FEEDBACK NOTE NO. 8
RESPONSE TO WILLIAM BUICK
Copyright, Harold Aspden, 2001
On January 6 2001 William
Buick sent me a letter which enclosed a CD and a floppy disk.
He had compiled a Windows version of a calculating program for working out the
Aether Lattice potential that features in Tutorial
No. 7 on my web site. This was quite unexpected, as I had simply supplied
him with some books that he had ordered and sent an accompanying book with my
compliments.
I have in mind, with his permission, the intention of making
this program available through these web pages, in which case it may be accessed
from information I will add to that Tutorial No. 7. It is very much appreciated
as it adds to the confidence of those interested in checking and understanding
the analysis on which my aether theory is founded.
Now, as to 'feedback',
besides pointing out a minor error in my [1999] paper 'The
Contemporary Aether' LECTURE
No. 26 where I noted that 7.5x10-5 rad/s was one revolution every
17 hours, it being one revolution every 23 hours, the calculation of the Sun's
spin rate at creation, his letter further included reference to what I have said
in my writings about the calculation of 'vacuum spin' rates. He was interested
in seeing how the sequence of calculation hung together, without tracking
through several cross-referenced publications.
His specific questions
were:
In particular, I was hunting down reference to the formula
relating spin charge density to spin angular frequency. Please could you point
me to that formula, so that I might work out how to program it in software. I
know there are comprehensive derivations of vacuum spin in your books and I am
still reading and learning and have probably overlooked this in my hurry to
find out things. Also, what is the decay time for vacuum spin, once it is
established? Does this require a periodic application of electrical energy
from an external source, at a frequency that matches the spin rate? Or does
the spin continue for as long as the energy is
applied?
Accordingly, the remainder of this FEEDBACK NOTE No. 8
is devoted to the task of replying to these questions.
It is easier to
begin by dealing first with the 'decay time' questions. The simple answer here
is that I have no theoretical way of calculating the decay time, short of
venturing into the realm of hypothesis and having no guidance from observation
data bearing upon the phenomenon.
At one typical extreme we have the Sun
itself, created long ago in a state of spin owing to its coupling with the
vacuum spin induced by its creation process. It is still spinning, after several
billion years, but it does have an enormous angular momentum.
At the
other extreme there is the plasma ball phenomenon seen from time to time as a
'thunderball'. Observers have watched these objects floating in the sky,
hovering over metal objects, such as a gun barrel, dropping into an open
container filled with water and there dispersing to cause the water temperature
to increase, and even drifting along the seat aisle within an aircraft. Always
they collapse and decay as if vanishing into thin air, but what is their decay
time? The larger they are, the longer they survive. One could imagine that they
are aether in spin, enveloped in surrounding aether but slowly decaying as they
shed the energy wich promotes ionization of air that characterizes their glow.
That seems a matter of minutes, with the decay time being set by criteria
somewhat akin to those applicable to a spinning top which precesses owing to a
torque action and then topples, its spin time being a function of the initial
spin rate and that torque.
Intermediate these extremes is body Earth
which also involves 'vacuum spin', or rather aether spin, in its own creation, a
spin of something coextensive with, but internal to, body Earth, but yet which
seemingly has a spin axis inclined somewhat to the Earth's spin axis. I say this
because that aether spin is evidenced by the geomagnetic field and we know that
the magnetic poles are offset relative to the geographic poles and move around
the latter in a circle over a period measured in hundreds of years. That
inclined relationship implies to me the presence of two magnetic moments, tilted
with respect to each other, and so producing a torque which determines the rate
of precession. As to decay time, that concerns how long the action survives
before the spin topples. Note that the Earth's magnetism reverses periodically,
every few hundred thousand years or so, whereas we see solar magnetic reversals
at a much faster rate. Note further that, when I say 'two magnetic moments', I
have in mind one owing to the main body in which it is induced by dislaced
electric charge and one at the surface of that body where a compensating charge
is seated owing to that displacement. They could share different spin
axes.
So I think it will need the talents of future scientific minds,
armed with some yet to be discovered experimental data to piece together the
elements of a theory that explains the decay time of a vacuum spin state.
