Faster Than Light 1477584587, 9781477584583

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BOHR VS EINSTEIN
3. MAGNETISM DUE TO ELECTRIC DIPOLES
4. THE MECHANISM OF LIGHT DELAY
5. LIGHT SPEED MEASUREMENTS
6. LIGHT EMISSION/RECEPTION I NUCLEAR FORCES
7. LIGHT EMISSION RECEPTION II
8. MAGNETISM OF COILS DUE TO ELECTRIC DIPOLES
9. ATOMIC SPECTRA IN MAGNETIC FIELDS
10. FERROMAGNETISM AND SUPERCONDUCTORS
11. MAGNETIC FIELDS AND GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS
12. GENERAL RELATIVITY
13. SPECIAL RELATIVITY
14. COSMOLOGY
15. REFERENCES

Citation preview

FOREWORD

Case 1) A 15nanosecond light pulse from a laser was sent to a light detector, 30 feet away. When the light pulse was blocked at the photodiode, during the time of emission but unblocked at the expected time of arrival, 31.2 nanoseconds after the beginning of the time of emission, for 15nsec. duration, little light was received. (a little more than the 4mV noise on the oscilloscope). This process was repeated thousands of times per second. Case 2) When the light was unblocked at the photodiode during the time of emission (15nsec) but blocked after the beginning of the time of emission, during the expected time of arrival for 15 nsec., twice as much light was received (8mV). This process was repeated thousands of times per second. This indicated that light is not a moving wave or photon but rather the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance. That is, undetectable oscillations of charge can occur in the atomic nuclei of the photodode that spill over as detectable oscillations of electrons after a delay. The delay is less, the greater the strength of the light source at the receiver, and the greater the sensitivity of the receiver. The delay is also a function of the elasticity of charge, c2, in the atomic nuclei of the receiver, where c denotes the speed of light. The shutter mechanism, a Pockels crystal and a polarizing lens, caused a 97% reduction in the transmitted light in the direction of the photocell receptor when a sufficiently high voltage was applied to the

Pockels crystal. That is, the polarization of light transmitted in the direction of polarizer was shifted 90 degrees by the crystal and so blocked by the polarizing lens. The reaction time of the crystal and electric circuitry was less than a few nanoseconds (as shown by an oscilloscope connected to the photodetector cell and the high voltage source) and was the same of course in both case 1 and case2. The reason this experiment has not been independently repeated and published is due perhaps to the impossibility of modern theory explaining such a result and the inevitability of peer review journal prejudice and rejection. Other indications that light is the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance are discussed.

Copyright © 2012 Ralph Sansbury All rights reserved. ISBN: 1477584587 ISBN-13: 9781477584583

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 2. BOHR VS EINSTEIN 3. MAGNETISM DUE TO ELECTRIC DIPOLES 4. THE MECHANISM OF LIGHT DELAY 5. LIGHT SPEED MEASUREMENTS 6. LIGHT EMISSION/RECEPTION I NUCLEAR FORCES 7. LIGHT EMISSION RECEPTION II 8. MAGNETISM OF COILS DUE TO ELECTRIC DIPOLES 9. ATOMIC SPECTRA IN MAGNETIC FIELDS 10. FERROMAGNETISM AND SUPERCONDUCTORS 11. MAGNETIC FIELDS AND GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS 12. GENERAL RELATIVITY 13. SPECIAL RELATIVITY 14. COSMOLOGY 15. REFERENCES

SUMMARY

Another possible title for this book is: AN ELECTRIC DIPOLE THEORY OF MAGNETISM, GRAVITY, LIGHT, RELATIVITY, QUANTUM MECHANICS, AND NUCLEAR FORCES. Analysing the generally ignored details of landmark experiments, I found that textbook summaries were full of gaps and didn’t adequately take account of criticisms of accepted theory; for example, Einstein, invented the photon to describe the smaller than expected light speed delay involved in the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect was discovered by Phillip Lenard in 1900. Maxwell’s wave theory had predicted a greater delay before the accumulated energy delivered by the waves was great enough to produce the observed photoelectric ejections of electrons from a piece of metal subjected to UV light pulses. Thus Lenard’s experiments showed Maxwell’s theory was not as general as initially claimed. Einstein’s photon could deliver sufficient energy all at once after moving at the speed of light from the emitter to a metal surface. Einstein later rejected his photon concept as having too many probabilistic implications. One such implication was the probabilistic character of wavelike interference effects in one and two slit diffraction phenomena and in atomic spectra. But without photons, then how do we explain, for example, the fact that astronomers searching for new stars and Galaxies focus their telescopes on a dark position in the sky adjusting for the movement of the Earth and, after a few seconds or minutes, will have light show up on their retina or CCD device. If this is not a wave, at least at some frequencies according to Lenard’s discovery, and cannot be a photon at any frequency, according to Einstein: What is it? One is led to suspect that the speed of light measurements, or rather their interpretation, may be wrong; that the delay between the emission and

