developed after the Quantum
The Philosophy of QM1 was the fairly newly developed Logical Positivism. The
pure philosophers of Logical Positivism eventually were discredited, because
their philosophy was a proven failure: it led to contradictions. (Like QM1 leads
to contradictions, that its followers do their best to ignore.) However, the
philosophy of Logical Positivism lived on in Modern Physics, because it was a
radical form of Empiricism. The Sciences like to pride themselves as being
Empirical, i.e. the acceptance of concepts that can be directly proven by
experiment. And with Logical Positivism, many scientists found what it thought
was its natural bedfellow. But two things went wrong:
1. Logical Positivism does not work
2. The over zealous use of Occam’s Razor meant the deletion of the wrong
concepts from Modern Physics
The End result of all this was the creation of a ‘false’ physics. The
correct approach to physics was initiated by Galileo, based on a different
philosophy. When Galileo followed the Copernican sun -centred theory, the Church
allowed Galileo leeway so long as he only said that it was a ‘working
hypothesis’. When Galileo tried to claim that the theory was more than a
‘working hypothesis’ and was in fact true, he ran foul of the Church who
accused him of spreading falsehoods. (The Church also seems to have other upsets
with Galileo e.g. that they thought he had insulted the Pope etc.)
made the major step of his gravitation theory based on the work of Galileo, he
then set up the Newtonian Research Program for questions that he did not have
the answers to; so the physics was still little more really than a ‘working
hypothesis’ in the hands of Newton. In classical physics therefore there exist
things that one assumes to exist, without experimental proof to back up those
assumptions, and one then proceeds to try to discover those ‘things.’ In the
1920s philosophical revolution, this approach was reversed, and ‘things’ not
yet proven by experiment were assumed not to exist. Hence the big break between
Classical and Quantum Physics. In other words what has become Modern Physics is
based on a complete failure to understand what Physics is properly about.
As Modern Physicists strive to find the unification of their concepts. One needs
merely to look back in Physics History to the Newtonian Research Program, and
discover that the working hypothesis that Newton’s Queries led to was
Boscovich was an 18th century genius that was recognised on the Continent as the
successor to Newton, and was cited as being in the top 12 physicists up until
the Quantum Revolution. After the Quantum Revolution he was deemed redundant by
Occam’s Razor and deleted as have many other things have been.
It was the investigation of Boscovich’s theory that led to QM, Electromagnetic
theory and Relativity:
1. Thomson based his model of the atom on Boscovich, and Bohr’s model of the
Atom came from Thomson, which in turn led to many of the ideas of QM.
2. Maxwell based his investigation of Electromagnetism on Boscovich.
3. The mathematicians development of non Euclidean geometry, was partially
because Boscovich’s theory deemed that such a geometry was necessary. Einstein
then used that maths in his theory of GR.
The main strands of Modern Physics come from Boscovich via the Newtonian
Research program, with roots back to Newton and Galileo. But in the 1920s the
philosophy of Physics changed, and the unified part of that physics description
was deleted by the over zealous use of Occam’s Razor. Leaving Modern
Physicists trying to reunify physics along a path that they do not realise
ultimately comes back to Boscovich’s theory.
5.2 Max Born on the Ether
Clerk Maxwell created his electromagnetic theory based on the belief that the
Ether existed. Max Born was one of the creators of Modern Physics, and
reinterpreted what Maxwell was saying for a future generation of physicists.
Born also reinterpreted what the mission of the Physics Community was.
Max Born was a Nobel Laureate, who was deeply involved in the Quantum Physics
Revolution. One of his books The Restless Universe, is described as:
"... a Nobel Laureate takes you step by step through modern developments in
our understanding of molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and nuclear physics,
providing his own remarkable insights and expressing matters normally considered
too technical for all except the specialist, not only clearly but also graceful
and in the language of intelligent laymen."
Modern Physics comes through the work of people like Max Born, and his word
cannot be easily dismissed by a person who claims to be a follower of Modern
Physics. On p 115 he considers electromagnetic waves (light), and asks:
"The question is, what is vibrating?"
He then continues:
"This question led physicists to assume the existence of the ether. A
hundred years ago the ether was regarded as an elastic body, something like a
jelly, but much stiffer and lighter, so that it could vibrate extremely rapidly.
But a great many phenomena, culminating in the Michelson experiment and the
theory of relativity, showed that the ether must be something very different
from ordinary terrestrial substances."
Note: He does not say that the ‘ether does not exist’, merely that it must
have strange properties. He continues:
"Now an ether is also required for electricity and magnetism; for these
phenomena can also travel through a vacuum. Formerly physicist had no hesitation
in filling space with all manner of different ethers. But the urge to
unification of the concept of the universe, is a powerful spur to research,
forbade them to be content with this. Faraday’s experiments led Maxwell to the
idea that light is just a vibration of electromagnetic force."
