My Articles

PART 3of the Photon Particle Exists...
("Seeing the Forest, Not just the Individual Trees")

Discussion of Classifications:

Apparently, Davy and Faraday classified matter into four states:

Solid, Liquid, Gaseous, and RADIANT! 7

I agree with Fresnel's advocacy of achieving the most diversity with the least causes.8 But I have concluded that we need to add here a "fifth state": AETHEREAL!

Therefore, we have: Solid, Liquid, Gaseous, Radiant, and Aethereal!

In my first website article, I argue for the acceptance of an aether throughout space, somewhat like an ultra high velocity mist going in various directions. I think that ignoring the aether, in favor of "action-at-a-distance" (or "euphemism" for the like), has caused great confusion, unnecessary paradoxes, set a poisonous example for other fields to follow, and encouraged misrepresentation of history. (An example of the latter is where all of "classical physics" is wrongfully profiled by statements like, "classical physics says 'this'," or "classical physics says 'that'.")

Important: I, myself, do not believe in so-called "attractive" forces. He who attributes the "squeeze" force in a nucleus and the "squeeze" force inside the earth to an "attractive" "pull", (i.e., internal forces innate to matter); will find "attraction-at-a-distance" even more vexing. (The problem is a wrong paradigm about the cause of squeezing; that is, not appreciating an external aether's pressure capabilities!)

A very important reason why photons, neutrinos, and "gravitons" (even if they all exist) can NOT do aether's job, is as follows: There are very great, continuous pressures existing in this real universe, such as near the center of "white dwarf stars". And even higher pressures likely inferable from the behavior of other physical entities.

By definition; photons, neutrinos, and "gravitons" are classed as entities not exceeding light's speed. But in order to deliver the continuous high pressures, like a squirting hose; the average density of the stream would then have to be of much greater density than the air we breath, maybe even as thick as the interior of a nucleus. (i.e., that is, if the flow's speed is restricted to the speed of light).

Experimentally, it would seem that we could detect evidence of such a thick stream, if it really existed, but we fail to. Thus, it does not exist "thickly", and thus can not do the job! And I think Newton's belief is justified, (to welcome things): NOT founded upon DENSE material ether! (So we turn to a "thin" ultra energized aether, instead. And "allow" it to travel far, far faster than the speed of light!)

The following parts may be tedious and boring, so the reader might skip to "Aether Effects Massive Bodies. "

((Optional: I think that what scientists forget is that they need a 5th "class of interactions" anyway (i.e., if they don't like "aether", they can put "contingency" angels and higher-ups into it, instead 9). Also, it is the duty of scientists and engineers to analogue some of gravity's pressure actions, anyway, for example, as is done in "explosion casting", even if they deny an aether's existence or that it behaves something like that. This means that they should ask, "What fluid density and speed combinations are theoretically needed to simulate and cause the real, great pressures in this world?" So experienced scientists should not dodge this elementary problem or issue. Neither should good scientists mask, hide, or obfuscate a slew of other fundamental issues and history.))

In addition to the above and my previous articles, there are some other arguments for an aether existing, and that it has a speed much faster than the speed of light!:

1.      Even sound waves (much more simple than complicated light) are supported by molecules, which are generally moving at faster than the sound waves themselves. Some less massive atoms, making up the air and supporting the sound, (like Helium) are moving substantially faster than the sound.

Optional: And Linus Pauling used the following clause (when describing a"neutrino" travelling forward at "c", while spinning along that axis): ."As though it were a right handed propeller." 10 ((But in the design of the B29 airplane (and likely other WWII airplanes); the propellers were carefully designed NOT to exceed the speed of sound, (even when the plane was moving forward, I think).)) Yet any neutrino or photon "spin" (or other "special motion") would result in the velocity of parts moving faster than the forward speed of light. (Although some scientists doubt the existence of the "neutrino", we have the same "c-maximum- speed-of-light" paradox arising in the case of "photons".) (Is it sufficiently satisfying for a "physicist" to respond something like, "True, but my client did not actually send or receive simple 'word' information faster than 'c'?")

Must we really avoid such terms as: " photon mass", "vibrating or wiggling photon", and avoid acknowledging that the photon mass has "extension" in three dimensions? Isn't a photon's "spin, vibration, or wiggle" like a mass which is travelling faster than "c" in a long helical orbit or some other direction? Even though its shadow projection in the forward direction may only average speed "c"? Might the narrow paradigm of ."no 'message' faster than light". be hiding, yet, another world out there, that we should contemplate, even if it make us feel a little uncomfortable? (Like, previously, the phenomena of spin or wiggles and "DeBroglie waves", were an "unseen" world.)

2. The creation and the behavior of ultra deep penetrating small, neutral, hard-to-detect "neutrinos" is suggestive of ethereal behavior in some ways.11 And I think it is suggestive of some aspects of an ethereal cause of gravity, also. It seems sad that the neutrino "paradigm", even if imperfect, came after Poincare's time. (Incidentally, I do not assert that neutrinos travel forward faster than the speed of light. However, if most physicists regard the neutrinos as a "particle", but somehow without real mass, then I regard that as a flaw in their present paradigm.)

