Gravity as an imbalance in the electric force

Returning to our discussion of the electric force, we discover on closer inspection that there are in fact more than two types of collisions taking place between neutrinos in the aether. We have:

1. Abrasive colliding with woolly
2. Abrasive colliding with abrasive
3. Woolly colliding with woolly

The effect of the two last types are almost, but not quite, identical. There is a tiny difference due to the fact that abrasive surfaces interact ever so slightly with other abrasive surfaces.

A consequence of this is that the repelling force between two positively charged surfaces is a tiny bit stronger than the repelling force between negatively charged surfaces. (Remember, neutrinos carry footprints of opposite charge to what they have last interacted with.)

When we add up all the different types of collisions between two neutral bodies, we get that repulsion comes out a tiny bit less strong than attraction. We end up with a tiny attracting force.

Since neutrinos are so small that they easily pass through large bodies of matter, they carry information, not only from the surface of a body, but from the entirety of a body. The grand total of information-carrying neutrino collisions between two bodies is gigantic, so even a tiny discrepancy between attraction and repulsion adds up to a considerable force when bodies get as large as our planet.

This force, which we have arrived at purely on basis of theory, is what we call gravity. Gravity is due to a tiny imbalance in the electric force, and that is why Newton's universal law of gravity looks so much like Coulomb's law:

Comparing Coulomb's law to Newton's law

Coulomb's law ignores the tiny discrepancy between electric attraction and electric repulsion, and for good reasons. The discrepancy is in the order of a trillionth of a trillionth. Newton's law, on the other hand, is all about the discrepancy. Inertial mass is Newton's proxy value for the total number of positive and negative charge quanta in a body, and G is a proxy for k.

Finally, it should be noted that the logic and theory used here to explain gravity is identical to what was used to explain the enormous size of protons relative to electrons. Two seemingly unrelated phenomena have thus been explained by a single principle of theory.

Coulomb's law as availability, probability and geometry

Let us now consider Coulomb's law to see if we can arrive at this ourselves by simply applying what we have discussed so far.

Coulomb's law

Coulomb's law states that the force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges, q1 and q2, can be calculated from the strength of the charges themselves, the distance separating them, r, and a constant k. The formula states that the force F equals k multiplied by the product of q1 and q2, divided by the square of r.

This can be related to our theory as follows:

1. Let k represent the general availability of neutrinos in the aether.
2. Let q1 and q2 represent the probability of collisions between charged neutrinos.
3. Let r represent the diminishing chance of collisions with distance.

While point 1 requires no further explanation, we need to explain point 2 and 3. It is not immediately clear why q1 should be multiplied by q2, nor why r should be squared.

When it comes to q1 and q2, we have to keep in mind that footprints left on neutrinos are directly related to the charge on the point charges. Q1 and q2 are therefore proxy values for how full the aether is of charged neutrinos.

Furthermore, we have to recognize that collisions are probabilistic events. Such events are calculated using multiplication. When we are talking about very large numbers of collisions, the way we calculate the grand total is also by multiplication. Q1 must therefore be multiplied by q2 in order to give us a value reflecting the overall total of collisions.

When it comes to the distance r, we have to recognize that charged neutrinos are more densely distributed close to the point charges, and that this distribution tapers off by the square of the distance. This is the inverse square law, which can be derived directly from geometry.

From this, we can now calculate the overall number of neutrino collisions by multiplying k with the product of q1 and q2, divided by the square of r. Keeping in mind that it is neutrino collisions that produce force by pumping aether into or out of the field between charges, we have arrived at Coulomb's law:

Coulomb's law explained

From this it is clear that it is possible to see Coulomb's law as an expression related to the aether and the probability of collisions happening in it.

We can also conclude that Coulomb's law must break down at extremely close distances, such as those found inside atoms. This is because this law relates to collisions in the aether. When the distance between two point charges goes to zero, the number of neutrinos between them go to zero as well.

This explains why electrons are only loosely attracted to atomic nuclei when they are in physical contact. With no aether to provide an electric force between the two particles, there's only their respective textures that keep them together.

For Coulomb's law to work according to formula, charges must be separated by a minimum distance, and it is this fact that allows an electron at rest on an atomic nucleus to move sufficiently high to start bouncing. The electric force at the surface of a charged particle is not infinite or close to infinite, its zero. Very close to the surface it is near zero. Then the force quickly peeks before tapering off with distance according to the inverse square law. Only then does things behave fully according to Coulomb's formula.

In a pure particle model where everything, including space comes in discrete quanta, conventional formulas tend to break down at extremely small scales. This is because most formulas model reality as a continuous whole, while pure particle models see reality as something composed of discrete quanta.

The electric force

To understand the electric force, gravity and magnetism, we must return to our definition of the aether, because it is the aether that makes action at a distance possible.

We have to keep in mind that the aether is so dense that every particle in it is in physical contact with every neighbouring particle. This means that if we can manipulate the aether between two surfaces in such a way that some of its particles leave this field, we get tremendous tension, forcing the surfaces together. Conversely, if we can manipulate the aether in such a way that particles get sucked into this field, there will be tremendous pressure, forcing the surfaces apart. Unless we re-establish equilibrium, there will be tension or pressure, depending on the situation.

Let us further consider what we have said about textures of particles, and the fact that neutrinos are of mixed texture. Neutrinos receive footprints of whatever surface they were last in contact with. This is information that neutrinos take with them as they return back into the field.

Now, consider what happens when a neutrino with a woolly footprint comes in contact with a neutrino with an abrasive footprint. There is a degree of affinity between the two neutrinos. They latch on to each other. On the other hand, if two neutrinos of identical texture collide, there is virtually no affinity. This means that collisions between equally charged neutrinos are different from collisions of differently charged neutrinos. In fact, we can make the following claim based on observation:

Neutrinos of opposite charge collide in such a way that they have a tendency to leave the field, while neutrinos of identical charge collide in such a way that they have a tendency to stay in the field.

Collision of differently charged neutrinos compared to collision of equally charged neutrinos

With this model, we have an explanation for why surfaces of opposite charge attract each other, while surfaces of same charge repel each other. It all boils down to the neutrinos in the aether and how they tend to leave the field when differently charged, and stay in the field if equally charged.

A consequence of this is that there must be electric pressure inside electrons and protons. The walls inside electrons are predominantly negatively charged, and the walls inside protons are predominantly positively charged. In both cases we have a situation in which neutrinos will tend to stay inside. This makes electrons and protons more like inflated balls than saggy balloons. It makes them bouncy, as required for the bouncing electron hypothesis to work.

