Having completed three years of experimental research on the loss anomalies in ferromagnetic materials, I left Cambridge in June 1953 to write my thesis and earn my living in the Patent Department of a corporate organization. My spare time hobby for the next six years was to delve into the scientific mystery which underlies electromagnetic phenomena and solve one particular problem that had troubled me as a Ph.D. research student. Simply stated, it was the question of why a steady magnetic field can penetrate a lump of copper without being virtually completely suppressed by the diamagnetic reaction set up by the numerous free conduction electrons in that copper.
The solution to that problem providing the first stepping stone in a quest which was later to lead me to a deep understanding of the nature of gravitation and its unifying link with electromagnetism. There was enormous spin-off from my early endeavours, too much for me to be able to express in a style compliant with the prevailing methods then being used in physics. These were intolerant of the idea of an aether and subservient to the Einstein philosophy, whilst the quantitative successes of early quantum-electrodynamics were flagged before me as rival territory onto which I must not intrude.
I had my living to earn and my patent professional qualifying examinations to pass and so that self-imposed extra-curricular research was really a labour I would have soon abandoned, were it not for the incredibly exciting discoveries that were emerging. My scientific papers offered for publication were no longer authored from an academic address and they were systematically rejected. So, when, in September 1959, IBM offered me the position of Patent Manager heading their U.K. Patent Department, I decided to wrap up my hobby interest and publish myself a printed 48 page monograph. It was completed on 22nd November 1959, before I took up my new position with IBM and promptly published under the title: 'The Theory of Gravitation'.
I shall in these lecture notes refer again to this first of my publications on my aether theory, but for the moment I will just mention that its chapter 5 was entitled 'The Geomagnetic Field'. I had been able to calculate the geomagnetic moment in terms of aether spin with the Earth and the result was in full quantitative agreement. I deduced on page 32 that aether spin results in the induction of electric charge density of 4.781 esu per cc per rad/sec of spin rate, subject to a reducing factor cosA, where A is the angle between the spin axis of that aether spin and a preferred axial direction in space. The preferred direction, incidentally, lies parallel with the axes associated with the quantum spins of the aether particles at those lattice sites already mentioned.
Taking the angle A as being approximately 23.5 degrees for body Earth this told me, as can be seen from page 32 of that 1959 monograph, that the Earth's geomagnetic moment should be (0.000319)(4/15)πwR5/c, where w is the Earth's angular velocity, R is the radius of the Earth's aether and c is the speed of light, the conversion factor translating electrostatic units of charge into electromagnetic units of charge.
The Earth's measured geomagnetic moment was 8.06x1025 emu so I was able to estimate the mean height of the spherical boundary of the Earth's aether as being 140 miles above the Earth's surface.
On page 33 I then addressed the question: "Will the above explanation account for the dipole character of the geomagnetic field?" This is an important issue confronting any would-be theorist who tries to understand the Earth's magnetism. The shape of the Earth's magnetic field is somewhat similar to that applying if it were all due to a magnet placed at the Earth's centre, it resembling the field of a magnetic dipole. I then concluded that Chapter 5 by two paragraphs using the following words:
"It is found that the actual magnitude of the effective particle displacement in the Earth's aether matrix caused by the Earth's rotation is very much less than the interparticle spacing. On this basis it is clear that the charge effect caused by the rotation may merely amount to the displacement of charge to the aether boundary. When this is interpreted in the terms of magnetic moment it is found that the magnetic moment of the boundary charge is exactly twice that of the distributed charge and acts in opposition. The result is a net magnetic moment equal in magnitude to that already estimated, but the magnetic field distribution becomes more nearly that of a dipole.""Although not related to gravitation the explanation of geomagnetism provided by this theory lends extremely strong support to the theory upon which the understanding of gravitation is founded, and its inclusion in this work is considered pertinent. This chapter will also have proved of interest to those familiar with the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis."
Now at this point I emphasize again that there is a difference between the theoretical formulation for the magnetic moment of a planet, such as Earth, and that applicable to a star. The above formula for induced charge density in body Earth was a function of w, the angular speed of Earth rotation. In contrast, the applicable formula for a star is governed by the mass density, 1.41 gm/cc and the connection with the constant of gravitation G. In my earlier writings on this subject I was more concerned with the role played by aether spin charge induction than the resolution of the charge density differences between the non-ionized body and the ionized body. Therefore the reader may well see that I could, in retrospect, have given a much more comprehensive account if I were now to rewrite the text which appeared in my 1966 second edition of 'The Theory of Gravitation'.