Meanwhile, the impetus for justifying such research comes, not just from the
cosmological objective of having a better understanding of Nature's creative
properties, but more from the exploration of the way in which the vacuum spin
phenomenon involves an inflow of the energy which powers the spinning objects
thus created. Here, I can put together enough theory to point the way forward to
building machines which involve vacuum spin and are fed by pulsating inflow of
energy drawn from the aether itself. Indeed, as my writing indicate, as by that
paper 'The Contemporary Aether', already mentioned, I suspect such machines or
their equivalent in plasma discharge apparatus exist in embrionic form somewhere
in the world's backyard roamed by 'free-energy' enthusiasts. That prospect
should serve as justification for now paying detailed attention to the following
derivation of the formulae which relate vacuum spin with electric charge and
energy, as I here endeavour to clarify the situation for William Buick.
I
trust it will justify me recording this response as a publication on my Web
site, rather than mailing it to William Buick as a private
communication.
William Buick had read the section on this subject at pp.18-25 of my 1996 book
'Aether Science Papers' but that account was a rather summary treatment
and the argument in the latter part of those pages was not the route I had
actually followed in developing the theory from its early origins.
What I
will present below is a rigorous step-by-step analysis of the vacuum spin
theory, building the theory from the aether analysis of the Tutorial No. 7 stage
through to the fundamental theoretical derivation of the Sun's spin angular
momentum at its creation, a result that can be compared with what we observe
today as the angular momentum of the whole solar system. Implicit here is the
assumption that shortly after the Sun was created, for reasons I will seek also
explain elsewhere in these Web pages, it sheds the matter from which the planets
were formed, a process which involved most of that initial angular momentum of
the Sun being tranferred to the motion of the planets around the Sun.
You
will surely agree that this is a quite formidable project to undertake and I
hope the result will duly impress the reader. It could not have been contrived
by simply making a few unwarranted assumptions to get the numbers to fit with
observation and I assure you that what you see below emerged in its own way over
a period of many years as pieces of the cosmic jigsaw came together. Happily the
numerical basis of the dimensionless physical constants involved was rigorous
and indeed precise in its foundation at least to the part-per-thousand level,
dating back to the late 1959 period. By that I refer to the r/d parameter for
which William Buick has now provided the above-mentioned Windows calculator
program.
The aether is a subtle non-material medium having properties
akin to those of a fluid crystal, in that it is sensitive to extraneous
electrical field effects and responds by causing its component elements to form
a kind of crystal structure. This is easily dissolved and recreated according to
change of those field conditions. The parameter d is a distance representing the
lattice cell dimension applicable to that crystal structure, this being of
simple cubic form. The parameter r represents the radius of a circular path in
the inertial frame about which the components of that lattice move at velocity v
in unison, perfect synchrony, so that, in the language of quantum theory, an
electron (of mass m) sharing that state of motion will have a position that is
uncertain by 2r and a momentum that is uncertain by 2mv but the product of
tthese two uncertainties, 4mvr, will be certain because it has the value h/2π.
We are considering here the root foundations of Heisenberg's Principle of
Uncertainty. It is the pointer to the most basic feature of the aether, the
circular motion of a frame of physical reference, shared by matter, about an
underlying inertial reference frame. This motion has a cyclic frequency equal to
the Compton electron frequency, namely mc2/h, some
1.2356x1020 cycles per second. Here resides the key to gravitation
because the inertial mass property of matter involves a dynamic state and
something has to exist in the aether to provide the necessary dynamic balance,
something which sits in a juxtaposed frame of reference moving at a speed 2v
relative to that aether-cum-matter frame. Here we expose the secret of the
Unified Field Theory, the route to the link between gravitation and
electromagnetism, because that aether-cum-matter frame sharing the Heisenberg
jitter motion is surely the local electromagnetic frame of reference.
You
may verify from the above argument that:
4mvr = h/2πand this allows us to determine v, because:
v/2πr = mc2/h
Evidently v equals c/2 and from
this I was able to argue that whatever that something was sitting and moving in
that frame which was in inertial juxtaposition with the aether-cum-matter frame,
it was moving at speed c relative to the latter frame. That was the trigger for
connecting gravity with the electrodynamic interaction of the elements of that
something, bearing in mind the dynamic balance and its involvement with the mass
of matter.
