The Farce of Phyics

by Bryan G. Wallace

Chapter 7

Ultimate Unification

I now suspect that the original foundation for my 1964 intuitive insight on how to create the ultimate unified theory of physics came from a 1959 Scientific American article [106] titled "Descartes." The statements that probably had the most impact on my thinking, are as follows:

"I should consider that I know nothing about physics if I were able to explain only how things might be, and were unable to demonstrate that they could not be otherwise. For, having reduced physics to mathematics, the demonstration is now possible, and I think that I can do it within the small compass of my knowledge."

With these words René Descartes declared the viewpoint that placed him among the principal revolutionaries in the 17th- century scientific revolution. Against the "forms" and "qualities" of Aristotelian physics, which had proved to be a blind alley, he asserted the "clear and fundamental idea" that the physical world was sheer mechanism and nothing else. Because the ultimate laws of nature were the laws of mechanics, everything in nature could ultimately be reduced to the rearrangement of particles moving according to these laws. In analytical geometry, perhaps Descartes' most enduring achievement, he created a technique for expressing these laws in algebraic equations. He thus put forward the ideal program of all theoretical science: to construct from the smallest number of principles a system to cover all the known facts and to lead to the discovery of new facts.

All subsequent theoretical physics has been aimed at the realization of this ideal of a single theoretical system in which the last details of observable regularities should be shown to be deducible from a minimum number of fundamental equations, written perhaps on a single page. Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton may certainly be said to have carried on in the 17th century the Cartesian program of looking for the explanation of the physical world in terms of its mechanism. In this century we have witnessed attempts at universal theories by Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg, among others. In the vision of Descartes, however, his indisputable first principles - "nearly all so evident that it is only necessary to understand them in order to assent to them" - were not the end but the beginning of the search...

Descartes himself came to recognize that his purely deductive, mathematical ideal for science had failed in the face of the complexities of nature and the enigmas of matter...

In order to explain how the planets were kept in their orbits, Descartes put forward his famous vortex theory, according to which the fine matter of the "ether" forms great whirlpools or vortexes round the stars and the sun. The planets are carried about in the sun's vortex, rather like a set of children's boats in the celestial bathwater, and the moon is carried round the earth in the same way. The astonishing thing is that Descartes did not bother to check whether or not this very important part of his physical system agreed with the facts as expressed by Kepler's laws of planetary motion. It was Newton who destroyed Descartes' famous vortex theory. In fact, he may have chosen the title Principia Mathematica to give point to his polemic against Descartes' Principia Philosophiae. Newton treated the vortex theory as a serious problem of fluid dynamics and utterly demolished it...

My first standard radar paper was dated 12/9/67 and titled "AN INTERPLANETARY RADAR TEST OF RELATIVITY," and it went through a number of titles and revisions as it was submitted to, and rejected by a large selection of journals. I received a letter dated October 13, 1969 from the Editor of the journal SPECTROSCOPY LETTERS, Prof. J. W. Robinson of the Department of Chemistry of Louisiana State University, who wrote that it had been brought to his attention that I was interested in the special case of relativity and that I had evidence that the speed of light may not be c. I submitted the paper to his journal and it resulted in my first published paper [18] titled "RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE," and the abstract read:

Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c.

I next published a series of three more papers in that journal, the second paper [107] was titled "COSMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A c+v RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT" and the abstract goes:

The c+v relative velocity of light explains the observational data from spectroscopic binaries and presents evidence that the Universe is not expanding. Inconsistencies between previous laboratory experiments that present evidence of c, and the interplanetary radar evidence of c+v, can be explained in terms of a dynamic ether.

The third paper [108] was titled "RADAR EVIDENCE THAT THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE IS NOT c" and the abstract states:

Observed-computed residuals of Earth-Venus radar time-delay measurements from 1961 to 1966 show variations that range to over 30,000% the expected error from the best possible general relativity fit the Lincoln Lab could generate. The variations are not random but are related to relative radial velocity and intervening plasma. These variations are evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is some form of c+v and not c as predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory.