On a final note, the relationship between the aether and what we call space should not be forgotten. Space is a void filled with aether. When we manipulate the aether, we are in fact manipulating space itself.

The bouncing electron

Returning to the phenomenon of free neutron decay, we can now make some further observations and interpretations of what's going on.

Free neutron decay

First of all, we can make the educated guess that the neutrino comes from within the proton. A proton is after all a large bloated net. There is aether inside of it.

A neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it due to natural affinity. The mostly abrasive texture of protons stick to the mostly woolly texture of electrons. To free the electron from the proton, a random high energy neutrino has to knock the electron loose from the proton. To do so successfully, it is best if this happens from inside the proton rather than at an angle.

From this we can further conclude that the affinity between protons and electrons is relatively weak. A proton cannot hold on to an electron for very long. It is close to impossible to attach an electron to a proton. If a stray electron bumps into a proton, it will bounce rather than stick. If the bounce is energetic enough, the stray electron continues its journey, leaving the proton behind. However, if the bounce is too weak to escape the electric field of the proton, the electron comes down again for a second bounce. Unable to escape the electric field, and equally unable to stick to the proton, the stray electron becomes a captive of the proton. Without any added energy, it is stuck bouncing up and down on the proton. This logic goes for all atomic nuclei because all atomic nuclei carry positive charge. They are all largely abrasive.

Keeping in mind that protons are like inflated balloons, and atomic nuclei are known to be assemblies of such balloons, we get that every atomic nuclei has a resonant frequency. This means that any electron captured by a proton must bounce at harmonics corresponding to the resonant frequency. Any deviation will be forced back into harmony. Electrons with the lowest energy, bounce at the resonant frequency of the atomic nucleus. For every vibration of the nucleus, the electron makes a bounce. The next energy level is at the next harmonic, allowing the nucleus to vibrate twice for every bounce. Then we have the next level, where the nucleus vibrates three times for each bounce, and so on until we reach escape velocity.

This explains the fact that captured electrons come in discrete energy levels, and why these energy levels are different for different atomic nuclei. It also explains why captured electrons are more likely to be found in certain regions of space relative to the nucleus than other regions.

For atoms with more than two protons in their nuclei, there is not enough room for all of the electrons to bounce directly off the nucleus. Only two electrons can do this. Additional electrons bounce off of the repelling electric field that exist between electrons. These electrons are attracted by the nucleus, but repelled by their fellow electrons. What we get is an atomic nucleus with electrons neatly spaced out in various regions so that every electron is as close as possible to the atomic nucleus and at the same time as far as possible away from their fellow electrons.

Atomic nucleus with net charge of 10, surrounded by 10 bouncing electrons = Neon

Every electron bounces about with a frequency dictated by the atomic nucleus. The inner two electrons bounce directly off of the nucleus. The outer electrons bounce off the electric fields of the electrons closer to the nucleus. Together, this forms a perfectly harmonic structure, capable of absorbing end releasing energy in discrete quanta.

A high energy photon that crashes into one of the bouncing electrons with sufficient force to kick it one notch up in energy will transmit its energy to the electron in the required quantum. If the energy transmitted is a little too much, the stray jacket of allowed harmonics comes in, forcing the superfluous energy into the nucleus and aether. If sufficient energy is transmitted to go up two notches, the electron will do so. The electron will go up any number of energy levels, depending on how much energy is transferred from the photon to the electron.

Neon absorbing energy from an energetic photon

When the energetic electron at some later time knocks into a low energy photon, everywhere available in the aether, the opposite happens.

Neon yielding energy to a low energy photon, thus producing light

The photon is kicked up in energy by the energetic electron, which then returns to its low energy state.

This is how neon lighting works. However, this is not the only way light can be produced. White light is produced differently. White light contains all sorts of energies. Electrons producing white light are therefore randomly yielding energy to photons. This is very different from pure neon light, which only comes in very narrow and well defined energy spectra.

All of this fits well with the pure particle model proposed in this book. However, it leaves us with one burning question. What on earth is this electric force that makes it possible for atomic nuclei to pull on electrons at a distance?

Impulses, free motion, force, tension and inertia

The laws of motion have been well understood for centuries. Newton wrote a book on it almost 500 years ago, and very little was left to describe after this. However, Newton never proposed a physical model for what was going on. His physics is entirely mathematical. No underlying mechanics is explained. He left this intentionally for others to explore.

Taking up Newton’s challenge, we will now investigate various phenomena related to motion and relate them back to our model. To do this, we will address the electron as our fundamental particle of inertial mass. Our macro world analogy for the electron will be the steel ball. Since we have as one of our premises that what’s going on at the subatomic is a direct reflection of what’s going on at the macro level, our steel ball analogy should be a very good fit for the electron.

With this in mind, let’s investigate the laws of motion in light of our model where everything has to be explained in terms of particles with 3 dimensions, size and texture:

Pressures, tensions and impulses

Starting with our steel ball, we note that it does not move if we put it carefully on a plane tabletop. To make it move, we have to apply force to it, and the force has to be applied unevenly. If evenly applied, there’s pressure or tension in the ball, but no motion. Any energy passed onto the ball is immediately lost when force is evenly released after first having been evenly applied. However, when applied unevenly, force applied in this manner results in both linear motion and an increase in energy.

From observations, we reach two conclusions:

• Force has to be unevenly applied for an object to absorb energy.
• Motion caused in this manner is always in the direction of force.

This can be explained in terms of our theory as follows:

1. An impulse applied to a steel ball will result in a pressure wave, progressing through the ball.
2. When the pressure wave reaches the far end of the steel ball, the ball expands by a tiny bit.
3. The pressure wave returns to restore the shape of the ball.
4. The shape is restored, but not its size.
5. The new centre of mass is a tiny bit to the far end of the ball.
6. To restore its shape, the ball moves in the direction of the new centre of mass.
7. Without any new impulse, the ball continues in its new state, slightly larger and moving in the direction of the impulse that set it going.

This explanation is based on the idea that all particles will by their nature return to their original shape. We offer no explanation for this tendency. However, we can point out that the optimal ratio between surface area and volume is a sphere. There is therefore a good mathematical explanation for our axiom.

Time and inertia

Bringing this argument down to the electron, we note that the complete process of adding energy to the electron involves a pressure wave that has to first traverse its surface from one end to the other, and then return back to the point of the original impulse in order to restore its shape.

Assuming that the pressure wave moves at the speed of light, we note that it takes one half unit time to make the forward journey. The return journey takes another half unit time. This means that energy transfers onto or off of electrons always take 1 unit time to complete. Our unit time is in other words something more than mere convention. It is tied directly up to energy transfers in the real world. Measured time and physical time is one and the same thing.

