Three Great Imbalances

There are three great imbalances in the universe. They are:

1. The difference in size between electrons and protons
2. Gravity, with no apparent anti-gravity
3. The twisting motion of electric currents

These phenomena appear at first glance to have little in common. However, at closer inspection, we see a common denominator. If there is even a tiny difference in affinity between positive and negative charged particles so that the repelling force between two negative particles is stronger than the repelling force between positive particles, we get a single answer to all three phenomena.

Protons are bigger than electrons because protons will under certain circumstances accept additional matter, while electrons reject any attempt at material increase.

Gravity is an imbalance in the electric force. Attraction between different charged particles is a tiny bit stronger than repulsion between equally charged particles.

Currents twist because charge separation is skewed towards negatively charge particles. To compensate for the difference in momentum received in the charge separation process, electric currents twist.

Charge separation

The full explanation for this can be found in my latest book. In particular the chapters on four stable particles, gravity and magnetism.

Everything is of the Aether

The strict particle model presented in my book of physics leads us to the conclusion that everything is in some way derived from the aether. In the final analysis we get that even space is a substance, and that matter is created out of this same substance.

We arrive at this conclusion from the position taken early in my book. The aether is so dense that every particle in it is in contact with every neighboring particle, and this aether exists in a void that has no properties whatsoever. From this, we get that dimensions, distances, time and energy are directly or indirectly derived from the aether. We also get that space and aether are two words for the same thing. Nothing exists outside of the aether.

Later, when we discover that the aether is a mix of low energy photons and neutrinos, we end up concluding that electromagnetic radiation, such as light, is energized space. Every photon has its origin in the aether.

At very high energies, light becomes matter through electron-positron production, and since light is energized space, we get that matter must be space as well, energized to such an extent that it has become the stuff that we are made of.

Electron-positron pair production

From this we end up with a holistic world view. Although separated into tiny fragments, everything in the universe is of the same substance. The great varieties in manifestation is merely a result of differences in energy levels. Fundamentally, everything is of the aether. There's no exception.

Coulomb's Law of Colliding Rockets

Imagine two spherical space stations with a limitless supply of rockets. Each space station sends out rockets in straight lines in all directions. The rockets are all of equal size and cruising at constant and equal speeds. The space around the space stations is soon full of rockets moving in straight lines.

Let's say we want to calculate the total number of collisions happening between these rockets over a period of a year. The way we do this is to first consider the size of the rockets. Big rockets will have more collisions than small rockets. Let's call the size factor k.

Next thing we have to recognize is that anything related to probability is calculated by multiplications. If the rate at which rockets stream out of space station one is q1, and the rate at which rockets stream out of space station two is q2, then q1 times q2 reflects the number of collisions happening.

We now have k times q1 times q2.

Finally we have to keep in mind that it matters a great deal how far the space stations are from each other. If they are far enough from each other, there are hardly any collisions at all. If they are close together, we get a lot of collisions. The way this tapers off with distance is the inverse square law. We have to take our probability equation and divide it with the square of the distance between the space stations to get the final result. If that distance is r, and the result is called F, we get:

Coulomb's law

We have arrived at Coulomb's law of colliding rockets!

Power and Humiliation

Humiliation is a central part of any philosophy of power. There is even a religion dedicated to this, expressly commanding its followers to humiliate the unbeliever. It is not enough to steal, kill and destroy, the unbeliever must be humiliated as well.

However, this is not something that is confined solely to religious texts. This is intuitively understood by any psychopath. In their striving for power, they recognize the importance of humiliation as a tool. Humiliation puts the one in power at a higher moral position than the one being humiliated, and this is especially true when the ones being humiliated appear to humiliate themselves out of their own volition.

This goes a long way in explaining why state commissioned art is full of degrading and right out disgusting works, because such art firmly places the commission above both the artists and the tax payer. The commission for performing arts in Norway hands out money to whoever manages to degrade themselves the most. Among performances being commissioned these days, we have a man who dumps his naked butt in paint, and proceeds to paint on a canvas on the ground by sitting on it. Another performance explores the concept of the glory hole as philosophical ideal. There's also plenty of performances where people simply squiggle around helplessly, while shouting and mumbling incoherently.

Artists are most likely to succeed in Norway if they present projects that are both degrading to themselves and disgusting to watch. This is because most art in Norway is heavily subsidized, so artists are dependent on hand outs from central commissions in order to make a living. The alternative is to produce excellent high quality stuff that people are willing to pay for, which involves much more talent and genuine dedication than most artists can muster. Most artists are faced with a choice between humiliation or starvation.