reception of light takes place, not in the movement of waves or photons, but in the atomic nuclei of the receivers, and is of the form: V(t) = (A0/r)(1-exp(-ct/r)) or something of the sort,where V(t), denotes the average or root mean square amplitude of oscillating charge at the receiver. If (A0/r) is within a specific range, then when t=r/c, the average or RMS amplitude is 2/3 of (A0/r) or some such value, the charge oscillation of the received radiation spills over from the nuclei to atomic electrons and free electrons and becomes distinguishable from noise. Outside this range, for example, if (A0/r) is very large, the speed of light will be less than r/c, and if (A0/r) is very small, the radiation might not be detectable until it is .99 times (A0/r) instead of 2/3 of (A0/r) when t = r/c. That is t > r/c when the radiation is detectable, assuming, V(t) = (A0/r)(1-e-ct/r). It is noteworthy that experimental tests of the speed of light are within a restricted range of light intensity at the receiver. Since noise and the sensitivity of the receiver can vary, the speed of light may vary accordingly. The mechanism we propose that produces the above equation for the speed of light is described in chapter 4. The cancelling and additive interference effects of waves, as in atomic spectra, can be explained by differences in delay. The delay can be caused by forces at a distance that take time to produce a detectable increase in amplitude of the received oscillations of charge. In radar, GPSS devices and deep space transmissions, the weak microwave oscillations at the receiver can be further calibrated to otherwise determined distances (Newtonian mechanics) so that the delay time, before oscillations are detectable, is exactly, t = r/c. In general, for faint enough voltage oscillations at the receiver, the speed of light delay is approximately, r/c. If the received RMS voltage is large enough, the delay can much less. For example, light from hundreds of stars, if not washed out by ambient light pollution, can be viewed by the naked eye almost immediately, after the Earth spins into view of the stars, meaning milliseconds or microseconds, although the Earth to star distances are on the order of 4 times 1015 meters and more. The proposed reason is that these light sources are thousands of time stronger than our Sun. So the proposed delay is a function of source power, source-emitter distance, and receiver sensitivity.

Let’s look more closely at light speed measurements to see if this is feasible. There are facts surrounding the first light speed measurement by Ole Roemer in 1676, that many don’t know (including PhDs in physics and NASA engineers unable to explain the Pioneer 10 anomaly). Roemer observed Jupiter’s moons when the Earth was closest to Jupiter and then when the Earth was furthest from Jupiter and Jupiter was still visible. Jupiter’s moon, Io, for example, disappeared for a few hours behind Jupiter and then reappeared. Other moons of similar size and distance from Jupiter had similar patterns of disappearance and reappearance. When the Earth was further from Jupiter, the disappearance time interval was greater. It was as if the light from the moon, Io, before it disappeared and after it reappeared took longer to move the greater distance to reach the Earth. The additional time implied that light moved from Io to the Earth after a delay, which was of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light delay later determined by James Bradley as the cause of stellar aberration. A more accurate explanation was given by Giovanni Cassini, who was chosen by France’s chief minister, Jean Colbert, to set up the Paris observatory for Louis XIV in 1667. Cassini from Genoa, was the foremost astronomer at the time. Cassini’s explanation was that there were large changes in the visibility of Jupiter’s satellites as the relative positions of Earth and Jupiter changed only slightly. An easy and very readable account is given by I.B. Cohen in the journal, Isis, 1940. But Roemer’s explanation was eventually preferred. Newton preferred it because it leant weight to his particle theory of light, published in 1704, to explain reflection, the separation of different colors by a prism and diffraction and because it implied light traveled faster in water than in air. In 1850, Leon Foucault showed experimentally that light traveled more slowly in water than in air. But a particle theory of light and a light speed explanation of Roemer’s observations was favored because of Newton’s reputation and Huygens reputation. Christiaan Huygens in 1683 described a wave theory of light which was more direct than Newton’s particle theory in explaining the diffraction of light of different colors. Huygens’ wave theory was used by Thomas Young in 1803 to describe interference and polarization. From convention and Roemer’s equivocal observations, they believed light moved, not infinitely fast as Descartes (1647), Aristotle and

al Hazen (990) believed, though al Hazen believed some delay took place in the eye. Roemer’s light speed estimate was similar to Bradley’s later, stellar aberration, light speed measurement in 1723, but still quite different (11 minutes versus Bradley’s eight minutes to go the (1.5)(1011) meter distance from the Sun to the Earth.) Bradley’s estimate was also near 9(109)/10-7 = 1/4πε0 divided by μ0/4π. In MKS units. μ0 is the magnetic constant and ε0 is the electric constant. This quotient or rather its square root, has traditionally been considered the exact speed of light, c = 3(108) meters per second. Bradley’s measurement however, could be explained also by a delay of light, t=d/c, (d denotes distance from objective to ocular lens of the 8 or 12 foot telescope, or from the retina to the cones of the eye) as the Earth orbited at 29km./s. away from a perpendicular line from the star through the objective lens to the ocular lens and then six months later when the Earth was moving toward such a perpendicular line at 29km./s.. Thus the star appeared to be coming from slightly different positions in the sky based on the speed of light delay between the objective lens and the ocular lens. We need not assume that the speed of light delay between the lenses extrapolates to the 1018 meter star to Earth distance, where the star, the brightest star in the Dragon constellation, Gamma Draconis, has the power of 700 of or our Suns. Unlike our proposed explanation of light speed as a delay in the receiver, Roemer’s measurement did not require that the light source must constantly face the light receiver. Intervening clouds could block the source from the receiver and Roemer’s light speed delay would be the same. Additional support for ‘c’ as the speed or delay of light came with Armand Fizeau’s experiment in 1849, of a faint light at the receiver from a strong source next to the receiver that focused a beam of light on a mirror, 5 miles (8.6km.) distant, and after a brief delay registered a faint light from the reflector. The light was emitted and received through slots in a revolving slotted wheel diagrammed in chapter 5, ‘Light Speed Measurements’. This showed the light had a delay nearly equal to the 17.2 meter distance divided by the speed of light. Subsequent similar experiments by Leon Foucault and Albert Michelson showed similar results as they modified their experimental setup to come as close to the so called, speed of light constant as possible.