Now, Maxwell in his books A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism discusses the
medium /ether of light in great detail and concludes vol. II on the last page
with the medium/ether of light being an important hypothesis for further
investigation: ( p 493)
"......the question naturally occurs - If something is transmitted from one
particle to another at a distance, what is its condition after it has left the
one particle and before it has reached the other? If this something is the
potential energy of the two particles, as in Neumann’s theory, how are we to
conceive this energy as existing in a point of space, coinciding neither with
the one particle nor with the other? In fact, whenever energy is transmitted
from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which
the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, for
energy, as Torricelli remarked, ‘is a quintessence of so subtile a nature that
it cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost substance of material
things.’ Hence all these theories lead to the conception of a medium in which
the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an hypotheses, I
think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our investigations, and we ought
to endeavour to construct a mental representation of all the details of action,
and this has been my constant aim in this treatise."
Maxwell stated his aim and the representation of his electromagnetic theory is
that of an ether/ Medium. This is not how Born describes it, he says:
"......led Maxwell to the idea that light is just a vibration of
electromagnetic force." So, Born is giving his interpretation of
Maxwell’s theory, and not using Maxwell’s descriptive words. To make sense
and consistency of Maxwell’s ideas with Born’s, it means that through Born
the idea of ether evolves into ‘light as a vibration of electromagnetic
force’ : Born and Maxwell merely have two different ways of talking about the
(Side note: Einstein’s Special Relativity was derived from looking at
Maxwell’s theory. Einstein’s theory describes the results of the Michelson
Morley experiment. So, the ether that Maxwell is constructing is consistent with
that experiment, let us call that ‘Ether 1’. If an ether is defined that has
ether drift, call it ‘Ether 2’ with the Michelson Experiment requiring to
confirm that drift then that ether was failed to be proven to exist. i.e. if we
believe the Michelson experiment's results then ‘Ether 2’ does not exist.
But ‘Ether 1’ as per Maxwell is still obeying the experiment’s results.)
If one likes then one could think of Maxwell's description and Born’s
description of electromagnetic waves, as being two different theories.
Born describes what happens when there are two different theories for the same
phenomena: (Restless Universe p 139 - 140)
"Many people say that the only use of a theory is to spur on the
investigator to fresh researches. I am not of this opinion. As I have already
emphasised repeatedly, no experiment has any meaning at all unless it is
interpreted by ‘the theory.’ I do not say ‘a theory’, but ‘the
theory’. For it is only to onlookers that contradictory theories appear to
contend with one another and to have their spells of authority. Granted, this
contradiction often appears to occur; but this is only due to the fact that, at
the moment, the facts are not sufficient to permit a definite decision. So long
as this is so, both theories are really equally justifiable, and so far as the
realm of observable phenomena is concerned they are just different forms of the
same theory. The mathematician says that one can be "transformed" into
Applying this to Maxwell’s description of electromagnetism and Born’s
description of electromagnetism, they are both the same 'essential theory’
because they are both based on the same mathematics, namely the mathematics that
Maxwell derived in his Treatise.
Born continues and takes his own example of ‘two theories describing the same
phenomena,’ and they just happen to be two different descriptions of
electromagnetism (again), this time ‘ether’ theory (which can be taken to be
Ether 1 defined above) and Action at a distance (AAD):
"As an example we may take the dispute over the question whether electrical
force act at a distance (AAD) or through a medium. At the beginning of the
nineteenth century most physicists, particularly on the Continent, asserted that
the electric force acts through empty space between two charges: AAD. Faraday,
however, developed the idea that the electric field is due to something which
happens in the space between the charges (‘action through a medium.’)"
Now, hold on a moment. I have read accounts that talk of AAD and medium/ether
theory in different ways to this, particularly when I have been reading the
biographies of Newton’s thoughts on this matter. One problem is that there is
no real way to label people as ‘this’ or ‘that.’ If person 1 believes in
idea A, he might be in agreement with another person, but ‘they’ might both
have different names for the same idea. Whereas a third person might have idea B
and being calling it by the same name as person 1 uses for idea A. This results
in major confusion, and breakdown in communication. All of this confusion
happens in a specific country, and also happens on a larger scale breaking down
So, what Born is saying is a generalisation, whereby those physicists on the
Continent tended to think one way, namely to AAD, and the physicists in Britain
tended to follow Faraday as per the ‘ether/medium.’ But ‘things’ in
reality, were probably never that simple, with divisions in the British
physicists etc. However, accepting Born’s generalisation, and letting him
continue, he says:
"The controversy over this question was a bitter one, as always happens
with matters which cannot be settled once and for all."
i.e. the pro- AAD believers were in bitter conflict with the pro-Ether
And the big question is who was right? Born answers:
"For the mathematicians proved beyond any doubt that both representations
are exactly equivalent and must always give the same results."