The forth paper [109] was titled "EXPANSION OF A DYNAMIC ETHER HYPOTHESIS OF PHYSICAL REALITY" and revised the models of atomic structures presented in the second paper [107] by replacing fused electrons with neutrons. In a 4/4/79 letter from Dr. Robinson, he informed me that because the very negative reader reaction to these type of arguments he could no longer publish my papers on mass dynamics and relativity. In a 7/23/90 letter he expanded on his first answer by saying that he had received completely unsavory and unobjective anonymous letters and phone calls.

The fifth paper [19] I've published on this was in the prestigious journal FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, a journal that many prominent scientists have published papers in over the years. The paper presents the current foundation and the fundamental equations of my work on a unified theory based on mass dynamics. The title of the paper is "The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic Ether" and the abstract reads:

The basic evidence and doctrines of physics and astronomy are examined and found to contain a simple, consistent unitary nature. It is proposed that all physical phenomena may be better explained in terms of a single physical entity if one accepts a conceptual advancement of presently accepted doctrine. The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. The logical expansions of the modification seem to give simpler explanations for basic phenomena and the infinite and eternal nature of the universe.

In part of section, 2. THE UNIFIED QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMIC ETHER, of the paper, I wrote:

I think that Dirac's idea of reintroducing the ether in a modified form [65] has a great deal of merit. A viable theory must operate within the limits of man's psychological limitations. The word "ether" seems to have a more desirable descriptive potential than Einstein's use of the words field, unified field, or energy in describing a unitary physical entity. I think the best name for the entity would be "unified quantum electrodynamic ether" or "dynamic ether" for short.

The dual wave-particle nature of radiation and matter forms the basis of quantum mechanics. The conceptual difficulty of understanding quantum mechanics resides in Born's probability interpretation of the wave nature in terms of the distribution of particles. The wave-particle paradox occurs only if one insists on describing the physical entity as a wave or as a particle. If, on the other hand, one describes the entity as a quantity of a compressible fluidlike ether moving through space, the paradox disappears. [107,109]

A photon's momentum is normally stated as E/c, which is equivalent to mc since E = mc^2, the average physicist considering the m of the photon as virtual mass which is somehow different from the inertial mass of matter. When a thermal positron and a thermal electron are transformed into two photons moving in opposite directions, the virtual mass of the photons is equal to the inertial mass of the particles, the difference being that the particles had almost no linear motion, while the photons have a linear motion of velocity c. The fact that the center of mass of a particle is at rest does not automatically mean the mass does not have an internal motion. This in essence is the flaw in the conceptual basis of the average modern-day physicist; he ignores the obvious, the possibility that a circular motion of speed c of the mass of matter is changed into a linear motion of speed c of the mass of a photon when matter is transformed into energy. The penalties he must pay for ignoring the above possibility are substantial; he must invent inconsistent additional hypotheses such as: (1) The virtual mass of a photon is somehow different from the inertial mass of matter. (2) When matter is transformed into energy, somehow motion is created. (3) Momentum is conserved if it is created or destroyed in equal and opposite amounts, etc. In order to rectify this situation, I would like to advance current doctrine with the following basic postulate: "An internal circular motion of speed c of the mass of particles is changed into a linear motion of speed c of the mass of photons when matter is transformed into energy." The following is an attempt to determine some of the possible consequences of this basic postulate:

The conservation of mass; dynamics ether can neither be created nor destroyed.

The conservation of momentum; the momentum of dynamic ether can neither be created nor destroyed.

The equality of action; when two quantities of dynamic ether meet, they both experience an attraction that changes the direction of their motion by an amount proportional to their masses.

If the above three properties are correct, they should describe all physical phenomena in a consistent manner...

In sections 2.1. Photons, and 2.2. Electrons and Positrons, I define the basic equations that form the foundation of Mass Dynamics. In section 3. THE FIRST POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I presented Einstein's former research associate's argument [73]:

In the foregoing, I have pinned the breakdown of the principle of relativity to the background radiation: but this is only by way of emphasis. One can construct local frames of rest also by averaging over the observed proper motions of the surrounding galaxies; the field of direction obtained by this procedure will not deviate grossly from the one gained from observing the background radiation. Either way, permitting large-scale samplings to enter, one is led inexorably to the breakdown of the principle of relativity.