Inertia can also be explained. It is the time delay between impulse and completed energy transfer. This time delay is very small for an electron, and very little energy is required. However, for a steel ball the process has to involve all its constituent particles in order to complete. This requires more time. More energy is also required, because there are more particles over which to distribute the energy. Inertia becomes more noticeable. In the case of large trucks, ships and air-crafts, inertia becomes very noticeable.

Pilot waves as memory

The rest of this post can be found here.

Minimum sizes and uncertainties

Before we go on to explain the phenomenon of inertia, let us first relate our theoretical framework concerning distances and time to the real world we live in.

The first thing to note is that we, and everything we directly interact with, are made up of inertial matter. This has consequences when it comes to how we measure things, not because of any technological shortcomings, but because of real world limits.

Suppose we want to measure distance. To do this, we will need a ruler. Such a ruler must naturally be made of inertial matter. Otherwise, it would be flying about at the speed of light. The smallest possible bit of stable inertial matter that we can use as a ruler, at least in theory, is therefore the electron. Noting that the electron is a balloon-like net, it does not have a stable cross-section, even if well inflated. The most reliable measure we can use is therefore its circumference.

To measure time as precisely as theoretically possible, we take the electron, and define a tick of our super-precise clock as the time it takes a photon to traverse its circumference. The reason we cannot  arbitrarily choose a shorter distance is that our clock must necessarily register the tick. Something physical has to happen to the electron. It has to go from one state to another. For this to happen, energy has to be moved into or out of the electron. Either way, the process involves the photon and the entirety of the electron.

We now have our real world unit length and unit time, corresponding to the theoretical unit length and unit time described initially in this book. No distance shorter than 1 unit length can ever be measured with certainty. Similarly, no time shorter than 1 unit time can ever be pinned down. Our unit distance and unit time are:

1. 1 unit distance = the circumference of an electron
   
2. 1 unit time = 1 unit distance / speed of light

Photon traversing the circumference of an electron

In our physical existence, there is a limit to how precise we can be. There is therefore an inescapable uncertainty related to everything. Since we have no way of pinning down exactly where and when things happen, we cannot make any predictions with absolute precision.

Furthermore, things that happen faster than 1 unit time, cannot be registered in any way as being anything but instantaneous. No matter how we try to measure such super-fast events, we will end up with missing information about the state of things between each tick of our clock. Such events will appear as being one moment in one state and the other moment in a different state. This does not mean that nothing takes place in the intermediate time. It only means that whatever takes place cannot in any way be properly measured or registered. While it is possible to spot an intermediate state, quite by chance, such states cannot be reliably interpreted. They will be indistinguishable from completely random noise.

On a final note, we must at all times keep in mind that the unit length and unit time described here are real physical entities, with real physical implications. All forces and energies are implicated by this. When we later in this book start to investigate phenomena related to time and space, it is important to remember that there is no difference between measured time and physical time. If our unit time speeds up or slows down relative to other clocks in other locations, we're dealing with different realities, all adhering to the same physical laws, but observably different from one vantage-point to another.

Electron-positron pair production and the aether

Large energetic photons are not easily controlled by their pilot waves. As a consequence, they have a tendency to smash into things. Instead of meandering through atomic lattices or veering off in reflection, high energy photons move like bullets. If they hit something, they loose energy. If not, they pass through unaffected. This is how x-ray photography works, and why such photography is dangerous to our health when performed too often.

Most collisions end up in a transfer of energy from the high energy photon to whatever barrier it hit. However, in some cases this does not happen. The energy stays with the photon. Energy may even be added to it.

All of this is of no consequence as long as the photon in question continues to move at the speed prescribed by the aether. The photon remains a photon as long as it is able to do this. However, in cases where the photon is unable to fulfil this requirement something very dramatic happens. The photon is stopped dead in its trajectory, and popped into an electron-positron pair:

Electron-positron pair production

This transformation has some notable aspects to it:

1. Non-inertial matter is turned into inertial matter that can move at variable speeds
2. Dramatic slow down in speed
3. Big difference in size between photon and resulting matter
4. No known intermediary state (its an either or situation)

Leaving the the issue of inertia and what that is for later, we will now proceed to explain the above list in terms of our theory:

First of all, we must keep in mind that the aether is extremely dense. It is impossible for a photon to move at an independent speed due to this fact. Anything that is of the same kind as the aether must move at the speed dictated by the aether. Unable to move at the prescribed speed, a photon has to become something other than a photon.

The only way something can move freely within the constraints of the aether is by letting the aether travel freely trough itself. There is no intermediate state in this. Either the aether moves freely through a thing, or the thing in question moves as prescribed by the aether. It follows from this that inertial matter moves freely because it lets the aether move freely through itself.

This in turn explains the difference in size between photons and inertial matter. Particles of inertial matter are balloon-like nets relative to photons and neutrinos. This means that particle quanta have the ability to expand into relatively huge nets if required. It seems then, that our particle quanta may in fact be little bundles of strings.

Finally, we can explain the dramatic slow down in speed as a consequence of the transformation process. Photons move at a fixed speed due to the surrounding aether, which will hammer against any photon or neutrino that tries to move at an independent speed. This keeps everything going according to the prescribed speed. The margin of allowed variation is extremely small. However, once the margin of variation has been breached, what used to spur particles on becomes a wall of aether particles. The disobedient particle is bombarded from all sides. It becomes completely locked into position, and it is only when the transition from a compact particle into a pair of net-like balloons is complete that things are again allowed to move.

This explains why photons must pop when stopped by a barrier. They cannot remain in an in-between state. They must either be photons, moving at the speed of light as they pass through the aether, or become electrons and positrons through which the aether can move unhindered.

Transparent media

Henry Berg's observations related to mirrors, apply just as much to transparent media. Without the help of pilot waves to smooth things out, photons would crash into electrons and atomic nuclei. They would scatter all over the place, and their energy would be absorbed. However, once we include pilot waves into our physics, things become a lot easier to explain.

The presence of a pilot wave around every photon helps smooth out minor irregularities that would otherwise lead to scatter. The pilot wave acts like a dynamic cushion around each photon, guiding them through the atomic lattice of the transparent medium.

Pilot wave guiding a photon through the atomic lattice of a transparent medium

This process greatly distort the shape of the pilot wave. It goes from being a fairly flat wave-front to an elongated sock-like shape. This process requires photons to have a minimum of energy. They have to be big enough to do this. Very small photons are too much affected by their pilot waves to assert this kind of control over them. As a result, low energy photons get reflected by glass.