Interestingly, the few Norwegian artists who manage to make a living outside state controlled art circles are universally scorned. They are also targeted for tax audits, and sometimes even sent to jail for spurious reasons related to the complex tax code governing the arts. Odd Nerdrum, a contemporary Norwegian painter, was so badly treated in jail that he never recovered. I have no idea what they did to him, but it must have been bad.

So, next time someone suggests that the state should take a greater role in the arts, remind them just what sort of people the central commission will be staffed with, and ask them again if they think it's a good idea.

Humiliation

Public Domain, Link

Experiment to Detect Dipole Gravity

Andrew Johnson has just published a new book, this time about Earth and the possibility that it might be hollow. It's a good read, freely available as a PDF on his site. I get a mention in it due to my work on gravity and its possible relationship with capacitance. For reasons that I explain in Universe of Particles, I suspect that charged matter has stronger gravity than neutral matter.

This suspicion can be partially validated, or roundly refuted, with a simple experiment. There's no need for a huge, fully charged capacitor. All that's needed is an aircraft capable of smooth flight, a sensitive scale for gravity measures and a good altitude meter. Gravity readings can then be made at different altitudes.

If gravity is a mono-pole as Newton suggested, we should see no deviation from Newton's predictions. However, if gravity is even a tiny bit dipole, we will get deviations because Newton's theory is predicated on a mono-pole model of gravity. Importantly, any deviation would be especially noticeable near the surface of our planet. At great distances, there are little to no expected difference between mono-pole and dipole gravity. We are therefore primarily interested in aircraft readings.

If we get a deviation from Newton's predictions, we can conclude that gravity has a dipole component. This would give support to the capacitance model of gravity because charged capacitors have dipole properties. However, there are other dipole theories out there, such as Peter Woodhead's suggested solution, and the dipole model promoted by Wal Thornhill.

Uncharged and charged capacitor

Either way, the experiment proposed here should be of interest as it will clarify unresolved issues related to gravity. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no airborne gravity readings with the express purpose of verifying Newton's predictions. We are still assuming that Newton was right about near surface gravity because he was right about orbits.

The Void, the Aether and David Hilbert's Infinity Paradox

The void is not space. Space is aether, and aether is particles. The void is an infinity of nothing, something we don't ever experience because all around us we have space, radiation and objects of inertial matter.

However, the void is not merely a philosophical starting point. If we are right in assuming that everything, including space, are particles, we must also accept the void as real, because we need a bit of nothing in between aether particles to keep things going.

If we stick with our assumption that aether particles are spherical, we can imagine them as tiny steel balls, and we know from experience that balls of equal size leave little gaps between them when stacked. There is no way we can stack spheres without leaving a lot of gaps. At the aether level, these gaps are voids. Every one of them is a tiny infinity of nothing.

Aether particle

Furthermore, every aether particle moves at the speed of light. The neat packaging that is possible with stationary balls is not possible with the aether. The gaps between the particles are constantly changing in size, and the particles themselves hardly touch their neighbors as they zip past each other.

But the weirdest thing of all is that our definition of the void is such that there never is any separation between the neighbors, in any direction. The gaps are all infinities of nothing. While these gaps are bigger in some directions than others, they are all nothing. This leads us to David Hilbert's infinity paradox, in which some infinities are bigger than other infinities.

A consequence of this is that we'll need to use some really exotic math in order to describe the aether completely. It might be that this is where we find a reason for why all aether particles inside a given reference frame must move at the same speed as all other aether particles. It may give us better ways to describe surface textures of particles. Maybe they span the gaps? I don't know. However, I do know that things get seriously weird when we go down to this level of detail.

Neutrons are not Fundamental Particles

Standard textbook physics tells us that the neutron is a fundamental particle. However, it's well known that this particle cannot exist for more than about 15 minutes outside an atomic nucleus. Furthermore, when it falls apart it produces a proton, an electron and a neutrino in the process. This alone should put to rest the idea that neutrons are fundamental. Yet the idea persists.

Free neutron decay

The neutron is considered fundamental for obscure reasons that are difficult to grasp. I must admit I haven't been able to follow the reasoning myself. However, I don't see that as a failure on my part. Rather, I find it suspect that something so trivial as free neutron decay should be difficult to explain. Shouldn't it be easy to explain what's going on and why the neutron is fundamental, despite its fragility?

Seen in light of the theory presented in my book, the neutron is most definitely not a fundamental particle, and this can be explained in simple terms:

Neutrons are bits of inertial matter, and as such they must be hollow, as explained in my book. To stay inflated, particles of inertial matter have to have a repelling electrical force inside of them. This in turn requires the walls on the inside of particles to be electrically charged. If the neutron is fundamental, and not merely an assembly of a proton and an electron, it would have walls of neutral charge inside of it. This would not produce any electric repulsion. The neutron would collapse even before it was properly produced.