Then in the next section 4. THE SECOND POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I presented a short review of the interplanetary radar evidence that the speed of light in space was not a constant of speed c. Then in section 5. RELATIVISTIC DILATION OF TIME, I wrote:

Hafele and Keating [74] have used commercial jet flights and atomic clocks to present convincing empirical evidence that tends to resolve the relativistic clock "paradox." They found that the relativistic dilation of time was a function of the clock's speed relative to an absolute coordinate system at rest relative to the distant galaxies. The clocks that circumnavigated the earth in the eastward direction ran slower than the clocks at rest on the earth's surface by an average of 59 billionths of a second, while the clocks that traveled westward ran faster than the clocks at rest on the earth's surface by an average of 273 billionths of a second.

In the next section 6. THE INFINITE, ETERNAL UNIVERSE, I argued:

Arp [110] has discovered observational evidence of galaxies joined by luminous bridges that have completely different red shifts, thereby casting doubt on the assumption that the red shift is a Doppler effect. Pecker et al. [111] have presented a photon-photon interaction theory that explains the red shift as an energy loss in which the lost energy goes into a soft photon pair. The transformation characteristics of matter and energy imply the potential of explaining the eternal nature of reality in terms of recycling photons back into matter. The attractive nature of the dynamic ether operating over vast time and distances could transform the energy lost in the red shift into huge columns of dynamic ether. Where these columns collide, energy would be transformed into matter. A likely candidate for such a collision event would be the nearby irregular galaxy M-82. A hydrogen-alpha photograph of M-82 taken by the 200-in. on Mount Palomar shows a spectacular array of hydrogen filaments that extend more than 14,000 light-years above and below the galactic disk. Photographs reveal that the galaxy cannot be resolved into individual stars, although at its distance, normal stars should be visible. The light from the filaments is highly polarized, indicating a regular, large- scale magnetic field aligned predominantly along the axis of rotation. It is obvious that conventional thermonuclear reactions are not adequate to explain the phenomenon. [112]

Since the heavier atoms are considered to have evolved from hydrogen fusion, it seems obvious that the age of a galaxy would be proportional to its interstellar hydrogen. Radio astronomers have found that some irregular galaxies have as much as 30% of their mass as interstellar hydrogen. In Sc spiral galaxies, the hydrogen content runs as high as 14%, while in Sb spiral galaxies, the content is about 1%. In galaxies with little flattening or spiral structure, they have been unable to detect any interstellar hydrogen. [113] Recent evidence shows large amounts of extragalactic hydrogen falling into the spiral arms of our galaxy. [114] The quantity of infalling hydrogen is sufficient to explain the formation of new stars and the spiral nature of the arms. It seems obvious that the hydrogen expelled from an irregular galaxy such as M-82 would eventually fall back to the galaxy, forming the spiral arms. The evolution of galaxies would be from irregulars to Sc, Sb, Sa, and E, finally ending their lives as quasars. The compact starlike nucleus of a Seyfert galaxy is similar to a quasar, indicating the possibility that the quasar is a huge super-massive star that forms from the dense nuclear material of a galaxy, Quasars release far more energy than can be accounted for by known physical processes. From the beginning, theorists have postulated that some form of matter annihilation must be involved. [115] The planet Jupiter radiates 21⁄2 times more energy than it receives from the sun and it is impossible to explain the energy generation in terms of conventional theories. The energy generation of stars seems to be proportional to their density. This all seems to indicate the possibility that the dynamic ether orbital structure could be disrupted by sufficient pressure, causing matter annihilation, this being the principal energy source of massive celestial bodies. The quasar would be expected to be an efficient mechanism for transforming the matter in a galaxy back into electromagnetic radiation. The red shift would degrade the radiation and eventually it would be recycled back into matter in an infinite and eternal universe.