On the other hand, high energy photons are so big that their pilot waves have too little control over them to get them through. High energy photons crash into atoms. They scatter, and their energy get absorbed.

This explains why glass is only transparent to photons in a certain range of energies. Glass is opaque to photons outside the visible spectrum, both to the high and low energy side.

Another thing to note is that the photons that are in the right energy interval for glass to let them through, all travel the same path. However, the smaller photons which are the most influenced by their pilot waves, travel in a more direct path than larger photons. Large photons veer off to the sides, almost smashing into things as they go, while small photons stay safely in the middle of their pilot wave cushion.

This is why small (red) photons get through transparent media in less time than large (blue) photons.

Finally, we should note that the path through the medium is in a different direction from the path through air. The density of atoms in the medium makes the overall path through it more acute than the path on entry and exit. This phenomenon is referred to as refraction, and the degree to which this happen is referred to as the refraction index.

To understand why a photon's angle of entry into a sheet of plane glass is exactly equal to its angle of exit, we must once again consider the pilot wave. In simple terms, we can say that the process of exit is an exact opposite of entry. Instead of being compressed, the pilot wave expands. The various parts that were compressed on entry expand in a complementary manner on exit.

However, this is only the case for plane glass, where the entry and exit surfaces are in parallel with each other. In the case of a prism, where the surface met by the photon on entry has a different angle from the one met on exit, we get diffraction where photons not only change their direction, but do so to a lesser or greater degree depending on their energy:

Diffraction of light

While all photons refract to the exact same degree, red photons diffract less than blue photons because red photons make smaller rolls into glass, and hence smaller rolls out of glass than blue photons. This is of no consequence when the roll into glass is equal and opposite to the roll out of glass, as is the case with plane glass. However, when the roll into glass is anything but equal and opposite to the roll out of glass, we get a situation in which we have to add the initial roll to the final roll. All photons end up redirected, but with big photons redirected more than small photons.

Path of photons through a plane glass sheet compared to a prism

This does not only explain why prisms diffract white light into all its different colours while plane glass sheets don't diffract light in any way. It also explains the curious fact that diffraction of light happens in its entirety at exit from a prism. There is no diffraction going on inside the prism.

Reflection

In one of his crime novels, Henry Berg makes the observation that there is something profoundly strange about mirrors. How is it that a surface made up of atoms can perfectly reflect photons that are many times smaller than even an electron? From the perspective of a photon, an atom is like a mountain. The surface of a mirror is anything but flat. Yet, all photons striking the mirror will leave at an equal and opposite angle, with no energy lost.

Using the physics laid out in this book, the answer to this riddle is that photons never strike the mirror. The pilot wave that accompanies every photon acts like a cushion, and it is off of this cushion that the photon bounces.

Photon with pilot wave striking a reflective surface of atoms

While photons are tiny, the pilot waves surrounding photons are big relative to atoms. They can easily even out a tolerably smooth surface without upsetting their host particle. In this way, each photon sees a perfectly smooth cushion. It bounces off of this, unaffected by any underlying irregularity in the surface of the mirror.

The phenomenon of reflection can in this way be seen as supporting evidence for the existence of pilot waves.

Polarization through reflection

Light reflecting off a mirror at an angle will end up polarized. This means that every photon must have some sort of axis along which it is oriented. Otherwise, no polarization could be possible.

Combining this fact with what we have so far concluded about photons, we must further conclude that the pilot wave has the ability to orient photons when compressed against a reflecting surface.

The simplest possible explanation for this is that photons are like little sticks. When hit against the compressed cushions of their pilot waves, they end up aligning in parallel with the underlying surface.

Note that the orientation of the aligned photons is random when polarized in this way. On average, there are just as many photons oriented left to right as right to left.

Photons, passing from left to right, being polarized on reflection

This fits well with what we have thus far concluded about the photon, namely that it is an assembly corresponding to an electron and a positron. Assuming that the arrangements of particle quanta in electrons and positrons are inherited directly from photons, we end up with a two orb model of the photon, making them in essence tiny sticks.

The aether

Photons have the peculiar property that they often seem to appear right out of nowhere. All that is needed is to heat a suitable material to a high enough temperature, and it starts to glow. But the material is made up of protons and electrons, where then do all the photons come from?

The only way to answer this in terms of the theory proposed in this book is that photons originate in the aether. They are somehow made visible through the interaction between the aether and heated materials.

Energy is transferred from the heated material to the aether in such a way that visible photons appear. But what is energy, and how exactly does energy interact with the aether to produce light?

As to the mechanism of production, it is either one in which photons are produced on the fly from particle quanta, or one in which energy makes pre-existing photons visible. The more reasonable of these suggestions is the latter. It is also the one that serves us the best in explaining a whole range of other phenomena encountered later in this book.

From this, we get that the aether contains low energy photons that serve as a reservoir for processes in which photons appear seemingly out of nowhere. Since we know that neutrinos also have this peculiar tendency to appear out of nowhere, we can conclude that the aether is a mix of very low energy photons and neutrinos. From our theory, we must also conclude that the aether is so dense that no single particle is ever out of contact with its adjacent neighbours.

Another property of the aether is that it has no absolute reference point. Every particle in it travels at the speed of light relative to its immediate surroundings. The aether is so void of energy that anything with a bit of energy quickly becomes an anchor point. The aether inside a car travelling down the highway, has the car as its anchor. The aether in a forest, has the forest as its anchor. Earth as a whole, drags the aether with it as it turns. The solar system in turn, is another anchor point. This spans the entire size hierarchy from the subatomic to the galactic  and beyond.

Relative to the local anchor, the aether moves with equal number of particles in every direction. Furthermore, the local anchor point sets the speed of its particles in such a way that when the forward speed of the local frame is added to the local speed of the aether, we get the speed of the aether outside the local frame.

This means that the aether inside a speeding train is slower than the aether outside of it. The aether inside a rocket moving at close to the speed of light is close to standstill.

To allow for all of this, the aether must be tolerant of small differences in speed. However, it is extremely intolerant when it comes to dissenting member particles. It behaves as a mob of wimps, ganging up on anything smaller than itself, while quickly conforming to anything bigger than itself.

There is no explanation for this behaviour in the theory presented here. All we can suggest at the moment is that it has something to do with the high density of the aether, coupled with its lack of energy. We will therefore use the above description of the aether as an unexplained premise as we progress through the rest of this book.

A notable consequence of this model is that all frames of reference have some higher reference frame that can be viewed as static compared to itself. This becomes important when we compare one reference frame to another. Furthermore, there is an ultimate top to this hierarchy. Viewed from that top, all reference frames have an aether that is either as fast moving as its own, or slower.