3. Consider the behavior of light with its aberrations, compared to gravity, without noticeable aberration: As the earth travels around the sun, we receive sunlight or photons, which are radiated from the sun at a high (but finite) speed, "c". But because the earth is moving also; if we looked through a dark, thin, long straw directly at asunspot (centered on the sun), we would not see it. To get the photon to go down the straw to the eye (without being absorbed by the inside dark wall of the straw), the straw must be tilted slightly forward (in the direction of the earth's orbital movement). This is called "aberration" and is well known and understood.

Thus, the real line-of-action (the line that the photon took down that tilted straw to the eye) is that line which points slightly to the front of that sunspot. And we should be glad that the line of gravitational action is NOT the same as light's action! i.e., Not the same as that straw's, which is tilted forward! Because then, the earth could not remain in its stable orbit (if the line of action was tilted). (No "aberration" is observed in the case of gravity!) ". And that is consistent with the theory that gravity travels much faster than light, and the following inference: That gravitational action occurs (from one body and on to another a distance away) without the delays associated with light's slower speed. Thus, the earth does not have to move for 8.3 minutes while waiting for the gravitational action to occur. Thus, the earth stays in orbit, and gravity travels at least far faster than light! (Laplace,Beckmann, Tom Van Flandern, and some others have addressed this in detail.12) (Of course, don't endanger your eyes by trying to look at the bright sun!)

Also, experiments lead many scientists to the conclusion that photons increase in energy when gravity helps pulls them downward. If correct, how can that happen without some aspect of gravity catching up with the photon's speed "c", and giving the photon a "swift kick in the tail" or side? So there must be an "aspect" of gravity that goes faster than "c" (at leastmomentarily)!

4.      Some aspects of Heisenberg's work indicate that in order to describe some realities,some unusual allowances must be permitted for velocities and other characteristics for a short time interval.13 In my opinion, this is suggestive of at least "bursts" of speed faster than light, and I think "that's just the tip of the iceberg".

Let us also consider the following example: If a rocket goes northward at speed ¾ "c" and a second rocket goes southward at ¾ "c", they are moving away from each other at 1½ "c". If a photon is a true particle mass, then one rocket can send the other rocket such photon (real information) by the photon's moving off and away from the first rocket , toward the second rocket, with absolutely 1¾ "c" speed!

(Otherwise, such photon would not get to the second rocket!) This fact can not be "rationalized away" by asserting "group velocity", "curved space", "little information carried", "too small to measure near rocket", or other "gimmicks", in my opinion! ((I do think it is possible that the aether may re-absorb (or cannibalize) some of the photon's mass and energy as the photon is launched by such fast moving "rocket".))

And suppose that the southbound rocket sends a radium nucleus northward so that the radium nucleus stops its southbound movement. And suppose that the radium nucleus, shortly thereafter, sends a beta particle (electron) northward at 7/8th "c". We then have a "conventional" (electron) material (from the southbound rocket) having caught up with the fast northbound rocket, (i.e., the electron having achieved a speed of over 1½ "c"); and not just an "abstract" photon catching up!

It was inevitable that "Einstein" and "Heisenberg" would "clash"; an aspect of "Heisenberg" denying the implications of the limit "c"; and an aspect of "Einstein" denying the implications of the limit "h". (Perhaps that arose from what one physician-philosopher termed: their somewhat "limited subjective approach to reality", to borrow the phrase.) Perhaps there is an implication in Heisenberg's theory that a photon must "wiggle" while continuing to go forward at "c"; and a slight implication in Einstein's theory that such would unfairly exceed the speed of light.

In a different field, Chief Seattle, and some environmentalists, advocated for the following: The realization that the big can not survive long without a recognition and respect for the smaller and diverse. Yet, one notes that Feynman seemed to complain that the "small" just does not behave like the "bigger".14 I think Chief Seattle would have suggested being quite happy that the "small" does not behave like the "bigger", and would have suggested that the "bigger" consider more often behaving like the "small".

My opinion (as advocated in my first web article) is this: An aether is made up of ultra small mist-like entities of various size, having ultra high velocities, and varying in speed and direction. I argue that there thus arises an "average" discrete energy, and a sort of "equipartition of energy" between the small and the bigger. And that there is a balance of pressures existing between the many "smalls" and the occasional big, which brings stability to the big. Whatever the details, I believe that the aether holds the "key".

Thus, due to the aether, the "elementary particle" (which would otherwise rapidly decay) puts on a measure of "in-decayability", instead! Thus, I see a parallel between Chief Seattle's view of the "big dependent on the small", and my view of physics ((i.e., regarding the "elementary" particle's dependency upon the yet smaller ("misty") aether, for stability. An aether that we can not see, but which exists throughout space!))

Intro/Part 1| Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Conclusions | References | Illustrations | Home
Carl R. Littmann

(Readers’ comments always welcome)
For my Email and address, see my Homepage