In the Fizeau-Foucault-Michelson measurements, and Bradley’s star, (A0/r) is very small. If it were larger, the delay would be much less than r/c. Washout effects make measurements of this sort impracticable. The experimental setups in these cases however were chosen to make the results as close as possible to, c, the square root of the ratio of Coulomb’s electric force constant, (1/4πε0) = 9(109), to Ampere’s magnetic force constant, 4πμ0 = 10-7. That is, the force between two spheres of, say 1 cm. diameter, each of one Coulomb of charge and at a distance apart of meter is (1/4πε0) = 9(109) Newtons and the force between a current of one Ampere in each of two meter long parallel wires 1 meter apart is 2 times 10-7 Newtons. In Ampere’s original experiments described in R.A.R. Tricker’s book, p51, Ampere used electrodynamic units so that the factor, 2, does not appear but is equivalent in MKS units to 2 times 10-7 Newtons. Thus (1/ε0) = (4π)(9)(109) and 1/μ0 = (4π) (107) and (1/μ0) times (1/ε0) = c2. In words, the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the magnetic permeability of a vacuum times the electric permittivity is the speed of light. Bradley’s stellar aberration measurement involved very weak light at the objective lens of a 12 foot and 8 foot telescope and so the speed of light applied to these and similar distances not to the 1018 meter distance to the star. Unobservable oscillating charge displacement inside atomic nuclei is a precursor to oscillating electrons in radio antennas. In photodiodes, the eye, and CCD camera, the unobserved oscillations produce accelerations of orbital electrons into ever widening circles and eventually into the conductive band so that light becomes electrically detectable. The atomic mechanism that produces these effects is based on an electric dipole theory of magnetism, summarized below and described in chapter 3. We conclude that light is not something like a wave or particle that moves, but rather the repetition of oscillating forces in a source or reflector that induces after a delay, oscillations of charge in a receiver or secondary source. This explains the bending of light around corners and Young’s observations of additive and cancelling interference in terms of these delays. Thus Cassini’s more accurate explanation of Roemer’s observations of Jupiter’s moons, not Roemer’s explanation is more likely to be the correct one.

To summarize the electric dipole theory: The attraction of similarly oriented, collinear dipoles in the same direction and half as great repulsion of parallel dipoles, corresponds exactly to the attraction of parallel current segments and half as great repulsion of similarly oriented collinear current segments as first implied by Ampere in his mathematical treatise of 1827. So we regard the magnetic force between parallel current carrying wire segments as the force between collinear electric dipoles inside atomic nuclei and inside electrons perpendicular to and transverse to the electric currents. The inverse square force between small parallel current segments is the result of the force of a transverse dipole in one segment producing a longitudinal dipole in the parallel segment. This in turn reduces the transverse dipole produced by the longitudinal driving current in the parallel segment. Thus the dipoles in parallel segments are larger, the larger the distance between them. The inverse fourth power force between collinear electric dipoles is thus reduced to an inverse square force. The dipoles in lattice nuclei and free electrons are in the same direction if the small orbiting mass in both are negatively charged. The greater the current, i = neAv, the greater the dipole length, rev/c . n denotes the density, A, the wire cross section area, and r the distance between wires. The dipole length is also limited by the distances between atoms, e.g.,2.3Å for copper. Although electric dipoles are small, there are billions of them in a cubic millimeter of current carrying wire. The force between collinear electric dipoles in parallel small segments is an inverse square force like the force between currents in Ampere’s formulation of the magnetic force between small current wire segments. The force between long parallel wires varies inversely as the distance. By choosing the electric dipoles to be of a specific length according to the above mechanism, the dipole-dipole force can be made equal to the magnetic force between the currents. Electric dipoles are similarly produced in charged particle beams and in orbital electrons transverse to their velocities. But, you might say, a strip of metal is transparent to the magnetic force though not to the electric force. The short answer is oppositely charged spheres on either side of a metal strip will cause a redistribution of free electrons in the strip that cancels their attraction to each other unlike the effect of attractively oriented electric dipoles on opposite sides of the

metal strip. The dipoles inside the wires produce similarly oriented electric dipoles between free electrons and lattice nuclei of the interposed metal strip and so reinforce the attraction between the wires. Oppositely oriented dipoles in the wires cause the wires to repel each other. They produce similarly oriented dipoles between free electrons and lattice nuclei in the interposed metal strip on respective opposite sides of the metal strip. Thus the repulsion of the wires is reinforced. Ferromagnets are different from most other atoms; e.g., iron has pairs of electrons on opposite sides of its orbits with similarly oriented dipoles. Opposite magnetic poles may be viewed as two parallel current carrying coils. Coil segments facing each other have similarly oriented attractive dipoles. Thus a pair of attractively oriented magnetic poles or parallel current carrying wires on opposite sides of a metal strip will continue to attract each other. Electric dipoles in parallel wires on either side of a metal strip produce an inverse square force on small segments of each wire. The force is attractive if the currents in the wires are in the same direction and repulsive if they are in the opposite direction. Transverse electric dipoles in attractive wires acting on counterclockwise orbiting negative charge inside the electrons and inside the nuclei of the interposed metal strip produce longitudinal dipoles in them that repel each other and a torque between the transverse dipoles in the wires and longitudinal dipoles in the strip so that the longitudinal dipoles in the strip are rotated to line up to be attracted to each other as much as they are attracted to the dipoles in the parallel wires. The net effect is to reinforce the attraction between the parallel wires. Similarly for the effect between attractively oriented ferromagnet poles. How are electric dipoles produced inside atomic nuclei? The sustained potential difference driving free electrons in a wire produces also a longitudinal force on a circular orbiting charge inside atomic nuclei and inside free electrons. The result is an elliptical orbit transverse to the longitudinal force with a center of orbiting charge displaced from the oppositely charged central core of the nucleus and of the electron. Thus a transverse dipole is produced. The mass of the orbiting charge inside the electron and proton must be about 10-55 kg., so that the force producing the current of electrons and the central forces, roughly e2/(1/4πε0)(r02) inside the electron and inside the