Since the particles in the aether move in all directions, the most natural analogy we have is a gas in which fast moving particles are hot and slow moving particles are cold. Similarly, we will describe fast moving aether as hot and slow moving aether as cold. The aether inside the above mentioned rocket ship is in other words extremely cold relative to its external reference frame.

Energy

Sticking with our theory, we must take the position that energy is a property of particle quanta. This is especially true since we know that neutrinos, consisting of single neutral particle quanta, are capable of carrying energy. Energy is therefore something fundamental, requiring no complex assembly or structure to exist.

As stated at the beginning of this book, particle quanta have three fundamental properties. They are their 3 dimensions, their size and their texture. Additionally, we can propose speed, vibration and spin as fundamental. However, neutrinos do not speed up or slow down when given extra energy, so energy can not be speed.

Dismissing the idea that dimensions or texture may have anything to do with energy, we are left with spin, vibration or size as top contenders. Noting that large particles, such as protons, are known to carry more energy than smaller particles such as electrons and photons, our prime candidate becomes size. Choosing this as our definition of energy, we get that an increase in size of particles at the subatomic is equivalent to an increase in energy.

Pilot waves

We can now explain the phenomenon of visible light, as well as all other energy carrying photons, in terms of the aether and energy as size. When a suitable material is heated in the right way, electrons in that material start to kick low energy photons, everywhere available in the aether, one notch up in energy.

The more energetic a particle is, the larger it is, and the more it interacts with the aether. This in turn has two consequences:

1. Energetic particles take less direct paths through the aether because they are constantly knocked about by the interfering aether.
2. Particles in the aether are pushed to the side by larger, more energetic, particles.

This allows for a pilot wave to build up around energetic particles. This pilot wave is comprised of low energy photons and neutrinos that travel along straighter paths than their more energetic counter parts. A wave front develops, similar to that in front of a ship moving through water.

Pilot waves are at their most intense in near vicinity of their host particle and diminish into nothing at a distance. This means that a host particle is never very far from the extremities of its pilot wave. However, relative to the tiny size of the host particle, pilot waves cover vast distances. This can be deduced from analysing the double slit experiment in light of this model.

The double slit experiment

Consider the set-up of the double slit experiment:

Set-up of the double slit experiment

Now, consider what is registered on the light sensitive far wall as we pass one photon at the time through the barrier:

Building up an interference pattern

Each photon leaves a mark on the light sensitive wall, proving that photons manifest themselves as particles. At first, little can be seen of the interference pattern. However, for each additional photon passed through the barrier, the pattern becomes more defined, until it finally becomes a clear and undeniable wave pattern. Each photon must therefore have interfered with itself in some way.

Our explanation for this is that the pilot wave associated with each photon produces an interference pattern at the far side of the barrier as it cuts through both openings. This interference pattern alters the path of the photon in such a way that it can only reach certain areas of the far wall.

This is similar to what would happen if a boat were to pass through one of two adjacent openings into a bay. While the boat passes through only one of the openings, its pilot wave passes through both, creating an interference pattern in the waters inside the bay. The boat will thus experience self-interference similar to that experienced by a photon passing though a double slit barrier. Furthermore, a small boat will be more affected by self-interference than a big boat. This corresponds nicely to the difference in interference patterns produced by red and blue light. Red photons have less energy than blue photons. They are therefore smaller than blue photons.  Hence, they are more affected by self-interference than blue photons, which explains why red photons produce wider interference patterns than blue ones.

Keeping in mind that the two slits in the barrier of the double slit experiment can be far enough apart for us to be seen as separate lines with our naked eyes, it is clear that pilot waves are truly enormous relative to the particles that cause them. Photons are far smaller than electrons, which are so small that we have never been able to see them, even with the most powerful microscope. The difference in size between particle and associated pilot wave is therefore in the orders of millions, if not more.

Electron-positron pair production

When high energy photons, such as gamma-rays come into close contact with large charged particles, they sometimes disappear spontaneously into nothing but an electron and a positron. At the very moment that the photon disappear, an electron-positron pair comes into existence.

The way to interpret this in terms of our strict particle model, where no particle quanta can be created or destroyed, is that the photon is ripped apart:

Electron-positron pair production from photon

We must therefore conclude that the particle quanta making up the electron and the positron are the exact same particle quanta that made up the original photon. Given that the electron and positron have identical mass, but opposite charge, we can further conclude that the positron is made up of 1 negative quantum and 2 positive quanta. Since the electron is made up of 1 positive quantum and 2 negative quanta, we get that the total assembly for a photon is 3 positive quanta and 3 negative quanta.

All the dominant particles of the universe have thus been explained in terms of particle quanta:

1. Protons consist of 1089 positive quanta and 1088 negative quanta, a total of 2177.
2. Electrons consist of 1 positive quantum and 2 negative quanta, a total of 3.
3. Neutrinos consist of 1 neutral quantum.
4. Photons consist of 3 positive quanta and 3 negative quanta, a total of 6.

Real world particle quanta

All of this gives support to our model. Morton Spears' particle quanta correspond neatly to our three theoretical quanta as follows:

1. Abrasive quanta are positive (+)
2. Woolly quanta are negative (-)
3. Mixed quanta are neutral (0)

For illustration purposes, we can use the colour blue to denote negative particle quanta, red to denote positive particle quanta, and beige to denote neutral particle quanta. This can be illustrated as follows:

Three particle quanta: woolly, abrasive and mixed

The assignment of woolly texture to negative particle quanta, and abrasive texture to positive quanta is not arbitrary. Rather, this assignment is essential in order to explain the enormous size of the proton relative to the electron:

The size of protons

Compared to the electron, the proton is surprisingly large, and its size seems arbitrary. While the electron corresponds to exactly half of a photon as far as particle quanta are concerned, the size of the proton is merely a big number with no clear relationship to anything. The size does not add up to an even multiple of 3, which would be required if it was a straight forward assembly of electrons and positrons. It is as if the proton is an assembly based on a seed particle of 2 particle quanta.

The way we arrive at this conclusion is by taking the size of the proton, and divide it by 3. What we get is 725 and a rest of 2. This corresponds to 363 positrons, 362 electrons, 1 positive quantum and 1 negative quantum. The two lone quanta appear to be the seed required to assemble the proton from the remaining 725 electrons and positrons. The origin of this seed may in turn be found with the photon which may under certain conditions split into three such seeds instead of the more usual electron-positron pair.

However, none of this explains why the proton is assembled in such a different way from an electron. To understand this in terms of our theory, we have to consider the effect of texture on particle assemblies.