A ‘Big Fight’ over who was right, and result was a ‘Big let down’! Both
descriptions were describing the same phenomena.
So, what we have is: AAD description = Ether description = vibration of e-m
There can be any number of different descriptive theories of the same phenomena,
which are mathematically equivalent, and hence are ‘essentially’ the same
In further reading of Born, (in other books) I think I remember him referring to
the Ether as a ‘mathematical convenience.' What that means, I am not precisely
sure. But if Ether is a mathematical convenience, then one might as well say
that AAD and ‘vibration of e-m force’ are all mathematical conveniences as
well. They are all different descriptions of the same thing. AAD exists, Ether
exists and they are the same thing.
It seems that Mainstream Physics imposes the restriction that one cannot use the
Ether description, and wants everyone to use the AAD description. (I find this
restriction to be the result of a deviant philosophy called Logical Positivism.)
This does not make sense to me, the Ether description is more visualisable than
the AAD description as to what is happening. The AAD description is still really
using a mechanism of medium to carry a force, except that the mechanism is
hidden - not directly seen, and not allowed to be talked about. Hence AAD
description is unnecessary difficult to come to terms with.
If one talks of Ether then it is equally as valid as the AAD description.
Considering Theories in Conflict:
When there are two descriptive theories based on the same mathematics, then
neither of these theories can be said to be better than the other. What is
required is for progress is two theories predicting different results, and
testing which prediction conforms to experiment. The theory that fails the test,
can then be discarded.
In the case of the Ether. One could define Ether as Ether 2 and then claim that
it predicts aether drift in the Michelson Experiment, but fails the test, and is
to then be discarded. But Etherr can also be defined as consistent with
Maxwell’s theory: Ether 1 as per Maxwell, ands that version of Ether has not
It seems that Mainstream Physics has decided that Ether Theory should be defined
as Ether 2, and discarded the Ether Theory entirely from its description, which
takes with it Ether 1.
But the theory that is left : AAD still has a hidden Ether mechanism, that one
is not allowed to talk about if one wants to be considered as part of the
Mainstream Physics Community. And that Ether seems to be Ether 1.
This is a ridiculous state of affairs to be in. It is a historical accident that
the full descriptive terminology that goes along with AAD theory has been thrown
away, because of this false belief that all Ethers have been disproved.
Born talks about theories in conflict:
"It often happens that a theory has astonishing results, namely, it can
predict quite new phenomena, of which the experimenter would never have thought.
The theoretical physicist must also consider the possibility of improving and
refining the still incomplete and ambiguous theory. This ‘refinement’ is a
curious thing: in actual fact, a sort of aesthetic feeling plays no small part
in the deliberations of the theoretical physicist. Thus, for anyone who has a
command of mathematics, Einstein’s theory of relativity seems more complete
and satisfying, intellectually, and so more beautiful, than Newton’s
mechanics. I believe that this feeling arises from the removal of an
arbitrariness and ambiguity in the older ideas, which were felt a disturbing
Let me point out, something important - the existing theory can be amended.
A theory can be ambiguous. If one looks at Newton’s theory; what Newton wrote
in the Principia and the Opticks, along with ‘things’ that he could
precisely talk about, there are ambiguities. Newton did not know what speed
light was, and many other things. He admitted in his Queries at the end of his
last book. Newton did not know how light would behave under gravity. When the
1919 astronomical observation of straight bending under the sun’s gravity was
made by Eddington, presumably Newton’s theory could still have been amended to
fit in with that new observation. But that did not happen, instead Einstein was
proclaimed as having a new theory replacing Newton’s.
This creation of two different theories, is an entirely arbitrary process. If
the existing theory is ambiguous in a certain area, then what can happen is:
1. A new phenomenon happens and existing theory has to be amended.
2. The existing theory is defined in a certain way, and a new theory can be
created to predict the opposite in that area. There is then a test made between
these two theories, and one is declared the winner.
In the scenario of case 1, the existing theory can survive seemingly forever.
While scenario 2 seems to be about a ‘select group’ of scientists deciding
to define the existing theory in such a way, that a new theory can be created to
predict differently. It seems not possible for an outsider to suddenly make a
break through to prove the existing theory wrong, if he does not have agreement
with this ‘select group’ that the existing theory will be defined one way,
and his theory allowed to be defined the other way. Without the consent of the
‘select group’, the existing theory can always be amended to meet any new
discoveries, and exclude the outsider who might have been making prior claims
for a lot longer.