proton, both of approximately femtometer radii, r02, and of charge e =1.602(10-19) Coulombs, are sufficient to produce the required dipole. That is, billions of such electric dipoles will be sufficient to produce the observed magnetic attractive force between parallel 2mm. by 1 meter long wires, one or two centimeters apart, each carrying a current of one Amp. Such circular and elliptical orbits for the electron, positron, proton etc., explain the variation in Xray and collision estimates of their sizes. Thus alternating, oscillating currents in a source of light induce oscillations of charge in the receiver first inside atomic nuclei that reverse direction and spill over to produce oscillations of electrons in atoms or oscillations of free electrons. First longitudinal oscillations of charge are induced that produce transverse oscillations of charge that in turn produce longitudinal oscillations of charge that produce… again and again. There is an increase in amplitude that leads to wider and wider electron orbits in atoms like doped silicon or other photosensitive atoms that eventually go into the conduction band. There they are subject to a small voltage which in a CCD circuit deposits them on a capacitor whose charge increase is measured, indicating that light has arrived at the receiver. In radio antennas oscillations of free electrons are amplified to produce amplitudes with modulations that are detectably different from random noise modulations. Electron-electron scattering at high energy has shown that the interactions remains Coulomb repulsion down to separations of 2 times 1016 meters, whereas Xray scattering gives separations of 2 times 10-15 meters (see F.K. Richtmyer, Introduction to Modern Physics, 1969 and later texts). These results are consistent with the Compton or classical electron radius, r0, of an electron as a sphere where the potential energy e2/r0 is equal to the rest energy of the electron m0c2 if r0 , is about a femtometer. But you say the speed of the orbiting charged particle at a distance from the central core, equal to the radius of an electron or a proton which is on the order of femtometers (10-15 meters.), must be moving at a superluminal velocity. According to Walter Kaufmann’s 1901 experiments, beta electrons ejected from radioactive nuclei moved at speeds near the speed of light such that the faster ones were not deflected as much by a magnetic field as expected relative to the slightly slower ones. That is, there

was an evident decrease in the rate of increase of deflection both by a magnetic field and an electric field. This could be due to an increase in mass to infinity at the speed of light, but it also could be due to a change in the rate of increase of the transverse dipoles that cause the magnetic force. The electron comes apart at the speed of light. The orbiting particle inside the electron escapes at a superluminal velocity. This is what lies behind the Lorentz-Einstein equation for the increase of mass with velocity mc2 = m0c2/(1- v2/c2)1/2 and Einstein’s equation, E=mc2 . The conversion of energy into mass can be viewed as an increase of energy inside the fast moving electron or other charged composite particle. The magnetism of iron is attributable to pairs of similarly oriented electric dipoles in diametrically opposite electrons in the next-to-outermost orbit of iron. Most atoms are non-ferroelectric and their electrons in the same orbit that are diametrically opposite each other have oppositely oriented electric dipoles. The least energy configurations of adjacent iron atoms produce atypically, similarly oriented electric dipoles in diametrically opposite, orbiting electrons. The Earth’s magnetism is attributable to the tangential forces causing the Earth to spin and to produce radially and longitudinally oriented electric dipoles in all the atomic nuclei. The Earth’s gravitational force on terrestrial objects is this weak magnetic force, i.e, electric force between collinear radial electric dipoles. The dipole lengths are about 10-24 meters as shown in chapter 11. This weak magnetic force is increased by the Earth’s iron core as the otherwise randomly oriented electric dipoles in iron atoms are made to line up with the weak magnetic field or electric dipoles in all the atomic nuclei of the Earth. The greater length of electric dipoles in magnetic atoms(rv/c ≈ 1011+6=9 ≈ 10-14m. of atomic electrons) accounts for the greater response of magnetic materials to Earth’s gravitational force. Hence the downward dip and lining up of a steel compass needle along lines of longitude as indicative of the Earth’s magnetic field. The attraction of non magnetic materials to one another in the direction of a line toward the Earth’s center is measured by their weight. Their attraction in horizontal directions as in the Cavendish experiment is the projection of their radial forces in these directions (repulsion between longitudinal dipoles in the east west direction reduces the attraction)