Electrons are negatively charged and therefore predominantly woolly, while protons are positively charged and therefore predominantly rough. Rough textures are slightly more reactive than woolly textures. The analogy that springs to mind is Velcro. Anyone who has plaid around with Velcro knows that woolly strips do not react with other woolly strips. However, rough strips do react ever so slightly with other rough strips. Similarly, woolly electrons cannot in any way combine with other negatively charged particles. Protons on the other hand are able to react weakly with other positive particles. This means that positively charged particles can assemble into larger structures than negatively charged particles.

A logical consequence of this is that the proton may under certain conditions be able to gobble up both an electron and a positron, growing a bit in the process. If so, protons may have originally started out fairly small, but grown over time to the enormous size they have today. As it turns out, this does indeed appear to be the case. About fifty years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp made the remarkable observation that young astronomic structures appear to be constituted of atoms that are lighter than corresponding atoms in older structures. It appears then that we have observational support for our suggestion that protons grow larger over time.

Keeping things together

From the above analysis, a number of important aspects related to our theory have transpired.
Implicit in our above argument has been the idea of affinity between positive and negative particles.  Assemblies are formed due to the natural affinity between woolly and abrasive particle quanta. Velcro is the macro-world analogy that best fits this idea, and the reason my original two books in this series were titled the Velcro Universe and the Velcro Cosmos.

Conventional physics invokes an electric strong force in order to explain particle assemblies. This extremely short range force does not exist in the model proposed in this book. Rather, we explain all short range affinities between particle quanta in terms of texture, something that by definition must be short range.

While woolly and abrasive particle quanta react strongly with each other, mixed particle quanta don't. Mixed particle quanta do not take part in assemblies.

Being a mix of woolly and abrasive textures, mixed particle quanta carry footprints of what they have most recently been in contact with. Mixed particle quanta that have recently been in contact with a woolly particle will be more abrasive than average. Conversely, a mixed particle that has recently been in contact with an abrasive particle is more woolly than average. The more abrasive or woolly an assembly is, the bigger and more pronounced are the footprints left on mixed particle quanta after collision. Note that only particle quanta with mixed textures can have this property. Woolly particles remain woolly, no matter what. The same goes for abrasive particles.

From this, we can explain why neutrinos comes in many different charge-flavours, while protons, electrons and photons don't. Being unique among particles in being of mixed texture, the neutrino is the only one impacted with footprints on collision. It is therefore the only particle that can come in a variety of charges and charge intensities.

Free neutron decay

The particle quanta described in this book are based on Morton Spears' particle quanta, used by him in his work on gravity. When Spears realized that the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron could be expressed as a ratio of 2177 to 2180, he drew the straight forward conclusion that the difference between a proton and a neutron must be exactly 3 particle quanta, 1 positive and 2 negative. Furthermore, the fact that the neutron has an overall neutral charge was interpreted to mean that a neutron consists of exactly 1090 positive quanta and 1090 negative quanta. The fact that the proton has a positive charge of 1 was interpreted to mean that it is composed of exactly 1089 positive quanta and 1088 negative quanta.

From this we can find out what the 3 remaining particle quanta may be by consider the phenomenon of free neutron decay, in which a neutron, removed from an atomic nucleus, decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino within about 15 minutes.

Free neutron decay

One way of interpreting this is to assume that an electron consists of a single negative quantum, and the neutrino is an assembly of one negative and one positive quantum. However, the electron is generally understood to be larger than a neutrino. It's therefore logical to conclude that the electron is constituted of 3 particle quanta: 2 negative and 1 positive. The neutrino becomes in this way something separate from the original assembly. It must have come from the aether rather than the neutron. Being smaller than the electron, we can conclude that the neutrino must be a single neutral quantum.

We can further concluded that the neutron is not a fundamental particle, but an assembly of 1 proton and 1 electron. This assembly is only stable inside the atomic nucleus. This in turn leaves us with three stable particles. They are:

1. The proton
2. The electron
3. The neutrino

Left unaccounted for, we have the photon. However, once we consider the phenomenon of electron-positron pair production in light of what we have calculated so far, the constituent parts of the photon comes out clearly defined.

Aether Physics

This book is a systematic review and in depth analysis of my previous work in which I demonstrated that a strict particle model of physics can account for the universe as we know it. In this proposed model, nothing happens without direct interaction, and no particle can be created or destroyed. There are no mysterious variables that can only be understood in mathematical terms. Everything is strictly physical. At the lowest level of physics, everything is particles knocking into each other to produce force, and hooking up to each other to create structures. It is not an unfathomable complex of unearthly vibrations and energies. Rather, it is an extremely simple and stripped down version of what we experience as reality in our everyday lives.

What follows is a step by step approach to understanding the mechanics of the universe. We will start with a single idea, from which we will build our entire theoretical framework by gradually introducing new concepts. These ideas are not random thoughts, but based on observation and experiment. The overall approach is layered. Each layer is based on previous findings combined with observations and experiments performed in the real world. In this way, we avoid circular reasoning and digressions into pure speculation. Rather than a confused mess, we end up with a coherent and straight forward story that represents a valid model of the world we live in.

Go here to read the whole book.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

There is no way to measure or register any time unit that is shorter than the time it takes a photon to cross an electron. This is the inescapable conclusion arrived at from the way distance and time are defined in my proposed physics. Anything happening faster than this minimum time is perceived by us as instantaneous.

Photon crossing an electron

A consequence of this is that any measurement involving distance or time involves an uncertainty. We cannot know exactly where something happens, nor can we be 100% precise about when it happened. There is a tiny time-interval and distance that cannot in any way be pinned down precisely. This is not due to a lack of technology or our own interference in the measuring process, but an inescapable consequence of the fact that time and distance are tied up directly to the dimension of the electron.

This conclusion is similar to the one arrived at in conventional quantum physics. Fiddling around with equations related to Planck's constant and units, Heisenberg found that the universe is fundamentally uncertain. For example, we cannot be precise about both the momentum and the position of a particle.

Having arrived at this conclusion through pure mathematics, with no comprehensive model of what all the various variables and constants relate to in the real world, there was initially a great deal of confusion related to what Heisenberg's discovery meant. Many ascribed it wrongly to technology or the effect observers have on measurements. It took some time before the uncertainty principle was generally understood to be a fundamental aspect of the universe. However, we have yet to hear a more specific explanation from the halls of conventional quantum physics. It will be interesting to see if they too eventually arrive at the conclusion that the uncertainty of the universe is directly tied up to the dimensions of the electron and the time it takes a photon to cross it.