The theories in conflict seem to be a bit of a Con. The contest seems
But there is an added problem when it comes to Ether 1 theory and AAD theory.
Granted that AAD has a hidden Ether mechanism, which is Ether 2. This mechanism
one is not allowed to talk about; it has been swept under the carpet. Ether is
not supposed to exist, so one is not allowed to talk about it. It is a Catch 22
1. One is not allowed to talk about Ether 2 theory, because it is supposed to
have been disproved. i.e. one cannot readily get papers on Ether 2 theory
published in reportable science journals. One cannot start theorising about this
theory. Because Ether is supposed to have been proven not to exist, the journals
discard such theorising as crackpot.
2. One cannot get experiments using Ether descriptions published in science
journals, one is supposed to use the existing terminology of the accepted
The theory that one could construct to be in conflict with AAD, one is not
allowed to talk about, and one is not allowed to talk about experiments in terms
of that theory. AAD bans any one being allowed to try to get a better
description into the Mainstream Physics Community. Everything has been defined
in the Physics Community to oppose any different description from the flawed one
that the orthodoxy they have set up.
5.3 Ether as metaphor
Dr Roger Jones has a PhD in Physics has worked in high energy physics in Italy
and Brookhaven National Laboratory, then in 1967 went into teaching.
In his book Physics as Metaphor, 1983, after talking about mass as inertia he
moves on to gravity and GR. On p 138 he says:
1. "We first equated mass with inertia and then inertia with geometry in
the relativity metaphor. There is a profound and irreducible confusion between
mass in space and mass as space. Space is inseparable from its mass content, and
we no longer have a description of space as empty. Space is substance; substance
is space. The old idea of a luminiferous ether, long ago rejected by the
triumphs of relativity theory, has returned to haunt us once again. The ether,
although never detected, had been assumed to permeate the whole universe, like a
kind of extremely rarefied transparent fluid, to explain how light could travel
The next bit he gets wrong and says:
2. "But Einstein had explained the behaviour of light without the
assumption of ether, and it had been tossed into the waste bin of theoretical
If one checks Einstein then one finds that Einstein still talks about ether in
terms like (1), so did not throw away ether. It was merely the rest of the
Physics community that threw away ether.
Roger Jones continues:
"Now it seems that space itself is like a material substance whose curved
geometry describes for us its grain and contour, or perhaps its blood vessels
"Of course, there is a marked difference between the case of the
luminiferous ether. The spacetime substance of general relativity is highly
abstract and mathematical, not a material substance at all."
May be Jones means that this ‘new ether’ : ‘spacetime substance’ is a
"But then all of modern theoretical physics seem to consist of mathematical
abstractions whose only connection with concrete reality is numerical
If this ‘new ether’ is a ‘mathematical convenience, then may be all (or
most) of the main concepts of modern theoretical physics are ‘mathematical
He continues by explaining what is meant by ‘mathematical abstraction’:
"The predicted numbers may be verified by following certain empirical
procedures that are tacked on to the laws. In effect the laws say, "Do not
ask what the symbols in my equation mean, but if you perform the measurements I
prescribe, your answers will confirm my predictions." The whole universe is
like a black box with dials and meters on its outside. We have found some
equations that can predict the meter readings, but what connection these
equations might have to the unobservable contents of the box remains a mystery.
Our modern spacetime ether is but a mathematical artifice, a model for thinking
about and describing the world, but having nothing to do with physical
So, one can talk about ‘spacetime ether’ and it has maths associated with it
that describes a feature of physical reality, but he says it does not describe
physical reality. One wonders how he deduces such an absurdity. But he
"In fact, there’s a serious question as to whether physics describes
So, in rejecting ‘ether’ as being physical, he recognises that all of
physics is probably not really about physics. Earlier he was saying that mass as
substance is unphysical. Most people accept mass as substance, so they may as
well accept the rest of the unphysical parts of modern physics. In trying to
reject ideas, physics just goes round in circles. In trying to reject
‘ether’ it has to eventually reject all of itself.
Hence modern physics is wrong. If Physics is not actually dealing with the
subject of physics, then it is wrong. By trying to reject ‘ether’ what we
get is ‘not physics’ and my personal preference is to call this things that
pretends to be physics: a ‘pseudo religion.’
5.4 Maxwell supports Ether
Modern Physics seem to try to imply that Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, is
not based upon the Ether. But if you check Maxwell, what he says is actually
supporting the existence of the Ether.