The Earth’s gravitational attraction to the Sun is the force between electric dipoles transverse to the Earth’s orbital movement Earth around the Sun and the many more similarly oriented radial electric dipoles in the Sun transverse to the Sun’s spin (2km./s.); similarly for the attraction of the Sun to the Galactic center. These dipole lengths inside atomic nuclei and in the plasma are shown to be about 10-20 meters and 10-11 meters respectively. The apparent increase of mass to infinity of fast moving electrons is due to a decreasing rate of increase of electric dipoles in electrons ejected from radioactive nuclei at various speeds near the speed of light. Thus the electrons are deflected less than expected by the applied magnetic field and electric field as their speed increases from, e.g., .9c to .99c. The measurement of mass is produced by a magnetic field or electric field pushing up the net electric dipole or electric charge of an object passing through a magnetic field and an electric field, that is pulled down by the radial electric dipole field of the spinning Earth that is equivalent to the gravitational field. The upward force field is adjusted until it is equal to the downward force field. The bending of light by large masses, e.g. the Sun etc., is not directly due to the curvature of space around large masses but to the interaction of electric dipoles in the large mass on the receptivity of oscillating electrons inside the receiver’s nuclei, e.g., the Earth’s nuclei. The larger the mass, the greater the delay imposed on photoreceptors on the Earth. If light is not a moving wave or particle, the Michelson - Morley experiment needs no space- time dilation-contraction to explain the results. This is the classical physics underlying General and Special Relativity. The Bohr orbits or discrete energy levels of atomic electrons are due to the fact that the electrons in one orbit have to be in synch with the next innermost orbit including orbital charge inside atomic nuclei. That is they have to be moving at the same speed or at integral multiples of the same speed. Then the orbits can arrange themselves so that they are opposing each other’s motions to the same extent and for the same time they are helping each other’s motions. Similarly for molecules. The discrete levels of energy of free electrons moving between lattice rows of ions in conductors or a plasma are similarly determined so as to be in synch with these unacknowledged parts of their surroundings. Thus the energy of an orbital electron, as in a hydrogen atom, is not lost because the orbital electron gains as much as it loses by a least energy

configuration and timing of an adjacent hydrogen orbital electron and by being in synch with a similar but much faster orbiting charge inside the Hydrogen nucleus. The average energy of transition oscillations of charge between the ground orbit of radius “r” and an orbit with radius, “n2r” is, within experimental error, equal to the difference energy. This is the classical physics underlying quantum mechanics. Thus light and other frequencies are emitted as oscillating charged particles and induce oscillations of charge, first, instantaneously, in atomic nuclei of the receiver which then, spills over into oscillations of the free or orbiting electrons of the receiver. And so, after a delay the light is detectable. Sub-nuclear forces need not be exchange forces like a virtual photon carrying the electric force at the speed of light from a charged particle to another charged particle mysteriously producing attraction or repulsion after the delay, but rather instantaneous classical electric forces between ions, e.g., electron and proton, or negatively and positively charged masses in orbital motions at superluminal speeds inside atomic nuclei and inside electrons. As discussed above, in 1901 Walter Kaufmann, showed the apparent increase in mass of beta electrons from radioactive nuclei, before they come apart if their velocity equals the speed of light, can also be viewed as a non -linear tapering off of the magnetic strength of the fast moving electrons. Neutrinos come apart at a slightly greater speed as indicated by the CERN 2011, 2012 results. The later recanting by CERN when they realized such a result would require a complete revision of Relativity and modern physics, was suspect. For the same reasons elaborate objections have been raised against apparently superluminal quasars. The firing of the team leader who made this discovery, Antonio Ereditato, was not as Draconian as the Catholic Church punishments at an earlier time. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 and Galileo was sentenced to silence and house arrest in 1623 until his death eleven years later. In 1822, the Church finally lifted the ban on Galileo’s writings and in 1993, John Paul II, admitted the Church had been in error. Thus, although it may take three hundred years, neutrinos of various types and electrons and positrons and protons and other atomic nuclei will come to be regarded as orbital systems similar to Bohr’s planetary model of Hydrogen.

The neutrino core mass could have a charge, +e, and a smaller orbital mass of charge, –e, orbiting the central core mass at superluminal velocities. The electron core mass is 9.102(10-31) and its 10-55kg. orbiting mass has a charge, -2e. Thus, the classical central force inside the electron, projected on the X axis which acts half the time in the same direction, half the time in the opposite direction as an exterior force, -2eEx, is

Thus, if, a = 1.724, then R = 1.724(10-15) is the electron radius, and the elasticity of the charged mass inside the electron is equal to the speed of light squared. That is, the Coulomb force on this orbital charged mass, -2e., by the oppositely charged core mass, +e., as the orbital part is stretched into an ellipse is, - c2x. An orbiting charged mass, of charge, -e, instead of, -2e. and the same radius would have a smaller elasticity, (c)/(√2) = c*. The particle would come apart at this lesser velocity. But if the radius were sufficiently smaller it would come apart at a greater velocity - as was observed by Ereditato’s team at CERN. Neutrinos of various types and neutrino oscillation and speeds greater than the speed of light observed as in the Ereditato experiment could be explained by changes in the radius of the specified neutrino. Muons of the same speed as the electron as measured by times of flight over the same distances bend less in the same magnetic field suggesting that their radii are smaller than that of the electron. That is, the force, producing transverse charge polarization in the electron and in the meson moving through the same magnetic field, produces a smaller transverse dipole in the muon. This is the reason that the muon mass is about 200 times the electron mass at the same speed. Similarly for the pion, 275me the Tau lepton, 1000 me appears to be composed of three pions perhaps circled by a charged subtron of mass, 10-55kg. such that the net charge is as observed before and after the decay. The atomic nucleus is made up of protons, neutrons themselves made up of protoelectrons, protopositrons, quarks, neutrino’s etc. like nested matryoshka. The nested components may be circular or figure eight or other orbital systems with charged cores of some multiple of 10-55kg. and orbital

particles of 10-55kg. mass but of opposite charge; for example, the electron with core, +e and orbital charge, -2e, or the positron with core, +2e and orbital charge –e. Questions or comments: [email protected], 001 914 255 2205 links: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/, http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_f.html