With that in mind my next concern was the question of how I
might determine the size of that radius r. Here I was, owing to my interest in
ferromagnetism, quite captivated by the role played by the Bohr magneton, a
fundamental unit of magnetic moment that applies to the motion of the electron
around the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. It has a value which I knew from a
school physics book was formulated as:
he/4πmc
Here e is the electron charge expressed in
electrostatic units and h is, of course, Planck's constant. So I thought it
conceivable that the electric charge sitting in a unit cell of aether and moving
in orbit of radius r and speed c/2 about a centre might well be quantized as a
Bohr magneton.
This then allowed me to deduce the value of the radius r,
because that school physics book (in its seventh edition, dated 1941) stated
that the Bohr magneton had the value 9.18x10-21. All I had to do was
divide this quantity, or rather its value as updated by later measurements to
9.274x10-21, by e, 4.8032x10-10 in cgs electrostatic
units, and I knew that r had to be 1.93x10-11 cm.
I had,
therefore, a clear picture of the scale of the structured aether and it looked
right, having regard to its scope for interacting with the electron shell
structure of the atoms which form the material universe.
Now, underlying
all this, was the analysis by which I had explored the zero-energy condition of
the electrostatic interaction between a structured system of charges e sitting
in the electrically-neutral aether and balancing its background continuum of
electric charge density σ. This had given the value of r/d, there being
1/d3 charges e in unit volume of that continuum and so this latter
quantity is, in fact, σ.
So, knowing r/d (its value being 0.3029), and
knowing r, I had a measure of d as 6.3..x10-11 cm and, knowing e, it
being presumed to equal the unitary charge of the electron, I knew the value of
σ.
The aether was, therefore, becoming, as it were, an open book,
presenting itself in clear form and keeping no secrets.
Emboldened by
this I ventured to ask myself what happened if a spherical expanse of this
aether were to rotate rather slowly within surrounding aether at an angular
frequency ω, this being very small in relationship to the angular frequency Ω of
that quantum jitter motion, c/2r. The constraint I saw as governing was the need
for the aether to keep its synchrony of motion, meaning that the superimposed
rotation would not affect the need for each aether charge to keep in step, owing
to powerful electrostyatic interaction forces asserted by the enveloping aether
medium.
When formulated, back in the latter part of the 1950s when I
researched all this, it meant that the effective positions of the aether charges
in the rotating group would need to be displaced radially through a distance δR
about the spin axis of the group, R being the radius distance of a charge from
that axis. The resulting equations were:
Ω(r + δR) = c/2 + ωRand:
Ω(r - δR) = c/2 - ωR
I concluded from this that:
δR/R = ω/Ω = 2ωr/c
Considering then a circular slice (disc)
of the aether in spin at that angular frequency ω, a slice in a plane
perpendicular to the axis of spin, the change δR expands (or, negative,
contracts) the area of that disc by δπR2 or 2δR/R of the whole area.
Since this is affects only the aether charges that constitute the lattice
structure and not the neutralizung background continuum charge it means that
there is a net charge density of δσ induced by the spin, its polarity depending
upon the spin direction in relation to the underlying jitter spin direction at
angular frequency Ω. This has the value:
δσ/σ = 2δR/R = 4ωr/cand, since:
σ = e/d3we find that:
δσ = 4ωer/cd3
We know the value of e, c and d, so
here we have a formula which tells us the electrical charge density induced
within aether if set spinning at angular frequency ωw. Conversely, the formula
tells us how fast aether will spin if we can displace charge within it in a
radial sense about the spin axis.
Having derived this from pure theory we
must then look around for evidence that this phenomenon really does exist. That
evidence comes from thunderball phenomena, geomagnetism, even the tornado and
laboratory experiments aimed at simulating the tornado phenomenon by controlling
the snaking action of an electrical discharge along the central vertical axis of
an enclosing cylindrical Faraday cage turning slowly about that axis. However,
the prime example, the one we are concerned with here, is our Sun and its
creation.
I knew from my study of ferromagnetism during my early research
education that the state of magnetic polarization (mutual attraction between
iron atoms within an iron core) sets in only when iron cools through its Curie
point temperature. So I speculated that gravitation (mutual attraction between
elements of matter) sets in only when the chaos of an overheated aethereal
medium dispersed over a region of space cools through a critical threshold state
in which energy finds it more desirable to be deployed into a state of order, to
become that we condsidered above as the structure fluid crystalline aether form.
The analogy extends to space domains, regions confining the polarized state to
interactions within the bounds of the local domain, just as we see in iron with
the formation of magnetic domains. What this means is that a star could nucleate
matter owing to its accretion by the sudden onset of gravity, with one star
being created in each such space domain.