In A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism vol. II James Maxwell concludes on
the last page in favour of the Ether:
".....whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in time,
there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists after it leaves
one body and before it reaches the other, for energy, as Torricelli remarked,
‘is a quintessence of so subtle a nature that it cannot be contained in any
vessel except the inmost substance of material things.’ Hence all these
theories lead to the conception of a medium in which the propagation takes
place, and if we admit this medium as an hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy
a prominent place in our investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to
construct a mental representation of all the details of its action, and this has
been my constant aim in this treatise."
If you are interested in the lead-up to Maxwell’s conclusion it is as follows:
"There appears to be, in the minds of these eminent men, some prejudice, or
a priori objection, against the hypothesis of a medium in which the phenomena of
radiation of light and heat and the electric actions at a distance take place.
It is true that at one time those who speculated as to the causes of physical
phenomena were in the habit of accounting for each kind of action at a distance
by means of a special aethereal fluid, whose function and property it was to
produce these actions. They filled all space three and four times over with
aethers of different kinds, the properties of which were invented merely to ‘
save appearances’, so that more rational enquirers were willing rather to
accept not only Newton’s definite law of attraction at a distance, but even
the dogma of Cotes, that action at a distance is one of the primary properties
of matter, and that no explanation can be more intelligible than this fact.
Hence the undulatory theory of light has met with much opposition, directed not
against its failure to explain the phenomena, but against the assumption of the
existence of a medium in which light is propagated."
"We have seen that the mathematical expressions for electrodynamic action
led, in the mind of Gauss, to the conviction that a theory of the propagation of
electric action in time would be found to be the very keystone of
electrodynamics. Now we are unable to conceive of propagation in time, except
either as the flight of a material substance through space, or as the
propagation of a condition of motion or stress in a medium already existing in
space. In the theory of Neumann, the mathematical conception called Potential,
which we are unable to conceive as a material substance, is supposed to be
projected from one particle to another, in a manner which is quite independent
of a medium, and which, as Neumann has himself pointed out, is extremely
different from the propagation of light. In the theories of Riemann and Betti it
would appear that the action is supposed to be propagated in a manner somewhat
more similar to light."
"But in all of these theories the question naturally occurs:- If something
is transmitted from one particle to another at a distance, what is its condition
after it has left the one particle and before it has reached the other? If this
something is the potential energy of the two particles, as in Neumann’s
theory, how are we to conceive this energy as existing in a point of space,
coinciding neither with the one particle nor with the other? In fact, whenever
energy is transmitted from one body to another in time, there must be a medium
or substance in which the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it
reaches the other, for energy, as Torricelli remarked, ‘is a quintessence of
so subtle a nature that it cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost
substance of material things.’ Hence all these theories lead to the conception
of a medium in which the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as
an hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our
investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to construct a mental
representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my constant
aim in this treatise."
Maxwell’s statement that "There appears to be, in the minds of these
eminent men, some prejudice, or a priori objection, against the hypothesis of a
medium...." is most enlightening ‘these eminent men’ with their
‘prejudice’ see it as their duty to ignore any evidence that they are wrong,
and hence when they get their greasy little hands on science they corrupt it.
They start asking for evidence that Ether exists if they are to believe in it,
and ignore that Ether is required to make sense of the physical theories created
by the ‘greats’ such as Maxwell.
My further researches lead me to find that these 'eminent men’ who take upon
themselves the task of ignoring anything that contradicts their cherished
beliefs, follow what is called Scientism. And Scientism is well known by some
people as a corruption of Science that is really a ‘pseudo religion.’ With
so many ‘eminent men’ following their religion of Scientism and pretending
it to be Science, it is little wonder that the world is in a very ‘sorry
state’ of affairs.
5.5 Occam’s Razor and the Ether
If we have a theory call it X and an idea call it A, then let:
Theory Y = theory X plus the idea A
and theory Z = theory X minus the idea A.
If we put this as simple algebra, then Y= X + A, and Z = X- A.
Now if Y = Z, then
X + A = X - A
X - X = 2A
0 = 2A
A then equals zero. If we say that A is then redundant, we are forgetting that
Occam’s Razor is about deleting ideas that are unnecessary. In this case
above, if we are careless then we can end up cutting away the idea of
‘zero’, because of thinking of it as ‘nothing’ we then erroneous think
that it is not needed.
The Romans did not have the number ‘zero’. It was a concept that came to the
West from India. Questions like 1 - 1 + ?, 2 - 2 = ?, 3 - 3 = ?, etc., would not
have an answer in a maths system without zero. Zero is a useful concept. Misuse
of Occam as this example shows, can lead to deleting useful concepts. Our maths
would be the much poorer for using Occam too viciously.