1. INTRODUCTION

There are some interesting physics lectures on youtube. In one such lecture, noble prize winner and textbook author, Richard Feynman (19181988) represents the standard view that the magnetic field, though closely related to the electric field, is unrelated to the gravitational field. But there is a paper written by Patrick Blackett in 1949 in the journal, Nature, indicating otherwise. It shows that the angular momentum and magnetic moment of the Earth are proportional and that the proportionality constant is the square root of the gravitational constant divided by the speed of light. The same formula applied to the Sun, moon and stars. Although it had been known for some time, Blackett first noticed this relationship while considering the influence of magnetic field disturbances on communications and radar surveillance during WW2. It seemed to him extremely unlikely that this could be accidental. The only problem, according to Thomas Gold, another radar specialist for the British army during WW2, and stated in a subsequent 1949 Nature paper, is that there are no currents circling the Earth and Sun that could account for this relationship, no physical quantity which might be related by way of a new law to the magnetism of large rotating bodies” – at least nothing he could think of. In chapter 3, I am going to discuss the possibility of electric currents inside electrons and inside atomic nuclei that could be the missing mechanism. That is, there are orbital movements of charged particles of lesser mass than the electron but of the same, or twice the same, charge either positive or negative moving faster than light inside the electron and protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei such that the net charge is as observed. The possibility of small charged masses moving faster than light is implied by Walter Kaufmann’s 1901 experiment in which beta electrons at

greater and greater speeds near the speed of light were deflected less by a magnetic field than expected as if their mass’s had increased. But if we acknowledge that the apparent mass increase could be due to a decrease in the rate of increase of magnetic responsiveness at these higher velocities, then there is the possibility of small charged masses moving at superluminal velocities. We will show that the magnetic property that varies in moving electrons is electric dipoles inside these electrons. Thus the orbital electrons in Bohr’s planetary model of atoms are like smaller charged masses in orbits inside the electrons, protons and neutrons. The charge of these smaller masses, we assume, is the charge of an electron or positron. The net charge of the electron, proton and neutron are as observed. The apparently discrete orbits in Bohr’s model are continuous but in synch with these smaller interior orbits. Thus an atomic orbit cannot be sustained unless it is a multiple of the smaller orbit. That is, only then are the retarding forces between moving charged particles in one orbit equal and opposite to the accelerating forces. This leads to discrete radii whose average frequency between transitions are the observed frequencies and the set or spectrum of wavelengths associated with the atom in its excited states. The spectrum is the bands of light and dark produced on an opaque screen by passing the light from a heated gas through multiple small slits of a another opaque screen. Secondary radiation from the slit sides interferes with radiation from other slit sides and with primary radiation from the source. If the delays are the same so that the sine oscillations all reach their maximum at the same time, the light is more intense than when they reach their minimum all at the same time. The result is bands of light and dark. The distance between pairs of light bands on either side of the screen center give the wavelength of monochromatic light. The distances for other pairs give the wave lengths of other light in the source. This is the principle of a spectrometer and the meaning of, spectrum. If the observed wave lengths are slightly shifted by a magnetic field, the spectrum gives a measure of the magnetic field that the light is passing through. Shifts can also occur due to other influences; for example, the Doppler effect of the motion of the light source. As the Earth orbits and rotates about the Sun and the Sun rotates and orbits about the Galactic center, the unseen mechanical, ultimately

electrical, forces that cause these movements also produce a movement of charge inside their atomic nuclei and electrons in addition to the circular movement inside the nuclei and electrons. Note the throwing of a ball is an illustration of mechanical forces which are ultimately due to electrical forces. The same can be said about the spin and angular momentum of stars planets and their satellites. Whatever causes these motions, also produces a movement of charged particles inside the nuclei and electrons of the moving astronomical objects. And just like a current of electrons through a magnetic coil these smaller charged particles produce a magnetic field. The greater the mass and velocity of Earth and the Sun, the greater is this current and the greater is the magnetic field. Blackett also found that Hydrogen spectra of a star,78 Virginis, was shifted enough to show a magnetic field like that of the Earth and Sun. In chapter 4, I am going to discuss the speed of light as due to the delay of a light source at a given distance. If the strength of the oscillating charge at the receiver is attenuated and the receiver is sensitive enough, the delay can be increased until the source-receiver distance is exactly given by the distance divided by the speed of light. Thus a slightly greater distance will have a slightly greater delay given by the new distance divided by the speed of light. Oscillation of charge inside the nucleus of an atom in the receiver eventually carries over to the atomic electrons that are excited to the conductive band and produce detectable light frequencies. In the GPS system, Newtonian measurements of the satellite positions and their distances to ground receivers can be used to estimate the speed of light delay and can be made equal to the speed of light delay by increasing or decreasing the attenuation of the signal at the receiver. The distances to neighboring points can use this speed of light delay to produce accurate distance measurements. The speed of light delay from stars, billions of miles distant, is due to the faintness of the received light. The received light first scatters from the telescope’s objective lens and then is received by the ocular lens and eye after an additional delay. The additional delay is greater, the greater the length of the telescope and thus the lesser the intensity of the light at the eye. Bradley’s measurement of stellar aberration was based on observations of the brightest star in the Dragon constellation. There was a small but noticeable change in the North-South position of the star observed at