This scenario comes into life
once we see that the protons and electrons that constitute primordial matter by
combining to form hydrogen atoms, being however separated in the ionized chaos
existing in the pre-gravitation phase, would react differently during an initial
period when drawn together by gravitational force. The combination of
electrostatic interaction and gravitational interaction would favour initial
nucleation of charge that is predominantly positive in polarity. The reason is
that two protons have a mutual acceleration of gravity that is 1836 times
greater than that of two electrons. So we know that the initial positive charge
density of the primordial Sun at creation must be given by:
Gρ2 = (σ)2ρ being the mean mass density
of the Sun.
To complete the picture we needs to see the action as
involving two systems, the material body of the Sun and the coextensive
spherical body of aether sitting inside the Sun. The matter comes together to
form a sphere governed by the formula just presented. The protons predominate to
keep the mass density uniform throughout the body of the Sun, owing to that
perfect balance of force everywhere as between electrostatic repulsion and
gravitational action. This sets up that state of spin at angular frequency ω w
in the coextensive aether sphere. This spin is powered by the electrostatic
forces exerted between aether charge within the sphere and outside the sphere as
they keep the jitter motion in synchronism and import energy as necessary to
sustain the angular momentum involved. Then, shortly thereafter those electrons
that have been left behind in the nucleation process catch up with the protons
and neutralize the solar body. However, that angular momentum associated with
aether spin is not shed in this process. The energy inflow was a one-way
phenomenon. So the aether in the solar body is left at that angular frequency ω.
It will thereby set up its own radial electric field directed from the spin axis
and this will be seen by the ionized material of the Sun as an electrical
displacement which it will compensate by a corresponding neutralizing
displacement of its elecron-proton population. The Sun will still remain
electrically neutral overall. Its aether will still spin and have that high
angular momentum acquired in the creation event. But it will now have a magnetic
moment.
Of more importance, however, is the destiny of that angular
momentum. Clearly, one can expect it to be shared with the body of the Sun
itself so that the Sun spins and eventually sheds its planets. How it does that
is a matter for separate discussion, and our task here is nearly complete. I set
out to explain by pure theoretical argument using a few parameters of quantum
theory how the Sun acquired its spin angular momentum at its creation and to
show William Buick how the formula relating induced charge denmsity and spin
rate was derived.
This I have done but to complete the account I will
insert a few numbers into the above formula to compare the result with our
estimate of the angular momentum of the solar system as it is today.
The
induced charge density per radian/s has the value of approximately 4.781 cgs
esu/cc as I presented in equation (30) of my first printed essay on this
subject, The Theory of Gravitation which was published in 1960. This is
the value of 4er/cd3, with e as 4.805x10-10 esu, r as
1.93x10-11 cm, c as 3x1010 cm/s and d as
6.371x10-11 cm.
Now, concerning the Sun, its mass density ρ is
known because cosmologists know its overall mass and its radius and find it has
a mean mass density of 1.41 gm/cc. Taking G as 6.66x10-8 in these cgs
units, the relevant formula above gives a charge density of 3.64x10-4
esu/cc.
Matching the two results just calculated we can find w, the
angular velocity of the Sun at creation and before it shed its planets. It
becomes 7.6x10-5 radians per second, which is one revolution every 23
hours.
Now the Sun today rotates about its axis in a period of as many
days and so it must have shed 96% or more of its angular momentum since its
creation. How much of that angular momentum remains in the motion of the planets
is therefore a matter of estimation based on astronomical data. My calculations,
taking the Earth's angular momentum in its orbit as a unit of reference,
estimate that the planets have 1,200 such units of angular momentum and the Sun
has of the order of 20 such units. I cannot justify further speculation on that
theme, save to say that, any angular momentum dissipated into outer space over a
period of what is probably 4 billion years would be more likely to be shed by
the Sun than by the planets and that is consistent with the above
findings.
The real test of the charge induction formula comes from the
analysis of the geomagnetic moment and some energy density measurements
pertaining to thunderballs. Hopefully, however, we will see further supporting
tests as machines come into being which harness the potential of vacuum spin
energy.
I hope the above will serve as an adequate answer to William
Buick's request.
****************************
Harold Aspden
March 18,
2001