I had been with IBM for six years when I finally found time to work again at my hobby interest, having been promoted in the meantime, in 1963, to a position where I was then in charge of IBM's Patent Departments throughout Europe. So, I wrote an enlarged 132 page version of my earlier monograph and added the discovery I had by then made that gave the mu-meson or muon a role in my aether theory. The mu-meson is a heavy version of an electron and I had come to look at an even heavier version which played an essential role in determining G, the constant of gravitation.
The graviton was found, theoretically, to have a mass-energy of 2587 Gev, nearly 5063 times the mass of the electron. Should the reader wonder how this relates to G, then the formula, taken from page 80 of my 1966 book, is:
That theoretical derivation of G based on a deep understanding of the electrodynamic interactions involved is fully in accordance with the measured value and it is stressed that the 5063 quantity, which is the graviton mass measured in units of electron mass, i.e. 2.587 GeV, is itself theoretically derived from first principle analysis. It was this achievement that motivated me to entitle my book 'The Theory of Gravitation', but I wish here to proceed with my discussion of the magnetism of astronomical bodies.
Addressing the subject of geomagnetism I showed how the formula for the Earth's magnetic moment MM was derived by theory common to that used to deduce the value of G. The formula without the cosA term is presented on page 93 of the book as equation (6.12) [referred to below] and is:
where er is the Bohr magneton, 9.26x10-21 esu-cm, R is the Earth's aether radius in cm, w is the Earth's angular spin velocity, 7.26x10-5 rad/s, d is the spacing between aether particle lattice sites in the cubic structure, 6.37x10- 11 cm and c is the speed of light, 3x1010 cm/s. The radius of the Earth is 6.37x108 cm but the aether boundary will no doubt be somewhere in the ionosphere and I noted that if R were 6.45x108 cm, this would give an estimate of geomagnetic moment of 7.9x1025 in the cgs system of units, compared with the measured value of 8.06x1025. If R were greater and located in the upper ionosphere then that would give a greater value but one downwardly adjusted by the cosA factor. There could be no question that the theory offered an excellent quantitative account for the geomagnetic moment.
However, the modern physicists seem to be unimpressed by theory which is based on an aether, whatever the numbers mean in comparison with the facts of observation. They would rather rely on a vague theory which gives no numerical check, because they cannot abide any thought that the aether may play a role in determining the values of the fundamental physical constants. So, I can but extend this review by reproducing the discussion section between pages 94 and page 109 of my 1966 book in the hope that the modern physicist will see that there has been no progress in understanding the source of geomagnetism and stellar magnetism during the past 31 years and come to see in retrospect that my 1966 book gave a valid basis for such understanding.
The following text, apart from notes in [..] is all directly quoted from the author's 1966 book.
"It is important at this stage to pause to discuss this account of the geomagnetic field. There is scope for much argument about the manifestation of the aether phenomenon in the form of terrestrial magnetism and we must therefore deal with the main arguments even though we digress from the main objective. The topic will be introduced by a brief historical account of the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis.
The phenomena of terrestrial magnetism and gravitation present challenges of long standing to the theoretical physicist. Effects governed by both phenomena have been understood for centuries but the true nature of the phenomena has gone unexplained, even though it is believed that they should be related to something more fundamental. Today, while on the one hand we have the hydrodynamic theory of geomagnetism and on the other we have a so-called gravitational theory in the form of General Relativity, neither theory is able to bridge the gap and make connection with fundamentals common to both and neither theory is wholly satisfactory in accounting for the prime phenomenon.
It is not, therefore, surprising that some excitement was aroused by the Schuster- Wilson Hypothesis which purported to relate magnetism and gravitation and it is well to introduce the problem under study, that of accounting for geomagnetism in terms related to mass or momentum, by a review of that hypothesis.
Schuster [A. Schuster, Proc. Phys. Soc., v. 24, pp. 121-137; 1912] and Wilson [H.A.