Planck Units

Having discovered the fundamental constant h, which relates energy to frequency, Max Planck realized that he had all the elements required to calculate fundamental units of length, mass, time, charge and temperature.

The calculations were simple to the point of being trivial. All Planck needed to do was to play around with the fundamental constants until they combined in such a way that the calculated values come out with a single dimension. The combination that yielded a number denoted in meters became the Planck length. The combination that resulted in a number denoted in seconds became the Planck time. Planck mass is similarly denoted in gram, charge in Coulomb and temperature in Kelvin. Together, they became known as Planck units.

The thinking was clear and simple. If fundamental constants are truly fundamental, then any unit derived from these constants must also be fundamental. These units must tell us something fundamental about the universe and its components. For example, there should be something in the universe that has the radius, diameter or circumference of a Planck length. Similarly, there should be things in the universe that correspond to Planck's calculated units of mass, time, charge and temperature.

In this respect, it's interesting to note how the Planck length and time fit with the ideas of distance and time laid out in my proposed physics. Planck length is calculated from Planck's constant h, the light speed c and the gravitational constant G. This yields a very small number. In my proposed physics, the smallest possible ruler we can use to measure distance is the electron, a very small particle.

Planck time is in turn the Planck length divided by the speed of light. This is identical in form to my proposed definition of time, where the smallest possible time unit is the time that it takes a photon to cross an electron.

Photon crossing an electron

The strict particle model proposed in my book suggests that there is something special about the electron in that it represents the smallest ruler possible as well as the smallest clock. It seems then that the Planck length is in fact the radius, diameter or circumference of an electron.

This being said, I'm skeptical to the accuracy of the calculated Planck length. I'm not convinced that the gravitational constant G is in fact a constant. Gravity is in my book an imbalance in the electric force, and any constant related to gravity should therefore be a simple proportion of the electric constant. Planck units that involve the constant G in their calculation are in my view suspect.

However, this does not take away the genius of Planck's units. They point to something fundamental, and can therefore help us in our understanding of how everything hangs together. Suspect units with very strange values can be identified, giving us a clue to where our thinking may have gone wrong.

The Aether and the Constant H

Planck's constant h relates the energy carried by a photon to its frequency. This gave rise to our current understanding of light and the whole field of quantum physics. It is well worth reading how Planck arrived at his conclusions, as it shows how careful analysis of real world phenomena can lead to some remarkable discoveries. To solve a problem related to black body radiation, Planck introduced the concept of energy quanta, which in turn led to the realization that light is not a pure wave phenomenon, but something involving tiny packages of energy, i.e. particles.

Since energy and mass are equivalent, Planck's constant also relates mass to frequency. This is verified with the double slit experiment which works for inertial matter such as electrons and protons, and even atoms, as well as photons. All particles of all sizes have a wavelength associated with them that corresponds to the energy that they are carrying. Large particles are associated with high frequencies. Small particles are associated with low frequencies.

Some may argue that Planck's constant proves the wave-particle duality of light and matter. However, pilot waves, in combination with an aether, will yield similar results for photons. It will also yield similar results for inertial matter due to the aether's role in the production of electron-positron pairs.

Electron-positron pair production from a photon

Keeping in mind that inertial matter has its origin in the aether from which we first get radiation and then matter as we move up the energy hierarchy, we see that the aether is not simply a passive catalyst in electron-positron pair production, but something that actively shapes electron and positrons. These particles are in turn involved in the assembly of atoms, the building blocks of all inertial matter experienced by us as physical things.

What has to be recognized is that the produced electrons and positrons have to have associated pilot waves with exactly half the frequency of the original photon. A photon with frequency f can only produce one electron with frequency f/2 and a positron with frequency f/2. This follows from the fact that electrons have identical mass, and the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy of the electron and positron must exactly equal that of the photon from which they were created.

Since electrons and positrons can have fixed positions in space, they must constantly vibrate in order to preserve the pilot wave inherited from the photon from which they were made. There is no other way stationary particles can uphold a pilot wave. All inertial matter must vibrate. This in turn, goes a long way in explaining why an electron cannot remain attached to a proton for more than 15 minutes. Electrons are shaken off from the vibrating surface of the proton, making them bounce as they can neither escape the electrical field of the proton nor remain attached to its surface.

Atomic nucleus with net charge of 10, surrounded by 10 bouncing electrons = Neon

This demonstrates that it is not only the constant c for light that is tied directly to the aether. Planck's constant h is also a property of the aether. Since c and h are the two most fundamental constants in physics, it is safe to say that rejecting the aether was probably the greatest mistake of 20th century physics.

Pilot Waves and the Aether

The double slit experiment, when applied to single photons traveling one by one through a double slit barrier, proves that there is self interference going on. It also proves that photons manifest themselves as particles, rather than waves, and that the wave-phenomenon that causes the self interference is vastly larger than the photon itself.

Photon having passed through a double slit barrier

The two slits made in the barrier can be far enough apart for us to be seen as separate slits with our naked eye. Photons on the other hand, are far smaller than an electron, which is so small that we have never been able to see it, even with the most powerful microscope. The wave-phenomenon we are talking about is in other words something enormous relative to the photon.

We know that photons manifest themselves as particles by the way they appear on the receiving wall of the setup. Initially, no pattern can be seen. There are only random dots. Each dot represents a single photon, which burns a tiny mark in the light sensitive wall. Gradually, a pattern starts to appear. Certain areas get more hits than other areas. And finally, when we have a thousand dots on the screen, we see a smooth, uniform wave pattern.

Building up an interference pattern

All of this can be calculated from present theory which holds that all particles exist as both particle and wave. They can therefore interfere with themselves. But how exactly can this happen without breaking the speed limit of light? Nothing can travel faster than light, yet the wave aspect of photons can cross relatively vast distances, zip through barriers, and come back with the required information to make a change of direction in strict accordance to the dimensions of the double slit setup.

A more common objection to particle-wave duality is that it leads to all sorts of strange effect where things are in more than one place at the same time. This in turn leads to the weird hypothetical case of Schrödinger's cat, which finds itself neither dead nor alive. One way to get around this problem is to invoke an aether that has the properties of a standing wave. Another way to get around it is to invoke a pilot wave that accompanies all particles. We can also combine these ideas, making the pilot wave a disturbance in the standing wave of the aether. In this way, we separate the wave property of particles from the particles themselves. Things become more definite, and Schrödinger's cat dies or lives without us needing to check on it.

However, this still leaves us with the faster than light information problem. We still need to explain how a particle that travels at the speed of light can get information about things that are located at a relatively vast distance from itself.