Occam’s Razor fails when dealing with ‘zero’ if we mistake it for
‘nothingness.’ Bear this amazing fact in mind as we proceed further that:
that if we shave too closely with Occam’s Razor then we cut our throat, and
may even chop off our head.
Given a wave; modern physics would have us believe that a wave does not
necessarily move in a medium; especially electromagnetic waves (i.e. light),
unlike sound waves.
So, a wave:
1. moves through a medium, or
2. it does not move through a medium.
A medium = some sort of substance, and ‘no medium’ = ‘no substance.’
If a wave moves in ‘no medium’ then it means that a wave moves in ‘no
substance’ which then means that the wave has no substance. What is then to
stop us thinking that such a wave does not exist?
But we can rethink this and recognise that ‘no substance’ means
‘nothing’, and ‘space’ is supposed to be ‘nothing’. So, that a wave
travelling in ‘no substance’ can mean a wave travelling in ‘space.’
From Einstein (Sidelights in Relativity), space as used in General Relativity
becomes the medium for light. So, for light travelling in a medium, we could say
that ‘space’ becomes the ‘medium’ and stops being ‘nothing’ and
becomes a ‘substance.’ Wave moves in ‘space acting as a medium’, instead
of ‘space = nothing.’ And this is what GR tells us: matter/energy defines
the structure of space, and makes it curve, hence ‘space’ becomes
‘substance’ and in the old terminology would be called ‘aether.’
Definition 1 of a wave becomes valid for all waves: ‘space’ becomes
‘substance’ no longer ‘nothing.’
Occam’s Razor for X- A = X + A could erroneous lead us to forget ‘zero.’
With ‘space’ defined as ‘nothing’, it becomes another failure point of
Occam when dealing with semantics, leading us to definition 2 for some types of
Calling space = medium, emphasises that there is ‘substance’ to ‘space’
and it is not ‘nothingness’.
Calling ‘space’ = ‘nothingness’ leads one to a fallacious use of Occam
in arriving at definition 2, and the deletion of a useful concept
Modern Physics as pursued by some people seems to be based upon a misuse of
Occam, and the deletion of useful concepts, and the adoption of definitions like
that of definition 2, that are less useful.
It is non-trivial the emphasis on definition 1 being better than definition 2,
because it can lead to a greater understanding of physics:
5.7 Quantum Tunnelling and Resonance
6. Boscovich’s Theory the foundation of Quantum Theorising
Technical words have been invented that seek to hide understanding of Physics.
For instance Quantum Tunnelling used to be known as Resonance. The term
Resonance leads one to tie the phenomenon into Classical existing ideas, but
calling the phenomenon Quantum Tunnelling hides the classical connection, and
leads many people to not understand it.
Quantum tunnelling is where a particle on one side of a large potential barrier
can suddenly seem to get through that impenetrable barrier and appear on the
other side of it. Barriers can be such things as potential energy of a nucleus.
Working from supposed classical theory dealing with particles, a particle would
be unable to acquire the energy to penetrate through such barriers. But in QM a
particle can tunnel through a barrier which it does not have sufficient energy
to get through if one works from classical particle theory.
One can think of a particle being on one side (call it side A) of a barrier and
then suddenly appearing on the other side (side B) , QM says it tunnelled
through the barrier without at any time existing in the points between A and B.
According to Physics for the Inquiring Mind, by Eric M Rogers, this Quantum
Tunnelling was at one time also known as Resonance, and says " ........ the
atomic particle that tunnels unexpectedly into a nucleus as it sails by seems to
trade on resonance between its own wavy nature and some natural modes in the
Thinking of the effect as due to Resonance gives a different perspective on
Quantum tunnelling, one thinks instead of a particle, but in terms of a wave.
The vibrations on one object can travel to a neighbouring object, is what the
Resonance Effect is all about, and happens a lot in the world around us. For
instance, a singer’s voice if hitting the right frequencies can cause glass to
vibrate and shatter.
Thinking again of the particle on side A of the barrier seemingly appearing
later on side B, it makes more sense from thinking instead of a ‘particle’
to think of it as a wave. A wave on side A disappearing on side A and creating a
wave on side B. In classical wave theory on the everyday scale the wave travels
through a medium, extrapolating to the subatomic scale, there would not be
anything special there, and the wave would be travelling through a medium:
namely what was once called the aether.
So, we have two descriptions of what happens (1) particle and (2) wave.
