INERTIA OR REACTION?
Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998
Research Note: 9/98: October 16, 1998
I am writing this Research Note after reading the September 1998 issue of New
Energy News, the monthly newsletter edited by Dr. Hal Fox on behalf of the
Institute for New Energy of P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158-8639,
In choosing the above title I was tempted to head this Research
Note: 'Reinventing the Wheel', but prudence and the serious nature of the issues
involved overcame that temptation.
There is something odd about the world
of theoretical physics, in that those who seek to advance in that field of
knowledge tend to get in a groove and stumble along, ignoring cracks and
crevices, but always looking downwards in search of new foundations and seldom
looking back at the distant hills to check their bearings.
context I will refer to two items from pp. 7 and 9 in that September issue of
New Energy News.
Firstly, there is the notification that a paper has
issued in Physics Letters A, vol. 240 (1998) pp. 115-126, to which Hal Fox has
assigned the heading 'INERTIA AS A REACTION'. The paper itself is entitled:
'Inertia as Reaction of the Vacuum to Accelerated motion'.
It seems that
the inspection of that furrow in the onward path of 'zero-point' field theory is
telling us something about the equivalence of 'Sakharov's conjecture of a
connection between Einstein action and the vacuum' and this concept, according
to the reported conclusion would: 'if correct, substitute for Mach's principle
and imply that no further mass-giving Higgs-type fields may be required to
explain the inertia of material objects, although extensions to include the
zero-point fields of the other fundamental interactions may be necessary for a
complete theory of inertia.'
In plain English the property of inertia
assigned to any body of matter stems from the individual electrically charged
particles that collectively consitute that body. There is supposed to be
electromagnetic radiation from those particles when the body is accelerated and,
'Lo and Behold' - 'wonder of wonders', the vacuum by its zero-point activity
reacts to feed enough of that energy back to that body, to thereby account for
its inertia. Putting this latter statement in even plainer English, the inertia
of an electric particle arises because it says to itself "I believe in the
Principle of Conservation of Energy and if any external electric influence tries
to accelerate me then I shall react to prevent any loss of my intrinsic
I wonder why, in 1998, the authors of that paper,
Rueda and Haisch, need to get into issues such as the so-called Higgs-type
fields, when that common sense assertion concerning energy conservation
suffices. An electric action affecting the aether will have its reaction, but if
the two are found to balance out then who can say there is any action in the
first place? It is different for the steady-state electromagnetic action, where
there is non-accelerated motion of charge and where the aether must get into the
act with its reaction 'field', because there is then no such nullification
effect. Energy is transferred to the 'field', the aether, because that is where
magnetic energy is stored.
So what about that glimpse backwards to see
the hills on the horizon? Looking back one can see, if one really looks with
properly focused vision, a short scientific paper published in 1976 in the
International Journal of Theoretical Physics at pp. 631-633 of v. 15, having the
title: 'Inertia of a Nonradiating Particle'. It abstract includes the
"by supposing that the energy radiated is absorbed by the
particle's own field, inertia is found as a resulting property and the
relation E=Mc2 follows as a consequence."
nothing involving such ideas as Higgs-type fields, zero-point energy, or
Einstein philosophy in that paper. The analysis merely corrects an omission or
rather an error in the classical theory of electromagnetism by which Larmor
first suggested than accelerated charge could radiate energy. Note that the
point of concern is radiation by a discrete charge as opposed to the collective
activity of interacting electromagnetic fields set up by numerous charges all
accelerating together but generating action from their individual source
Inevitably, from such a track record, perhaps in another 25 or
50 years a future physicist will rediscover this secret of the inertial property
and tell us about it once again, but by reference to some future new notions of
physics as yet to be invented.
Hence I say to would-be students of
physics: "Raise your heads high, stop scanning deep into those grooves and
furrows that your forebears have been digging and just look back once in a while
to take stock of that real world on the horizon. There may be 'gold in those
hills and even greater gems if you can focus on the odd mountain! If there is
mist obstructing your view then that is the aether, but that then is your
primary research challenge, namely to use the right optical means to aid your
sight so that you can see through that aether mist."