Not only do we have free neutron decay as experimental proof that neutrons are composite particles, we now also have theoretical reasons for this to be so. Neutrons are not fundamental particles, they are assemblies of one proton and one electron.

Why electric currents come with a twist

Magnets can be used to induce currents in wires, and separate charges in gases. Conversely, charge separation results in electric currents, and electric currents induce magnetism. What we have is a fractal relationship between magnetism and electricity. Small currents, with correspondingly small magnetic fields, self organize into larger currents and fields. Grand currents with enormous electric fields fall apart into smaller currents with smaller electric fields. This is going on everywhere, from the minutest of cells and microbes to galaxies and galaxy clusters.

There is no top or bottom in this hierarchy. It's all part of one giant cosmic whole. However, there is a small imbalance in it. When magnetized photons separate charges, sending positive ions one way, and electrons and negative ions the other way, the tiny attraction between two abrasive textures comes into play. We find that the mechanism that explained the relative size difference between electrons and protons, and also the gravitational force, can be used to explain why electric currents twist.

To understand this, let us first apply our theory to the phenomenon of charge separation and induction of electric currents by the use of a magnet:

Charge separation by swiping a magnet forward

The photons in the illustration are oriented according to the north seeking pole of a magnet. When swiped away from us, into the paper, the photons' negative orbs drive positively charged particles to the left. Correspondingly, the photons' positive orbs drive negatively charged particles to the right. This is due to the combined effect of the photons' spin and the direction of the swipe. The resulting current is in this case to the left, as can be confirmed by applying Ampère's right hand grip rule.

All of this conforms precisely to reality, confirming that our theory is valid. However, positively charged particles will be pushed a tiny bit less hard to the left, compared to negatively charged particles to the right. This is because abrasive surfaces do not rub as smoothly against each other as woolly surfaces. The abrasive orb of photons interfere destructively in the transfer of energy from the swipe to the positively charged particles.

With no corresponding destructive interference in the transfer of energy onto negative particles, we get a tiny imbalance. To compensate for this, positively charged particles move in straighter lines than negatively charged particles, and it is this compensation that induces an overall twist.

Due to self-interference through magnetism, even electric currents constituted of electrons alone twist. The induced magnetic field around wires reflect back to the current of electrons, which in turn start to twist due to the tiny difference describe above.

Again, we are talking about a trillionth of a trillionth degree in difference. This isn’t something that is easily detected directly through measurements of force. However, it becomes visible on grand scales.

Magnetic force

When discussing magnets and magnetism, it's important to keep in mind that there is no net flow anywhere. What we have is coordinated spin, orientation and alignment of photons in the aether. Photons that happen to pass trough a magnet, come out polarized. This rubs off on neighbouring photons as they pass by. They in turn, rub off their polarization on other photons. The whole space around a magnet gets polarized in this way, with the strongest polarization above each pole of the magnet.

The entirety of the field does not come directly from the magnet, but by a relatively small number of photons rubbing off their polarization onto neighbouring photons after first having passed through the magnet. This is visibly evident in ferro-fluids, with their peaks and troughs.

The fact that photons do not have to pass through a magnet to be polarized has been known since Faraday performed his famous experiment:

Polarization of light by magnet

Uncoordinated photons passing through a magnetic field comes out polarized. This happens to low energy photons present in the aether in the exact same way as it does for visible light.

By introducing a second magnet, we can now play around with the magnetic force that arises between magnets. This force is also due to particle collisions. However, in this case we're talking about photons, not neutrinos as was the case for the electric force and gravity. But the general mechanism is the same.

Photons passing through magnets come out well coordinated and spinning. In the case of two magnets facing each other with opposite polarity, we get abrasive head on collisions. This has the overall tendency of pushing photons out of the field. The density of the aether between the magnets is reduced. This in turn draws the magnets together.

Magnetic attraction due to photons vacating the field

On the other hand, when two magnets face each other with same polarity, we get non-abrasive collisions. Photons will tend to stay in the field, building up pressure in the aether, which in turn pushes the magnets apart:

Magnetic repulsion due to photons staying in the field

Electric currents, magnetism and light

Electric currents can be defined as charges in motion. We can induce electric currents in wires by setting electrons moving. There are electric currents in our atmosphere, because our atmosphere has charge gradient as well as motion in the form of winds. For the same reason, we have electric currents in space. There are currents of charged particles everywhere.