I now think that the quasars are globular clusters that form in the dense nuclear regions of a galaxy, rather than single massive stars. The n-body dynamics would suck up the dense material and the pressure mass annihilation mechanism culminates with massive stars exploding as supernovae. [152] The clusters could be expelled from the nucleus by uneven massive gas pressure, and then orbit the galaxies as normal globular clusters. The last two sentences of paper's 7. CONCLUSION, read:

...I think the ultimate task of physicists should be to invent the simplest possible consistent unified theory that would fit all known empirical information. The theory would rise in status as it became possible to program advanced computers with the basic equations and the fit between computer readout and empirical information improved.

The sixth paper [82] I've published was in collaboration with Prof. Wilbur Block and Prof. Richard Rhodes II at Eckerd College, and marked the experimental phase of my career as a scientist. The paper also reflected my interest in the electron as the possible fundamental building block of the heavier particles. The paper was published in the prominent journal REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, and the title of the article was "Glow discharge source of H^- ions."

The seventh paper [83] was also in collaboration with Block and Rhodes, as well as a senior student at Eckerd, Carey Floyd, and the paper was published in the prestigious journal The Journal of Chemical Physics. The title was "Crossed beam electron-electron scattering at 90° and 300 Ev" and the abstract read:

An extensive search of the literature has revealed no evidence that a primary isolation type experiment such as crossed beam electron-electron scattering has ever been performed at low energies. High energy scattering was first performed by a colliding beam technique at a total energy of 600 MeV in 1966. In the usual cathode ray tubes the density of residual gas molecules far exceeds the density of electrons. An analysis of crossed beam scattering equations revealed that if the electron beams intersected each other at an angle of 90° the energy E of electrons scattered in the direction of the c.m. velocity vector could range to as high as twice the primary beam energy E. Since electrons scattered from the residual gases would be expected to have energies < E, it seemed possible to separate the electron scattered electrons from the gas scattered electrons with an energy analyzer. We performed an extensive series of experiments using a parallel plate energy analyzer that revealed no significant results above the rather large background count. The experiments showed how difficult it is to detect the scattering with conventional apparatus. We next constructed an apparatus designed to detect almost all the electron scattered electrons that had energies greater than the retarding potential of a grid. The experiments were performed with beam energies of 300 Ev and currents 1.2 and 1.3 µA. The experimental results were compared to predictions based on Moller's quantum mechanical model for electron-electron scattering. A computer was programmed to numerically integrate Moller's nonrelativistic c.m. differential cross section equation and the crossed beam equations due to Morse and Bernstein. We found the experimental results to agree well with theory.

My eighth published paper, [66] and the third and last one done in collaboration with Block and Rhodes, was published in The Journal of Classical Physics and was titled "Computer Simulation of Mass Dynamics in Electrons." The abstract of the paper read as follows:

Werner Heisinberg contends that modern particle theory is little more than a "super review of particle properties" and that we will not understand the nature of matter until we devise a theory of natural law and boundary conditions defining the dynamics of matter. In order to address this question we have devised an initial computer model of possible natural law that is based on two simple first principles and the equation for mass dynamics. Simulated experiments based on the model give high resolution explanations of the experimental evidence of photon emission at speed c and the 1/r mass distribution of rest and moving electrons. The model also tends to give low resolution first principle explanations of the nature of photon-electron interactions, electron-electron interactions, electron spin forces, gravitational forces, and nuclear forces.

My ninth, and last research paper [67] to date, was published in the journal Speculations in Science and Technology, and the abstract reads:

Einstein's dream of a causal unified theory of physics is coming true. The dynamic ether has the potential of explaining all microscopic and macroscopic physical phenomena in terms of simple first principles.