Greenwich when the star was observed overhead at times six months apart and the Earth was moving in its orbit in opposite directions, toward or away from a line between the star and the Earth’s orbital plane perpendicular to the orbital plane. In subsequent chapters, I am going to discuss further, the relation between the magnetic field and the electric field. This discussion will lead to a mechanism for the speed of light based on Maxwell’s theory but taking place inside the atomic nuclei of the light receiver. The movement of electrons through a coil or through parallel wires produces a magnetic field. Parallel wires that are near each other will show, an attraction between the wires if the currents are in the same direction or; a repulsion, if the currents are in opposite directions. The cause of the attraction or repulsion is electric. That is electric dipoles are produced inside the electrons and lattice nuclei of the wire transverse to the potential difference driving the flow of free electrons. The circular orbital charge in the electrons and lattice nuclei become elliptical with a displacement of the center of orbital charge and the fixed central charge. Thus millions of small electric dipoles are created but they are enough to produce the observed attraction or repulsion between parallel current carrying wires. We will see that the mass of the charged particles inside the electron and positron must be 10-55 kg., given the very strong central field governing the orbits of these small charged particles and the very weak field producing the movement of electrons in the wires; so as to give electric dipoles of the right size in electric dipoles transverse to the orbital and rotational motion of the Earth etc., that produce the observed attraction between the wires. The observed attractions and repulsions are attributed to radial dipoles that attract each other and longitudinal dipoles that, half as strongly, repel each other. This produces the attraction of mass to the Earth’s center and a slightly expanding mass of the Earth between lines of longitude. The dip and longitudinal lining up of a steel compass needle shows that the Earth’s gravitational field has essentially the same direction as its magnetic field. The greater magnitude of the magnetic field is due in part to the stronger measuring instrument, the magnetometer, versus the use of the plumb line for measuring gravity. The stronger magnetic field is primarily due to the magnetization of the iron atoms in the Earth’s core. The excess

electric dipoles in each iron atom are made to line up with the radial and longitudinal dipoles in all the Earth’s atomic nuclei. The 2011 CERN, demonstration of a faster-than-light neutrino was followed by a demonstration in 2012, of other similar neutrinos moving at nearly the speed of light but no faster. So Einstein’s speed limit was apparently not exceeded. Einstein claimed Walter Kaufmann’s 1901 experiments had shown that mass should increase to infinity at the speed of light. The 2011 CERN experiment showed a neutrino traveling a 730km., distance, 60 nanoseconds more quickly than light for such a distance. Yes, this result could be due to measurement error. The lack of clear explanations of the measurement process further muddies the water. The validity of the 2011 superluminal velocities was cast in doubt, by the 2012 results, but so was the process. A possible explanation of a faster-than-light neutrino is discussed. Briefly, it is that the elasticity of charge inside an electron equals the speed of light which also equals the ratio of the magnetic constant to the electric constant and that the electron comes apart at this speed. But a neutrino, with a smaller average radius than the electron has a greater elasticity, a stronger pull between the central core and orbital part, and comes apart at a greater speed than does the electron. The CERN experiments show that, though charged particles might increase in mass indefinitely according to the Lorentz factor, m = γm0, γ = (1-v2/c2)-1/2, neutral particles like the neutrino, might not. That is, the measurements in both cases are too recondite and a clearer explanation or another sort of measurement that is accessible to the educated layman is required. Thus, Relativity and Quantum theory and String theory might no longer be able to assume the Lorentz factor for mass; and its application to time and distance, and Einstein’s Special Relativity, is on shakier ground. Another sort of measurement that is accessible to the educated layman is as follows: The author in 1982 in the J. of Classical Physics., and the Rev. of Sci. Instruments, 1984, showed that Ampere’s inverse square magnetic force between parallel current carrying wire segments could be represented as an inverse fourth power electric dipole force where the transverse collinear electric dipoles in parallel wire segments were proportional to the distance between the wire segments. So the inverse fourth power force is

reduced to an inverse square force for parallel segments and an inverse, 1/r, force for longer parallel wires. A corollary is that the deflection of a particularly high velocity electron in a magnetic field as the velocity increased could be less than expected due to a reduction in the rate of increase of charge polarization in the electron as the velocity approached the speed of light. The apparent mass increase then is due to a reduction in the rate of increase of charge polarization inside the electron. Thus a change in an electrical property, not in mass per se, is responsible for the apparent mass increase. It was also shown that the conversion of energy of the fast moving particle into mass could be interpreted as the increase in velocity and energy of a charged particle inside the electron, a 100 billion, billion times smaller in volume and mass than the electron, and already moving faster than the speed of light. As the electron is accelerated to the speed of light, the small orbital particle inside the electron flies off at a speed far greater than the speed of light. This view of the electron also makes possible a less abstract explanation of pair production and annihilation than Dirac’s QM theory of antimatter. Pair production often occurs in close proximity to a heavy nucleus, eg the lead nucleus, and in the presence of high energy gamma radiation. Thus, a neutral composite particle with a, 10-55 kg. mass of charge, -2e, in a figure eight orbit around two core, 10-30 kg. masses of charge, +2e subject to a resonant frequency of gamma radiation, becomes briefly an electron, (+e -2e = -e) and a positron,(+e). This is pair production. The electron and positron soon recombine. This is pair annihilation. The electron and positron are detected as photographed streaks in a magnetic field in a cloud chamber or as digitally recorded paths in a spark and drift particle detector. Their oppositely curved paths start from the same point. A widening, then a contracting, orbital movement of a, 10-55 kg., mass of charge, -2e, accompany pair production and annihilation. These are the MeV gamma oscillations produced by a nearby radioactive source, for example, that cause the widening orbital movements inside the neutral particle preceding pair production. This is soon followed by slightly smaller, MeV oscillations of contracting orbital movement preceding capture and pair annihilation. Pair production - annihilation radiation are detectable by a crystal scintillation counter.