A strange feature of electric currents is that they always come with a circular magnetic field around them, and this circular field is in the same direction regardless of how the electric current is constituted. A positive ion moving from right to left produces the exact same magnetic field around it as when a negative ion of the same size moves from left to right.

From this fact, we have established a convention in which the direction of current is defined as the direction a positive ion would have to travel in order to produce the observed magnetic field. As a consequence of this, all electric currents caused by electrons in motion are by definition in the opposite direction of the electron flow.

The established rule is that if we curve the fingers of our right hand in the direction of the magnetic field, our thumb points in the direction of the current. Conversely, if we point our right hand thumb in the direction of a current, our fingers curve in the direction of the magnetic field. This rule is called Ampère's right-hand grip rule in honour of the rule's inventor.

Ampère's right-hand grip rule

Seen in context of our theory, the magnetic field must be a product of the aether, which is constituted of low energy photons and neutrinos. Furthermore, the complexity of the behaviour strongly suggest that we are dealing with photons, rather than neutrinos.

Adding to our suspicions, we have the discovery by Michael Faraday in 1845 that magnetic fields polarize visible light. Magnetic fields are therefore demonstrably a phenomenon associated with the photon. We can even go so far as to suggest that magnetic fields are photons polarized in such a way that they all line up with their orbs pointing in the same direction, because if we apply this assumption to our theory, we get an explanation for Ampère's right-hand grip rule. All that is required is one more assumption about the photon. The two orbs of the photons must be connected in such a way that when one spins in one direction, the other one spins in the opposite direction:

Proposed model of photon

With this in mind, it is now possible to arrive at Ampère's right-hand grip rule directly from our theory. To do this, let us first consider what happens when we move a positive ion from right to left through the aether, and then compare this to what happens when we move a negative ion from left to right.

The aether is so dense that every particle in it is always in direct contact with all its neighbours. This means that our positive ion will constantly brush into low energy photons as it travels from right to left.

Our positive ion has a predominantly abrasive texture to it, so it tends to grab onto the woolly orb of photons, setting these orbs spinning while simultaneously aligning the photons in parallel with itself:

Effect of positive ion on photons in the aether as it moves from right to left

The negative orbs of the photons are set spinning in such a way that if we look at them from above, they spin counter-clockwise.

Let us now compare this to a negative ion moving in the opposite direction:

Effect of negative ion on photons in the aether as it moves from left to right

In this case, it is the abrasive ends of photons that are set spinning. Seen from above the positive orbs, the spin is counter-clockwise. Since the spin of the negative orb is equal and opposite, we get that the spin of the negative orb, as seen from above the positive orb is clockwise. But if we flip our vantage point to be above the negative orb, we see the negative orb spinning counter-clockwise, exactly as was the case for our positive ion moving from right to left.

From theory, including our assumption about the photon, we have arrived at Ampère's right-hand grip rule.

We can conclude that magnetism is polarized photons in the aether, with spin, orientation and alignment fully coordinated.

Gravity and light

According to our theory, gravity is a force that operates on neutral particles made up of dielectric matter. Also according to our theory, photons are compact assemblies of 3 positive and 3 negative particle quanta. This makes them a special type of dielectric matter, and hence sensitive to gravity. A photon travelling past a massive body will experience a tug. There will be a tiny angular acceleration. This will have no impact on the energy of the photon, nor will it have any impact on its speed. It will simply make the photon curve around the object.

From theory, we can also note that photons moving in towards a massive body retain their energy, as do photons moving away from such a body. While massive bodies tug on incoming and outgoing photons, gravity does not change their energy. However, a local observer on the surface of a massive body will register the energy of photons as greater than what is reported for the same photons by an observer in space.

To understand this, we have to keep in mind that the aether is made up of a mix of neutrinos and photons. Since gravity pulls on photons, but not on neutrinos, we must conclude that the aether close to massive bodies are richer in photons than the aether farther away. This is because gravity pulls on photons, but not on neutrinos. Neutrinos are not dielectric while photons are.

With more photons in the aether, there must be correspondingly fewer neutrinos. The aether is after all so dense that no particle can be introduced without other particles being expelled. This in turn affects the electric force close to massive bodies. Observed from space, the electric force is reduced due to fewer available neutrinos.

With a reduced electric force, the size of electrons and protons goes down. The reduced number of neutrinos inside these particles reduce their internal pressure, and hence their diameters and circumferences.

All of this can be detected by an observer in space. However, it cannot in any way be detected locally. This is because a reduced circumference of the electron corresponds to a reduction in the local unit length, and hence also a speeding up of local clocks.