A sampling of some of the highlights of the paper, goes as follows:

Much of Albert Einstein's life was devoted to searching for a theory that incorporates gravity and other fields into a generalized geometrical structure derived from the general theory of relativity. Peter G. Bergmann collaborated with Einstein on research on this problem and in his paper `Unitary field theories', [116] he gives a brief review of the fragmentary nature and the difficulties inherent in this type of approach... Banesh Hoffmann's paper, `Einstein the catalyst', [117] shows how Einstein's bold and iconoclastic style and his pioneering endorsement of other people's revolutionary ideas influenced many important 20th century physicists. `What of Einstein's refusal to accept as final the indeterminacy probabilistic nature of the quantum theory that he had done so much to bring into existence? There was a time when it was almost professional suicide for a physicist to raise doubts about the so-called Copenhagen interpretation.' It now appears that the tide has changed in Einstein's favor on this question. In 1951, David Bohm's causal pilot wave theory caused Louis de Broglie to abandon the Copenhagen interpretation and return to his original deterministic philosophy of quantum mechanics. [118] In 1953, Erwin Schrodinger, in his paper, `What is matter?', [119] writes: `Physics stands at a grave crisis of ideas. In the face of this crisis, many maintain that no objective picture of reality is possible. However, the optimists among us (of whom I consider myself one) look upon this view as a philosophical extravagance born of despair.' In 1957, the Soviet physicist V. A. Fock `went to Copenhagen and presented Niels Bohr with a paper in which complementarity was criticized in four different ways: (1) one should insist on the fact that the psi function of quantum mechanics represents something real; (2) the presence of precise mathematical laws is equivalent to a certain type of causality; (3) limitations in understanding come only from the use of a classical language; (4) no "uncontrollable interaction" between apparatus and system takes place during measurements. After reading the paper, it is known that Bohr agreed on these four points.' [120] In 1963, P. A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the physicist's picture of nature', [65] writes: `one can make a safe guess that uncertainty relations in their present form will not survive in the physics of the future'. André Mercier reports [121] a conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued `that even major modifications of present physical theories would not transform them into the desired new theory, as quite different and novel ideas are required. Secondly, the impact of quantum theory and relativity theory on the minds of those scholars who helped found them during the first half of our century is conceivably such that they are imprisoned by these theories and thus cannot help but reason conformably, that is, in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the need is for a whole revolution of thought, which can only be carried through by nonconformists.'... There is a popular myth in modern physics that argues that relativity and quantum mechanics are not ether theories. The current publication of the translation of a 1922 lecture by Einstein shows that he developed relativity as an ether theory. [48] He reconfirms this fact in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, [20 p.153] and argues that because of the `forced and artificial character of the assumption' he gave up on trying to devise a mechanical model of ether. There are a few enlightened physicists who admit that the `vacuum' of quantum mechanics is really the ether. [122] The problem with the static ether is the fact that it is a solid which if it had the shear modulus of elasticity no less than steel, must have a density less than that of our best vacuum in order to transmit transverse waves with the speed of light. [123] On the other hand, the compressible- fluid-like mass of my c model of mass dynamics [19] is equivalent to a dynamic ether that moves with the physical phenomena, and it is a simple matter to make mechanical models where the elasticity and density are proportional to the phenomena. The concept of a dynamic ether is hardly new. Lord Kelvin developed this type of theory in the middle of the 19th century. It was far ahead of its time, and Maxwell gave it a glowing review. [124]... Our paper, `Computer simulation of mass dynamics in electrons', [66] attacks the mathematics problem of the c model by developing a mass-in-cell technique that is similar to the 3D gridless charge cloud-in-cell computer numerical integration method used in plasma simulations. [125]