Wilson, Proc. Roy. Soc. A., v. 104, pp. 451-455; 1923] have shown that the magnetic
moments and angular momenta of the sun and Earth are approximately related by a
common ratio. This has led to the hypothesis that a fundamental property exists which
causes any rotating body to have a magnetic moment. A particularly significant result
appears when the quantitative aspects of this hypothesis are considered. It was shown by
Wilson that the right order of magnitude for the magnetic fields of the Earth and the Sun is
obtained is obtained if it is assumed that a moving mass, measured in gravitational units, has
the same effect as a moving negative charge, measured in electrostatic units. Blackett
[P.M.S. Blackett, Nature, v. 159, pp. 658-666; 1947] has expressed the same result in the
following terms:
This possibly coincidental result suggests a link between geomagnetism and gravitation. Unfortunately, however, the impact of the hypothesis was mitigated by a negative result of a laboratory experiment carried out by Wilson. from magnetic tests on a swinging iron bar, he was able to show that the magnetic field to be expected on the basis of the hypothesis did not in fact exist. The hypothesis therefore stood refuted.
Interest revived when Babcock [H.W. Babcock, Publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., v. 59, pp. 112-124; 1947] succeeded in measuring the magnetic field of the star 78 Virginis. It now became possible to apply the hypothesis to three bodies instead of two. The hypothesis was verified as being fully applicable to them all, the range of angular momenta being 10:1. The hypothesis, now called the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis, became the subject of more detailed examination. Various anomalies were discovered. For example, Babcock [H.D. Babcock, publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., v. 60, pp. 244-245; 1948], Thiessen [G. Thiessen, observatory, v. 69, p. 228; 1949] and Von Kluber [H. Von Kluber, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc., v. 111, p.2; 1951] have found that the solar magnetic field varies in a manner which is not consistent with the simple conception afforded by the hypothesis. Attempts were made to test the hypothesis again in the laboratory. Blackett [P.M.S. Blackett, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 245A, pp. 309- 370; 1952/3] studied the magnetic effects of dense matter rotating with the Earth. His experiments are conclusive in showing that no magnetic effect of the appropriate character and magnitude exists as a general property of matter on Earth. Furthermore, Runcorn and others [S.K. Runcorn et al, Phil Mag., v. 41, pp. 783-791; 1950] & [S.K. Runcorn et al, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 244A, p. 113; 1951/2] measured the variation of the Earth's magnetic field over a range of depths below the Earth's surface and compared the results with those predicted on the basis of a distributed theory and those applicable to a core theory. In the core theory the Earth is assumed to have a field produced by a magnetic dipole. The distributed theory involves the assumption that each element of a body gives rise to a magnetic effect as if it had a charge proportional to its mass rotating with the Earth, as required by the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis. The principal distinction between the results predicted by the two theories is that on a core theory the horizontal component of the geomagnetic field should increase with increasing depth below the Earth's surface, but on the distributed theory there should be a decrease. The measurements showed there to be an increase. The result went against the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis. This was a great pity in view of the seeming applicability of the hypothesis over such a wide range of momentum.
Consideration shows that there is scope for reviving the substance of the hypothesis at least over the results of Runcorn if we argue that not all of the geomagnetic field is attributable to rotation of distributed charge. Gunn [R. Gunn, Phys. Rev., v. 33, pp. 614-620; 1929] has suggested a radial limitation of the Sun's magnetic field by ionic moments in the Sun's atmosphere. Ions moving at their kinetic velocities in a magnetic field spiral about the lines of force to oppose the fields present. Can it not, therefore, be that some reaction effect in the ionosphere opposes the magnetic field produced by the distributed charge? it is a fact that the Sun's field is weaker than one would expect if beta had the value of unity as implied above. According to Blackett's data, the values of beta are, for the Earth 1.29, for the Sun 0.92, and for 78 Virginis 0.95. Allowing for such reaction effects, particularly for the Sun and 78 Virginis, it seems that the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis could just as easily have required the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum to be 2G1/2/c, the factor of 2 perhaps having analogy with the gyromagnetic ratio factor. It is well known that the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum for changes in magnetism in iron is about twice that predicted in terms of the motion of electron charge associated with electron mass. Hence, if we can retain the simplicity of the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis while incorporating the factor of 2, we need to accept substantial field reaction effects in the Earth to reduce the factor 2 to 1.29 and need even more substantial reaction in stellar bodies.
It is, therefore, suggested that this reaction effect presented by Gunn may well reconcile the difficulties with the Runcorn experiment. The same effect could also account for the variable nature of the solar field and the anomalies arising from this.
