[ Einstein-conspiracy ] [ Global Warming hoax ] [ Scalar energy ] [ Universal Seduction ] [ Morgan / Bearden ] [ Scientific Dictatorship ] [ Bright skies ] [ Free energy ] [ Geo science ] [ The weather ] [ Suppressed archaeology ] [ Young world ] [ Origins of oil ] [ True geology ]

     Einstein Conspiracy  -- Page 2 -- Page 3 -- Page 4 -- Page 5     

2.14 Tesla

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 with Conspiracy.

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, London), 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: [B20] 

.......[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 Saul says:

..... 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 suppressed.

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:

[1] Cross Currents by Robert O Becker, Jeremy P Tarcher USA p 299

[2] 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.

[3] The View from planet Earth by Vincent Cronin, Collins, UK 1981, p 121

[4] ibid... p 117

[5] Britannica, 1971 UK vol. 20 p 1074

[6] The Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch, Penguin, UK 1997 p 157

[7] Electromagnetic: History and Applications, Robert S Elliott p 10

[8] 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’.

[9] Dealt with in a lot of detail in Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald W Clark, Hodder and Stoughton, UK 1973.

[10] Ronald W Clark p 494

[11] Jung for beginners, Jon Platania, Ph.D., Writers and Readers publishing inc., UK 1997, p 28.

[12] ibid... p 35.

[13] ibid... p 37

[14] ibid... p 40

[15] 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

[16] 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.

[17] Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives edited by Gerald Holton and Yehuda Elkana, Dover USA 1982, p 243-244

[18] Albert Einstein: a biography by Albrecht Folsing, Penguin books, USA, 1998 p 648

[19] ibid... p 695

[20] 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.

[21] Sidelights in Relativity, Albert Einstein, Dover, USA 1922

[22] 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

[23] The Human condition, W Macneile Dixon, Edward Arnold, UK, original 1937, 1964, p 160

[24] Dictionary of Scientific Biography vol. II, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie, Charles Scribner’s Sons, NY 1970 p 326

[25] 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

[26] 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, UK 1995.

[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

[B6] ibid.

[B7] ibid.

[B8] ibid. 

[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 107.

[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 factors.

Its only in the restricted, incomplete theory of relativity that light speed is constant; that theory is Special Relativity, where ‘special’ is referring to the ‘restriction.’

But Modern Science is NOT based on the 'original Einstein' its based on a revision. The Establishment accepted Special Relativity, but did not accept General Relativity.

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 against Einstein.) 

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 been revised.

The Establishment suppresses the ‘Original Einstein’ in favour of the ‘Revised Einstein’.

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 his views..."

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 mean.

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 precise." [1]

"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 change." [2]

"..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." [3]

"........"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." [4]

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.

Reference

[1] E = mc2, David Bodanis, Macmillan, UK 2000 p 84

[2] p 84

[3] p 258

[4] 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 us: [1]

"...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. 

Reference


[1] 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 exist.

In summary: 

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 this point.

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 Revolution.

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.) 

When Newton 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’s theory.

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 same thing.

(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 the other. 

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 between countries. 

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 believers. 

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 force description. 

There can be any number of different descriptive theories of the same phenomena, which are mathematically equivalent, and hence are ‘essentially’ the same theory. 

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 been disproved. 

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 influence."

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 ‘rigged.’

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 scenario:

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 theory. 

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 through space."

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 physics."

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 and sinews."

"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 mathematical convenience?

He continues:

"But then all of modern theoretical physics seem to consist of mathematical abstractions whose only connection with concrete reality is numerical prediction."

If this ‘new ether’ is a ‘mathematical convenience, then may be all (or most) of the main concepts of modern theoretical physics are ‘mathematical conveniences’?

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 reality."

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 continues:

"In fact, there’s a serious question as to whether physics describes anything physical."

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 zero exists. 

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.

5.6 Waves

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 waves. 

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 ‘aether/medium’.

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

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 nucleus...."

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 description.

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 name change. 

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 around us.

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 Phones.)

[ Up ] [ einstein2 ] [ einstein3 ] [ einstein4 ] [ einstein5 ]