Figure 1 plots the results from current simulation experiments where each particle is divided into 12 independent cells of radius 2.8 X 10^-15 m and the differential mass of the particle is simulated by a computer algorithm that determines the c.m. of the particle and substitutes a centre cell of radius 2 X 10^-14 m. All cells move at speed c and the position of each cell was plotted at 2 X 10^-24 sec intervals with 1/2 step integration and calculations at 10^-25 sec intervals. The cell surfaces are plotted at their initial starting positions and the elapse time for all but the (c) and (d) experiments was 1.2 X 10^-22 sec which gave slightly more than one rotation of a rest particle. The (a) experiment shows the wave pattern that results from a two-cell photon, (b) shows a captured one-cell photon moving with the mass flow of a rest electron, (c) gives the path of a photon moving through the electron with the mass flow, and (d) shows the path of a photon moving against the electron mass flow. All the photon cells had one-tenth the mass of the electron cells. The (e) experiment shows the repulsion of two electrons with opposing mass flows in the same plane, (f) shows electron-positron annihilation that results from the mass flows coming together from the same direction, and (g) shows two-electron repulsion from a head-on collision and the wave patterns of moving electrons. The (h) experiment shows positron-electron bonding with mass flows moving in the same direction... The use of independent mass cells can be expensive in terms of computer time. Higher resolution using far more mass cells would be desirable, but calculation time tends to be proportional to n^2, and it may take massive parallel processing computers to obtain resolution that would result in reasonably good quantitative results...

Figure 2 lists a computer program called UNIFIED that introduces the gravitational force as due to a mass cell surface tension that is very small when any mass is immersed within the fluid-like mass of the body of the electron, but tends to approach the magnitude of the Lorentz-type mass flow force when the cell starts to separate from the surface of the electron. The model postulates that the inner radius that determines the rest mass of the electron is similar to the inner surface of a bubble that is held together by the surface tension... the FG values gives the predicted gravitational force in (10^-43 N), and the FGCM values give the equivalent force derived from the surface tension characteristics of the mass cells... Both the FLCM and FGCM results are good to within 3 s.f. of the predicted values out to 100,000 (10^-16 m) using a PRIME 750 running BASICV at 13 s.f... Figure 3 shows plotted curves of the Lorentz force FL between two electrons moving in the same direction along parallel paths at the same speed that ranged from 0 to 0.9 c... The points plot the FLCM c model values obtained from the UNIFIED program. Note that at the 10^-13 m interelectron distance there is no observable difference between the Lorentz and c model predictions, while at the 10^-14 m distances one can observe a deviation that occurs for both the Lorentz and gravitational forces when the interelectron distance is within the 1.1 X 10^-14 m point where the 50% electron mass distribution distances touch. Analysis of weak decay of hadrons and simulation experiments of test cells through stacked arrays of electrons and positrons lead to the proposal of a neutral pion content of 104 electrons and positrons with mass flow binding energy that could carry spin might tend to explain the ~ 100X strong to electromagnetic interaction ratio... In John S. Bell's paper `On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox', [126] Bell states: `It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty' (for causality). If one follows Dirac's suggestion to introduce non-local hidden variables inside the particles themselves, i.e. drop the point-particle picture, then one opens the possibility of such an action at a distance propagating as phase motion. [127] This is consistent with Louis de Broglie's argument [128] that a particle `could be compared to a small clock', and it is also compatible with the Figure 1 photon (a) and electron (g) wave patterns. Modern laser interference experiments [129,130] clearly show that the old probabilistic argument that a photon interferes with itself, is untenable. The experiments can be explained, however, by the argument that clock-like photons synchronize clock-like electrons in the interference area, and future photons then interact with the electrons.

The evidence of energy transfer between photons in intense laser beams, [131] the large body of evidence of anomalous red- shifts in galaxies and quasars, [132] and the large-scale filamentary structure of the galaxies in the universe, [133] all tend to support the steady-state model presented in my earlier paper. [19] The c model of mass dynamics is probably the simplest possible first principle unified theory that can be devised. It is, I suspect, little more than a first-order approximation to an ultimate model because of the evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant. A c+v model will have to be developed, but because of flexibility of the dynamic ether concept, I do not anticipate any major problems. I feel that this type of approach will lead mankind toward an intimate understanding of the simple microscopic and macroscopic nature of our infinite eternal universe. This is the dawning of the golden age of physics.

My concept of a dynamic ether was not completely original; Few ideas are, most knowledge being built from the work of those who have gone before. A number of prominent scientist have advanced this type of argument in the past, to mention a few that come to mind, René Descartes, Lord Kelvin, and P. A. M. Dirac. I am sure that if I had never existed, others would eventually return to the concept, since it is so simple and self evident. I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it.