One way to solve this problem is to use a strict particle model in which energetic particles are bigger than less energetic particles. When we combine this with an aether consisting of very low energy photons and neutrinos, we come to the conclusion that particles in the aether can travel in straighter lines than their more energetic counterparts. They can cross bigger distances in a shorter time, because they take fewer turns on their way.

This particular solution yields a pilot wave with attributes similar to a pressure wave in water. A photon traveling through one of two silts can be viewed as a boat, passing through one of two openings to a harbor. The boat is hit by its own waves, coming through both openings as it enters the bay. The smaller the boat, the more affected it is by its own waves, just like red photons are more affected by their pilot waves than blue photons. Red photons produce wider interference patterns than blue photons due to their smaller size.

This demonstrates that a strict particle model solves all the problems related to the double slit experiment. Things stay in a defined state throughout the process, and no information is traveling faster than light.

Straight Lines and Curves

When we talk about time in physics, it's always about measured time. To talk about time in any other way is not physics, and does not belong to the realm of this discipline. This means that all discussions about time have to involve the concept of a physical clock that can be assembled in the physical world. To do otherwise would be to invoke God's clock, which would bring us into the realm of religion and metaphysics.

Photon traversing an electron: a process involving time

An important aspect of any clock is the way it involves photons or neutrinos in its operations. This ties time up to the constant c, the speed of light, in such a way that c cannot in any way change from its measured value. The constant c and physical time are two aspects of the same phenomenon, manifest in the way energy propagates through inertial matter.

Inertial matter is made up of protons and electrons, both hollow and balloon-like with plenty of holes to let the aether in and out. This means that energy propagates along a curved surface when it is communicated from one particle to another. At the subatomic, there's something curved about time. While this can be ignored completely at the macro level, it cannot be completely ignored at the level of subatomic particles.

The 3 dimensions of our physical reality

In contrast to time, which has a curved aspect to it, space is completely flat. All three dimensions are straight lines. This means that calculations involving both distance and time at the subatomic will encounter a tiny mismatch due to the difference of geometries involved. With this in mind, this YouTube presentation by Alexander Unzicker on the constants c and h comes to mind. It appears that Unzicker has reached a similar conclusion about the nature of space and time, namely that one has some kind of curvature while the other is flat.

(Many thanks to Freddie Thornton for having brought the work of Alexander Unzicker to my attention.)

The Aether and the Constant C

The speed of light is constant. No matter how we measure it, it always returns the same value. This value is the constant c. Some will argue that this is true only for light travelling through a vacuum. However, the reason light appears to slows down in transparent media such as glass and water, is not due to any change in speed, but a change in path length. Photons meander through such media, rolling past atoms like slalom skiers. The speed of motion is the same, but the path is longer, and hence we get the situation where photons appear to slow down as they enter such media and speed up as they come out of them.

Light traveling through a transparent medium

Photons, and neutrinos, always travel at the same speed. The only reason there sometimes seem to be a difference is that smaller, less energetic, particles can travel in straighter lines than bigger more energetic, particles. Neutrinos appear to travel a tiny bit faster than light because they are smaller. The same is true for red photons compared to the more energetic blue photons.

The reason no photon or neutrino can travel faster or slower than all other photons and neutrinos is that the speed is determined by the aether, which locks in the speed so that it is equal for all.

Some may argue that the speed of light could nevertheless change, provided all photons and neutrinos do so together. But this would ignore an important aspect of how speed is measured, and how time is related to the speed of light. As we will see, time is tied up to the speed of light in such a way that all measurements of it will yield the same result, no matter what. The logic goes as follows:

1. To measure speed, we need a known distance and an accurate clock.
2. The way a clock works is that it has something moving at a predictable rate. This requires energy to move around in a system, usually as a vibration of some sort, or some form of nuclear decay. Either way, energy is communicated between elements of the clock. This is true for all clocks, mechanic, electric, nuclear or biological. All involve energy displacements.
3. Now, once we realize that energy is communicated either by photons or neutrinos, both moving at the speed of light, we can see the impossibility of measuring any change in c. If photons and neutrinos were to slow down, our clocks would slow down with them. If they were to speed up, our clocks would speed up too. The speed of light, which can only be measured with a ruler and a clock, must therefore yield c regardless.

This makes c a fundamental constant, determined by the aether, and tied directly to the concept of time itself.

The Aether's Role in Electron-Positron Pair Production

The physics proposed in my book requires an aether made out of low energy photons and neutrinos in order to explain the spontaneous appearances and disappearances of these particles in the production of light and as side-effects of nuclear processes. This is then used to explain electric, magnetic and gravitational forces in terms of low and high pressure regions in the aether.

The aether can be thought of as an extremely dense fluid with virtually no mass or energy of its own, but with every particle moving at the speed of light. It is not clear why all the particles move at the same speed, but the fact that the aether is extremely dense helps to explain this to some degree, because density of materials have the effect of coordinating motions and disturbances within them. If one particle moves, all other particles will have to move in order to accommodate for the displacement, and this accommodation has to happen at the same speed as the disturbance.

From this, we can go on to explain the phenomenon of electron-positron pair production in more detail, as it gives us a reason for why photons sometimes pop from being extremely dense particles to becoming the relatively much larger bloated structures known as electrons and positrons. It also explains why this transformation includes a radical change in speed.

Let us consider a gamma-ray photon, large and energetic, encountering a barrier of some kind. It has to zip past this barrier, or reflect off of it in a way that keeps its speed unchanged, or else, the aether through which it is traveling will become like a wall. Any kind of acceleration or deceleration will be rejected by the surrounding aether. Unable to keep its speed in harmony with the aether, the gamma-ray photon must yield its energy to the aether, or transform itself into an entity that does not have to move at the same speed as every other particle. Since photons do not readily share their energy with other photons, the latter option comes into effect. The photon breaks into two parts, with each part rapidly expanding in size.

Photon transformed into an electron-positron pair

A photon that does not keep its speed uniform at the exact same rate as the surrounding aether, pops into an electron and a positron. In this process, the aether is like a wall with particles hitting the photon from all sides, and it is not before the popping is completed that the newly formed electron and positron can start moving again. Until then, the photon is held rigidly in place by the aether. However, once the transition is completed, the newly created electron and positron can move freely. This is because they are balloon-like nets compared to the aether. The aether moves freely into and out of them as long as they move slow enough for the aether to do so.

This explains why photons must pop when stopped by a barrier. They cannot remain in an in-between state. They must either be photons, moving at the speed of light as they pass through the aether, or become electrons and positrons through which the aether can move unhindered.