By way of a footnote at this point I add the comment that very
often, to get refereed papers accepted by science journals, one cannot write
in plain English. It is necessary to disguise what is sometimes very simple
and make it look complicated to as to appear to keep faith with the current
state of peer-review opinion. Ideally, one's starting point is to build on the
proposals of a recent author published by the same periodical and develop a
constructive or critical argument from there. Editors will otherwise not
publish what is a quite revolutionary but yet simple contribution to our
understanding of physics, simply because its spirit runs contrary to what is
deemed to have become the orthodox belief. As author of that 1976 paper in the
International Journal of Physics, I can say this from experience. Indeed, my
interpretation of inertia in its full and simple form was privately published
earlier, in 1966, in my book 'The Theory of Gravitation' (2nd. Edition) at pp.
10-15 and a little later in 1969 in my book 'Physics without Einstein' at pp.
8-14, and again thereafter in 1980 in my book 'Physics Unified' at pp.
Now we come to that second point I take from the September 1998 issue of New
Energy News, the subject heading being 'TELEPORTATION OF PHOTONS'. This was a
reference by Editor Dr. Hal Fox to an article on 'Experimental Quantum
Teleportation' which appeared in Nature, v. 390 at pp. 575-597 in December
Photons, it seems, can be split and they can also be entangled!
Scientists do not really know what photons actually are, but they can split them
and get them entangled, if I understand this item correctly.
It is Dr.
Hal Fox's remarks that attract my special interest, because he declared:
"An author said that those who claim to understand quantum
mechanics are not honest. As an honest editor, it is proposed that an
explanation for this unusual quantum event could be derived from the existence
of an aether, the speed of transmission of information in the aether as being
many times the speed of light, and a new concept of
Dr. Fox then suggested that 'entangled particles'
should be regarded as dynamic constructs of the aether such that the creation of
one such particle implies a second particle where such particles are in
communication at superluminal velocities and such particles have their quantum
nature conserved. In short he affirmed that:
"This editor can understand superluminal communication better than
Now one sometimes hears theoretical physicists
talk about a 'theory of everything'. What they mean is a theory that they are
looking for and which has yet to be discovered. They would laugh if one said to
them: "Stop looking down as you probe the depths of the mathematical jungle
where you have lost your way and come out into the open to look back at those
hills on the distant horizon. You will then see that the aether which you
pretend does not exist is, in fact, your 'theory of everything'"
see, I tend to agree with Dr. Hal Fox and take this opportunity to draw
attention to an 'entangled photon' theory that is aether-based. I refer to a
paper published in Physics Letters A, v. 119 at pp. 105-108 in 1986. Whether one
discusses entangled photons and split photons or entangled particles and split
particles it is all embraced by that 'theory of everything', the
The paper just quoted sets out to explain why the neutron, a
single particle form, can suffer diffraction as if it were a wave or a particle
with a split personality. The secret lies in its encounter with the photon world
of the aether and its interplay with an 'entangled' photon system, meaning a
team of four photons that come into existence as the apparent wave that
accompanies the neutron in its passage through space. The quantum properties are
preserved and even the de Broglie wavelength formula for the neutron is derived,
all by an aether theory of some 50 years standing.
So perhaps one day,
whether reacting to these comments by Hal Fox or digging deep into future
grooves and furrows, theoretical physicists may 'reinvent the wheel' or rather
reinvent the aether. I just wonder how closely the new aether might resemble
that aether of mine that lies out of view in those hills of the past!
As an added footnote, and bearing in mind that my main theme in
these web pages concerns 'energy science', it is of possible interest to
mention that, whilst the mysteries of quantum theory are rooted in the aether,
the dominant factor controlling the behaviour of photons, electrons or even
neutrons is not quantum theory or its embodiment in the structural fabric of
the aether, but rather the energy considerations. I have, for example,
declared that the accelerated electron does not radiate its energy because it
is governed by its efforts to conserve its energy. Equally, concerning the
wave properties of the electron (and much the same applies to the neutron),
the electron "develops a photon spin system of its own when in motion and
balances its angular momentum by compensating the effect of a primary spin
unit by three complimentary spin units orthogonally positioned in the adjacent
lattice metric of the vacuum medium (aether). The electron does not radiate
electromagnetic waves, but its photon system contains a standing wave system
having the de Broglie wavelength. The spin energy of the four photon units is
identified as the kinetic energy of the electron. When the electron is
diffracted some of this energy spills out, as the waves are no longer
contained by the perfect interference of the pulsations set up by the units."
[This quotation is from the text of the Physics Letters paper just
October 16, 1998