However, even if the Runcorn experiment can be overcome, there is still the negative result of Blackett's experiment and that of Wilson on the swinging iron bar. This might be dealt with if we consider the implication of the hypothesis that there exists in close association with any element of matter a negative electric charge proportional to its mass. This is really the basis of the statement expressed by the above formulation of the hypothesis.
Augenheister [Augenheister, Phys. Zeit., v. 26, p. 307; 1925] has shown that this assumption gives the correct ratio for the magnetic fields of the Sun and the Earth, but he also recognized the physical difficulties of assuming the existence of real charges of the necessary magnitude and the consequent very large electrical fields which must accompany them in an electrically conducting material such as the Earth's core. One way out of this difficulty is to argue that in an aggregation of matter as with the Earth the negative charges associated with mass are cancelled by migrating charge, but that the balance is made up by a repulsion of free migrating charge displaced to the outer boundaries of the body. For example, in order to establish charge balance with the negative-mass charge some electrons might be displaced from the atomic structure of the matter involved, and these electrons would spread around the Earth in the ionosphere. On this model, mass exhibits no charge in laboratory experiments and has no apparent magnetic effect detected by the Wilson or Blackett experiments. Furthermore, the Augenheister problem is overcome. Even the Runcorn experiment is no longer applicable because the distributed charge theory does not hold.
This interpretation of the hypothesis puts the prime source of the geomagnetic field outside the Earth, in the ionosphere. This has been objected to by Bauer [L.A. Bauer, Terr. Magn., v. 28, pp. 1-28; 1923] who has shown by spherical harmonic analysis that most of the Earth's field is of internal origin. For example, Bauer ascribes as much as 94 per cent of the Earth's field to internal causes. Since the Earth's ionosphere would need to cancel a substantial part of the field arising from the distributed charge for Runcorn's results to be reconciled with the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis, this objection is of paramount importance. However, even here it is very important to remember that the most general assumption used in spherical harmonic analyses of the Earth's field is that the Earth's magnetic potential is composed of two portions, one due to magnetic matter within the Earth's sphere and the other due to magnetic matter outside the Earth's sphere. The operative words in this assumption are 'magnetic matter'. In this sense a current encircling the Earth and seated in the ionosphere does not constitute magnetic matter located wholly outside the Earth's surface. For example, a current around the equator at a height of 200 km gives rise to two elements of magnetic matter, one situated inside the Earth and the other outside the Earth, the latter being related to the former in the ratio of the areas 2(pi)Rx200 and (pi)R2, where R is the Earth's radius in km.
Since r is 6,371 km, it is seen that, curiously enough, this gives 94 per cent of the magnetic matter ascribable to ionosphere currents as seated within the Earth. The results of spherical harmonic analysis do not preclude magnetic reaction seated in the ionosphere, provided this involves charge migration around the whole Earth. For stellar bodies, no harmonic analysis data are available and, therefore, the closed spiral-type motion of gas ions may supplement the reaction effect of any charge migration. The result deduced by Bauer is certainly of no relevance to stellar bodies.
From such consideration, the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis could well survive in a modified form. We have introduced a charge in the ionosphere which could well be objected to for other reasons. Perhaps we can even regard this as compensated by charge which does not rotate with or at the same speed as the Earth. Perhaps, though, this is stretching the hypothesis too far. Nevertheless, this gives scope to understand reasons for substantial changes in magnetic fields in astronomical bodies over short periods of time, and there is now evidence that the magnetic poles of many stars even exchange positions in a few days. As Runcorn [S. K. Runcorn, The Times (London), April 26, 1965, p. 11] stated very recently: "This is one of the most stimulating challenges of cosmic magnetism".
The Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis stands rejected today. Instead, the theory of hydromagnetism is applied to account or the geomagnetic field. An excellent account of this subject has been presented by Elsasser [W.M. Elsasser, American Jour. Phys., v. 23, pp. 590-609; 1955] and [W.M. Elsasser, American Jour. Phys., v. 24, pp. 85-110; 1956]. This theory will have great difficulty in accounting for the reversal of the magnetic poles, though it can be applied to account for the Earth's secular variation of magnetic field. Bullard and others [E.C. Bullard et al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 243A, pp. 67-92; 1950] have provided an account of he westward drift of the Earth's magnetic field in terms of theory which they state to be consistent with other theories of the origin of the main field, provided there is a differential rotation within the core. This statement recognizes that the prime source of the geomagnetic field might well stem from something other than a hydromagnetic effect. The great concern for the reversal of the magnetic field in stars stimulates a consideration of other possible accounts for cosmic magnetism.