Recently, there has been a renewal of interest at Harvard, Yale and Cambridge in finding charge polarization, an electric dipole moment, EDM, inside electrons, but without awareness of Victor Weiskopf’s 1965 attempts at MIT. All of these attempts ignored the fact that the magnetic field of moving electrons is attributable to electric dipoles inside the electrons. Einstein showed that the Lorentz factor for mass increase also applied to time and implied apparent time dilation. Relative time dilation could explain the 1887 Michelson Morely result. That is, a source of light was directed eastward in the direction of the Earth’s spin at speed, V, to a half transparent slanted mirror where half of the beam passed to a full mirror and half of the beam was reflected at right angles to a second full mirror. The back reflections of the beams on the slanted half mirror were observed through a telescope at right angles to the longitudinal beam and did not show a pattern of alternating dark and light bands. But if light was moving at a constant speed, c, along each of these paths it would have taken slightly longer for the light to move back and forth along the longitudinal path in the direction the Earth was moving than along the transverse path. And dark and light bands would have been observed but were not. Einstein’s explanation was that time only appeared to move more slowly, or distances only appeared to be less, along the longitudinal round trip path relative to distance or the passage of time along the transverse round trip path- and vice versa. The null result implied that one could not tell if time moved more slowly along the longitudinal scale or time moved more rapidly along the transverse scale. Only relative, not absolute measurements of space and time were possible. A simpler explanation is that light does not move. Light does not move, either as a wave or as the moving particles called photons. Instead, light is the effect of cumulative instantaneous forces at a distance. The cumulative forces act inside atomic nuclei and inside free electrons of the receiver before spilling over to motions of atomic electrons in the eye or CCD chip etc., or to free electrons in the wires of a radio antenna. The CERN result, showing that mass may not increase to infinity at the speed of light, suggests that an alternative to the relativistic time dilation explanation of the Michelson Morely experiment is possible. Light speed measurements imply that light can be regarded as the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance. Weak microwave sources (50Watts) in the GPS system have longer delays than strong visible light sources from

stars with more than 100 or 1000 times the energy of the 1026 Watt Sun. The weaker the carrier signal at the receiver the greater the delay. The GPS delays are calibrated from Newtonian calculations of the distance between the satellites about 12,000 miles from stationary receivers on Earth to be exactly equal to the assumed speed of light. The assumed speed of light is the square root of the ratio of the magnetic constant to the electric constant. A small scale test can be carried out to show light is indeed the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance: A ten nanosecond light pulse from a laser is blocked at a photocell 30 feet away at the expected time of arrival and substantial light is still received as indicated by a voltage pulse above the noise level. When light is blocked from the photocell during the emission of the light pulse but not at the expected time of arrival, negligible light is received [1] The CERN results, showing that mass does not increase to infinity at the speed of light, suggests that superluminal charged particles could exist inside atomic nuclei. Such orbital charges inside atomic nuclei can explain the apparent discrete atomic orbits and quantized wave energies associated with discrete radiation frequencies from heated gases. That is, the outer atomic orbits must be in synch with the inner obits and with the orbital systems inside the atomic nuclei. No non-classical mechanics is needed; only classical forces applied equally to subluminal and superluminal charged particles. Exchange interactions, quarks, the electro-weak force and the strong force, that are used to explain nuclear cohesion and the particle emissions from high energy collisions involving electrons, protons, neutrons, helium ions etc., can be explained now in a simpler, less abstract way; in terms not of energy exchanges between virtual particles over very small time scales but in terms of electrical forces between actual charged particles, some a 100 billion, billion times smaller in mass and volume than the electron, moving between larger charged particles inside the nucleus and inside the electron and over similarly, very small time scales. Light itself need not be mysteriously produced by instantaneous transitions between energy levels and then propagated as a wave or photon or a probabilistic photon with a velocity equal to the speed of light. Instead, light or radiation in general, may be regarded as the effect of oscillations of charged particles in a source that produce, instantaneously at a distance, in

phase oscillations of charged particles in the primary receiver, first inside atomic nuclei, then after a delay, oscillations of electrons, e.g., of free electrons or of bound electrons where the widening of orbits of bound atomic electrons leads to their ejection. The required mechanism to produce such light transmission is similar to Maxwell’s changing electric fields causing magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields causing electric fields. In Maxwell’s theory these effects propagate as a spherical wave in vacuous space. In the modified Maxwell theory these changes occur inside atomic nuclei due to cumulative instantaneous forces at a distance. One of the implications of this new theory of electromagnetic radiation is that the magnetic fields of planets and stars are electric dipole fields and equivalent to their gravitational fields but measured with iron and steel whose atoms magnify the electric dipole field around the atom. The km./s. velocity of spacecraft magnetometers may not be properly taken into account in measuring planetary magnetic fields. The sources of these fields are electric dipoles inside atomic nuclei and free electrons and inside iron atomic electrons as in the case of planets like the Earth, neutron stars etc.. Changing electric dipoles inside atomic nuclei are associated with radio and light radiation. Repeated oscillations of charge at a specific frequency in a light or radio source produce increasing amplitudes of charge oscillations inside atomic nuclei in the parallel, say longitudinal, receiver before the amplitude of electron oscillations in the receiver is detectable. Accompanying the longitudinal oscillations are in phase transverse oscillations that account for radiation pressure. The mechanism, similar to Maxwell’s field mechanism, but inside atomic nuclei, is described in chapters 3 and 4. This, and not a moving wave or particle, would then account for the observed delays. For example, weak radio carrier oscillations, a billion per second, with phase shift modulations, from a spacecraft, 8 watt transmitter, near Pluto, means five hours before the carrier and its modulations are detectable- so long as the same receiver antenna is constantly turned to face the direction of the spacecraft. Some of the reported measurement anomalies and communications problems may be traced to difficulties in sustaining continuously open transmission and calibrating decreasing signal strength with increasing distance. But for distances more than 10 hours

away and apparent communication with spacecraft at these distances, the delay could be, not r/c, but kr/c, k