Description (1) is an unnatural way to think about it because it requires a
particle to suddenly what is called Quantum Leap between two points without
existing in the intermediate points. While description (2) requires something
like ‘aether’ which some physicists are in denial about accepting existing,
thus trying to force description (1) upon people as the only allowed
What we then have is Modern Physicists thinking of the description as Quantum
tunnelling of a particle magically jumping from one side of a barrier to
another. They have tended to drop calling it a Resonance Effect, which means
dropping the wave description of what is happening. In the wave description, it
is more obvious that what one is dealing with is classical wave theory.
As corruption has occurred from the original ‘message’ from the founders of
QM, (because of the Logical Positivism movement) the description (1) which is
minus the ‘aether’ has been imposed as dogma by many physicists, hence
stunting the development of physics.
In description (2) it would be more natural to think of a particle as being the
amplitude (or peak) of a wave. One cycle of a wave would correspond to one
particle, and in the case of such a thing passing through a barrier, it would be
like a standing wave of one cycle slowly passing through the barrier and
becoming the same standing wave pattern on the other side of the barrier.
When the orbits of electrons was worked out by Thomson, then later by Bohr and
others; what it was originally based upon was Boscovich’s theory, where this
theory was treating the scenario as being like music. Boscovich’s theory is a
Pythagorean theory of physics, and Pythagoras based his description of the
universe as being based upon maths and upon musical harmony (the music of the
spheres etc.). Within this description one has waves that form into standing
patterns around the nucleus, and hence giving the appearance of allowed and
forbidden positions around the nucleus.
If Physics had been developed properly then from description (2) then a
different emphasis would have been placed on what was really meant by
‘particle’. Thus the QM description (1) of ‘particle’ (1), is a
misinterpretation of the proper particle description.
With the continuation of Modern Physics based upon the faulty description of
particle, entailing the denial of ‘aether’, the ‘aether’ still gets
reinvented. As theorists look for unification with the five or so different
versions of 10-D Superstring theory, they introduced an extra 11th dimension,
creating what they call M - theory. The M stands for Membrane. This membrane is
conceived as connecting everything into one unity. Our universe is conceived as
connected to other universes through the membrane. The membrane is just another
reinvention of the ‘aether’. It has however, been built up from an unnatural
beginning, namely description (1), and description (2) would be far better.
Description (1) in denying ‘aether’ is forced to invent numerous terms such
as Quantum Tunnelling, Quantum Leap, Quantum Entanglement etc., to compensate
for this denial, whenever the physics of the ‘aether’ puts in an appearance.
And when it comes to unifying the physics description across macroscopic scale,
microscopic scales etc., the ‘aether’ has to be reintroduced, often as a
In description (2) we can see the effect of what is called Quantum Tunnelling
happening all the time in the world around us: vibrations pass from one object
to another at a condition we call Resonance; glasses break when a certain sound
is made etc.
Werner Heisenberg when he first talks of Quantum Tunnelling calls it Resonance,
in his 1926 paper. (Mentioned in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory,
Werner Heisenberg, p 142.) So, the fault is not with the founders of Modern
Physics, but instead with those who decided to reinterpret since then.
What has been hidden by this reinterpretation is the fact that the
world/universe follows the Pythagorean description of there being music all
Applying this to Mobile phones: A mobile phone for instance is vibrating at a
certain frequency range of electromagnetism, like any other musical device. If
we use a mobile phone too near a land-line telephone then we get a horrible
noise, which we think of as interference, but what is in part happening here is
resonance. Where the phones are transferring their harmonics through Resonance.
This is happening at low frequencies and there should be no great effect on
health from this. But what happens at low frequencies is also happening at
higher frequencies. And in the case of mobile phones, the higher frequency range
is within the microwave bandwidth. As the mobile phone market expands, the
frequencies are being pushed more and more closer to the microwave end. In the
world around us there are many microwave links being used for communication and
used for radar. A person using a mobile phone when getting too near one of these
microwave devices dotted around the landscape, has the Resonance effect then
transmitting those microwaves to him, and thus giving himself a big dose of
cancer inducing radiation.
This radiation does not just cause cancer, because what we are talking about is
damage to the genetic code. Sometimes that damage can cause cancer, on other
times it will cause other damage and create a different illness. Hence this
effect causes a wide range of different illnesses, and only certain users of
mobile phones are at risk, because of where they use their mobile phone, making
the effect seem intermittent and random, because not every user is affected with
illness, and not everyone who gets ill gets the same illness. A simple
statistical test showing all users get one specific illness does not show up
from the data gathered. Also there are many other mechanisms at work now causing
illness in our modern environment. Any electrical device such as television,
computer etc., could potentially cause the same effect if too near microwave
links. We live in an environment with excessive electrical pollution, as well as
chemical pollution and Ozone Hole damage etc etc. It is then very hard to
definitely connect one part of this pollution causing one specific ailment. And
the response of the science community seems to be to ignore, when faced with an
environment with numerous sources causing illnesses. This plays right into the
hands of entrepreneurs who like as few restrictions on the commodities that they
bring out and sell to the general public. They do not want a science community
that tells them ‘hold on a minute this new commodity might cause such and such
a health problem.’ They much prefer a science community that ignores all the
numerous commodities being sold that cause numerous ailments. (see also Mobile
Thomson used Boscovich’s theory to get the ‘allowed’ and ‘forbidden’
orbits of an electron round a nucleus.