The above discussion of the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis does stress the possibility that there might well be some link between gravitation and cosmic magnetism. It is therefore of some interest that new ideas about gravitation already presented in this work are found to be capable of extension to geomagnetism. The fact that, in developing equation (6.12) [the above formula for magnetic moment MM], the elemental magnetic moment is found proportional to X squared [X being a distance from the Earth's centre] shows that the character of the geomagnetic field matches that of a uniformly distributed charge over the Earth's volume. The distributed charge theory was found by Runcorn to give field gradients opposite to those observed in practice. Here, however, it must be remembered that, by the theory developed, the geomagnetic field is attributed to a radial displacement of charge. The charge is displaced, in effect, to the boundary of the rotating aether. Clearly, therefore, if the effect of the rotation is to generate an effective uniformly distributed charge within the aether, an exactly balancing charge of opposite polarity must be established at the boundary. The displaced charge is, by its nature, constrained to balance in the radial plane. Thus, in considering magnetic moment, it is found that the charge displaced to the boundary, in rotating with the Earth's aether, produces exactly double the magnetic moment given by (6.12) in the opposite direction. Quantitatively, therefore, (6.12) still applies. In considering magnetic field gradients, however, by Runcorn's mine experiments, the component of magnetic field attributed to distributed charge is oppositely directed with respect to the general magnetic field of the Earth. Thus, the result of the Runcorn Experiment actually supports the theory developed.
In considering the dipole nature of the geomagnetic field as evidenced by the results of Runcorn's experiments, it is to be noted that a double strength shell containing an opposed single strength distributed charge would appear to present a field form more like a dipole than does a single strength shell.
The rotation of Earth has been argued to produce the geomagnetic field by an induction effect in an electrical aether medium rotating with the Earth. The result of the Blackett Experiment imposes upon the analysis the need to regard the induced charge within the Earth as compensated locally or alternatively the need to regard the lattice as not concentrated by local matter. In Blackett's experiment the magnetic effect of a dense body rotating with the Earth was under investigation, in contrast with the Wilson experiment where the body under study moved in the Earth frame. This strengthens the concept that the origin of the geomagnetic field is a uniform aether medium rotating with the Earth frame. We have to recognize that the aether has some uniformity, a lattice charge density, not affected by changes in mass density within the Earth.
We now come to the real problem. The distributed charge and the balancing boundary charge of the rotating aether have to be cancelled by other charge to balance the electric field effects, but this other charge must not cancel the magnetic field effects, that is, it must not rotate with the Earth. The solution to this problem is amazingly simple. As the Earth moves in its orbit, its aether lattice will come into collision with surrounding aether lattice. We have shown that one constituent of the aether has the form of fluid charge and the other constituent is the lattice system of particles of charge e of opposite polarity, the aether as a whole being electrically neutral. The fluid constituent cannot move through itself. A spherical volume of it can rotate about its own axis, but it cannot move laterally in the sense that an element of the fluid moves laterally. The sphere housing fluid which rotates can move laterally, however, provided the rotary motion is transferred from fluid left behind by the sphere to new fluid coming into the sphere. The particle constituent, on the other hand, can move through itself.
Imagine now the well ordered particle lattice formed within the Earth's aether to move laterally and collide with surrounding particles. This lateral movement of the whole particle lattice in the Earth's aether causes a deficiency of particles behind the lattice and a surplus in front of it. Thus an electrical field is set up along the line of travel of the whole lattice system. this field is not strong enough to disrupt the lattice but is strong enough to cause some of the particles in front of the lattice to migrate through it to fill positions vacated in the fluid behind the lattice. In short, the particle lattice can move without undue disturbance through similar surrounding particle structure if surrounding particles in collision with it travel through it to fill vacant locations left behind. Thus, if we regard the Earth's aether to behave in this way, we see that there is, traveling through the Earth, an abundance of free lattice particles which are constrained to move in opposition to the Earth's motion in its orbit. The magnetic effect of these particles cancels exactly the magnetic effect of the matrix particles in their travel with the Earth in its orbit. Consideration shows that there is also balance of linear momentum in such a system. However, these free particles do not rotate with the Earth. They are free to a limited degree to cancel the electrostatic effects of the induced charge, but they do not share the Earth's rotation and therefore no cancellation of the geomagnetic field occurs.