Since everything in our physics relates back to particle quanta with 3 dimensions, size and texture, all measurements related to speeds, distances, forces and energies remains constant when we try to measure them, regardless of whether me make our measurements in space or on the surface of a massive body.

This is not a trivial philosophical observation. It is an observation about reality itself. The laws of physics remain everywhere the same when measured locally.

The speed of light will be measured to have the exact same value everywhere. This is because the reduced size of our rulers on the surface of massive bodies are correspondingly matched with faster clocks. There is always and everywhere exactly 1 tick of unit time for every unit distance traversed by light. It cannot logically be anything else. This in turn, affects processes of energy transfers in such a way that they too are locally measured to be unchanged.

A similar effect kicks in when we try to measure the electric force with a local set of measuring tools. The number of neutrinos in the local environment will always and everywhere affect unit length in such a way that the constant k remains constant. It is only when an outside observer looks at the measurements, using an outside ruler and outside clock that differences can be detected.

However, with two observers, one in space and one at the surface of a massive body, we can detect differences. If we beam in some light from space of a given energy intensity, it will be registered by a local observer as somewhat bluer on the surface than in space, not because any energy was accumulated on the way in from space, but because photons are measured to be bigger and more energetic by local rulers and clocks at the surface.

Photons measured by two observers, one in space and one at the surface

Photons are not hollow. They do not change in size in response to the composition of the aether. However, our unit length is the circumference of an electron, which does change in size, depending on the composition of the aether. This makes photons appear bigger to an observer at the surface, where neutrinos are fewer and rulers are shorter as a consequence.

Consequently a photon can do more work on Earth than in space. All inertial matter is smaller on the surface of our planet, and hence easier to accelerate than out in space. While this effect is tiny in the vicinity of Earth, it is relatively easy to detect close to the Sun.

Mercury, located close to the Sun, makes its rounds around the Sun faster than expected when measured with a clock on Earth. This anomaly has been known for centuries. It was a great puzzle until Einstein came along with his suggestion that clocks run faster on Mercury than on Earth, and that the anomaly is only an anomaly because of this difference. Measured with a clock on Mercury, it's all the other planets that are moving a little too slow.

This is the same conclusion we arrive at from our independent line of reasoning. We have in other words discovered an alternative to Einstein's theory. Instead of curved space-time, we have an aether with a difference in composition close to massive bodies, relative to out in space.

Free falling objects

A free falling object does not pick up any energy despite accelerating at a constant rate. This is different to objects accelerating due to constant pressure or tension, because such objects do pick up energy as they accelerate.

Acceleration due to tension adds energy

There is in other words something fundamentally different between acceleration due to pressure or tension and free fall acceleration. This may at first seem strange. However, it is easy to explain in light of our theory.

Let us first consider a steel ball at rest on a floor of wet sand. To suspend it from a steel beam directly above this floor, we push the ball up. This process involves pressure and therefore some distortion to the ball. Energy is transferred from us to the ball.

Then we attach the ball by wire to the steel beam, and we get a situation as follows, again grossly exaggerated for the purpose of illustration:

Suspended steel ball before and after the wire is cut

There is tension in the ball, there is tension in the wire, and there is tension in the aether between the ball and the floor. However, there is no acceleration. No energy is being transferred. Things are merely distorted.

The energy we added to the ball as we lifted it up is illustrated as a dark grey area. This energy equals the potential difference between the situation on the floor and the situation when the ball hangs above the floor. In the real world, of course, there's no segregation between this potential energy and the rest of the ball. Energy does not come in different flavours. All energy is size. When we talk about the difference between potential and kinetic energy it is purely for calculation purposes. What we can calculate in this case is the exact amount of energy that can and will be transferred to the wet sand once we cut the wire.

When the wire is cut, all tensions disappear. There is no longer any tension in the wire, ball or aether. The ball accelerates towards the floor, not because of any pull or push, but because the aether is able to exit freely from the field between the floor and ball.

Keeping in mind that the aether and space are two words for the same thing, we can say that the ball accelerates toward the floor due to a rapid rearrangement of space. The ball is not in any way distorted in this process. Sine distortion is a requirement for energy transfers, we have a situation in which no energy can be passed onto or off of the ball.

Energy in the ball remains constant until it hits the floor. The entirety of the energy we pushed into the ball in order to attach it to the steel beam is then released as a displacement of the wet sand.

It should be noted that this very same logic applies to all field forces, be it electrical, gravitational or magnetic. In cases where acceleration happens without distortion of the object under acceleration, no energy is added or removed. There is no transfer of energy, only a rearrangement of space.

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.