Book Reference: Roger Boscovich,S J (1711 - 1787): the forerunner of Modern
Physical Theories, H G Gill, S J, M H Gill and Sons Ltd., Dublin 1941, p 18 -
"Between 1903 and 1906 Thomson gave a course of lectures at the Royal
Institution of London, which were published in the following year under the
title The Corpuscular Theory of Matter. Much work had been done during these
years in investigating the number of electrons in an atom. In the preface of
this work we read :"
"" I give reasons for thinking that the number of corpuscles in an
atom is not greatly in excess of the atomic weight of the element, thus in
particular that the number of corpuscles in an atom of hydrogen is not large
" ( Thomson, The Corpuscular Theory of Matter, Constable : London, 1907, p.
"At this time, then, it had not been established that there is but a single
electron in an atom of hydrogen. It is, however, clear that the evidence was
pointing in that direction. It is also clear that short of contact, the only
stable way in which a single negative electron could be associated with a
positive nucleus is when one revolves about the other in some definite orbit. It
had already been determined that the mass of an electron is only about 1/1800
that of an atom of hydrogen, so that it would be reasonable to conclude that the
electron in an atom of hydrogen is revolving about a nucleus of which the mass
is practically the whole mass of the atom of hydrogen. That there was some such
relation between the atom and the electron was supported by Zeeman's work on the
lines of the spectrum. It is significant that Thomson discusses the case of a
single corpuscle revolving around a positive nucleus. The spectrum of hydrogen
shows many well-defined bright lines, which seemed to demand electrons situated
at certain definite distances from the nucleus. As has been pointed out, since
the charged electron has an acceleration towards the centre of its orbit, it
would move in a spiral path and could at most be supposed to give rise to a
continuous spectrum. It was necessary to introduce into the theory some
hypothesis to account for the restriction of the electron to one or more special
"There was, then, about this time-1906-an effort to devise a theory in
which the electron could only revolve in what we shall call " allowed
" orbits. It may be said at once that no theory has ever yet been devised
in which, according to the recognised laws of electro-dynamics, electrified
particles can be restricted to or excluded from any orbit. J. J. Thomson
deducted his hypothesis directly from the theory and curve of Boscovich, and
showed that the notion of " allowed " and " forbidden "
orbits follows from it, and thus laid the foundations of the theory developed
later by Bohr and others."
The relevant point to Boscovich is:
"...........J. J. Thomson deducted his hypothesis directly from the theory
and curve of Boscovich, and showed that the notion of " allowed " and
" forbidden " orbits follows from it, and thus laid the foundations of
the theory developed later by Bohr and others."
i.e. Bohr and others Quantum Theorising arises from Boscovich’s Theory.
The strange thing to note above is:
"It may be said at once that no theory has ever yet been devised in which,
according to the recognised laws of electro-dynamics, electrified particles can
be restricted to or excluded from any orbit."
But one must bear in mind that Gill’s book was in 1941, and the situation is
now not quite like that.
Back to the main issue: Boscovich’s theory unifies Relativistic and Quantum
ideas. But the theory from Bohr and others, namely Modern Quantum Theory is not
unified with Relativity. So, there is some difference between Modern Quantum
Theory and Boscovich’s Theory, i.e. Modern Quantum Theory does not adopt all
the assumptions of Boscovich’s theory. So, although Boscovich’s theory gave
rise to being developed as Modern Quantum Theory, they are NOT the same theory.
"In all departments of physical science progress is so rapid that theories
put forward to-day are forgotten tomorrow. In the case of all the great
discoveries and theories something remains for all time, even though the
originator be forgotten or passed over. when the history of atomic theory is
being written, it is right that the part played by Father Roger Boscovich should
not be overlooked."
But Boscovich’s theory has been forgotten, it predicted the ‘allowed’ and
‘forbidden’ positions of the electron about the nucleus. Modern Quantum
Theory came later and gets credited with this, but was really only predicting in
retrospect; after the observations were made, and not before the observations
[ Up ] [ einstein2 ] [ einstein3 ] [ einstein4 ] [ einstein5 ]