This albeit rather peculiar notion of particles moving in formation, with other particles moving at higher speed traveling freely in opposed directions and between the ranks of the ordered particles, gives a very simple and direct account which overcomes the Augenheister problem introduced above. It introduces the requirement that the Earth must move laterally and not just rotate to obtain this electrostatic balance condition. The faster the Earth moves then the greater the number of free particles in it to cancel the electrostatic charge. Clearly, the particles are likely to fall out of harmony with the general system and deploy their velocity in their small orbits to travel at this velocity through the matrix. This velocity is seemingly constant for all particles. Therefore, the ratio of free particles to bound lattice particles in the Earth's aether lattice depends upon the ratio of the Earth's orbital velocity to the velocity of the particle in its small orbit. It is suggested that if the Earth were to stop in its orbit, then, apart from being drawn into the Sun by gravitation, there would be nothing to balance the strong electric field induced by its rotation and, since these fields are of the order of many millions volts per cm, all matter in the Earth would become ionized. The Earth would then lose its magnetic field. It is suggested that if the same argument is applied to the Sun there is cause, owing to the Sun's relatively slow motion, for understanding why its magnetic field is less constant than that of the Earth.
The expression (6.12) for the magnetic moment can not really by tested for other planets until we know their magnetic moments. the magnetic moment is proportional to the square of the speed of rotation. Thus, the Moon will hardly have any significant magnetic field. Using (6.12) it is to be expected that the magnetic moment of Mars will be about 3.2x1024 emu. We can, however, test (6.12) by applying it to the Sun. The Sun rotates once every 25 days and has a radius 108 times that of the Earth. Hence its magnetic moment should be (108)5/(25)2 that of the Earth, or 1.9x1033 emu.
Estimates of the solar magnetic moment have to take into account the sporadic magnetic fields produced in sunspots. Some early estimates may therefore be unreliable. One recent analysis by which the dipole moment of the sun has been estimated is that of Sakurai [K. Sakurai, J. Geomagn. Geoelect., v. 11, pp. 21-33; 1959] who observed a value of 5x1032 emu. This is somewhat less than that predicted by this theory but the data is of the right order and the result adequately supports this theory. Furthermore, as has been stated, there is evidence that the solar magnetic field has been decreasing over the past few years. There is also evidence that in some stars the field reverses in direction very frequently, in some cases every few days.
To account for this, let us regard the estimate of 1.9x1033 emu to be the solar magnetic moment in the absence of cancelling charge of the kind developed by ionization. Then, considering the Sun to be in motion so as to provide the constrained charge carriers able to prevent total magnetic field cancellation owing to ionization. The magnetic field will then be partially cancelled, perhaps in the ratio of the abundance of ions to the abundance of the constrained migrating charge carriers. Now, this relative abundance will be a function of the speed of the Sun. The faster the Sun moves, the more abundance in constrained carriers and the stronger the magnetic field. Also, and of great interest to this account, the abundance density of the constrained carriers will be uniform throughout the Sun but the abundance density of free ions may be greater in the outer regions of the Sun than in its core. It is seen, therefore, that what will happen as the Sun changes from fast to slow speed is that when moving rapidly it will have a fairly normal dipole moment induced by its rotation, the constrained aether constituent in its inner and outer regions being more dense than the ions. Then, at a lower speed the abundance of ions in the outer regions outweighs the effect of the unbound lattice particle charge, thereby substantially cancelling the magnetic action of the outer field-generating shell of displaced lattice. The inner core field generation will not be affected in such a significant way by the lower speed. As a result the double strength magnetic moment of the shell is cancelled and the opposed single strength magnetic moment of the core remains unchanged. The total effect is a complete reversal of the dipole magnetic moment of the Sun. This has not required any change in rotational speed of the Sun. It merely requires that the Sun should fluctuate in speed in its own orbit. The reversals of its magnetic moment should appear in phase with the variation in speed. We predict, therefore, that the variation of the solar magnetic moment must depend upon the motions of Jupiter and Saturn.
There is perhaps insufficient data available at present to check this account of the solar field reversals, though it does appear that over the past few years the solar field has decreased and indeed reversed, whilst the Sun has decreased in speed as Jupiter and Saturn have moved into opposition. The fact that some stars can reverse magnetic field in only a few days indicates that their orbital speed changes at this frequency. This is possible if a star has a satellite close to it. [It may belong to a binary pair, with both stars orbiting around one another every few days, as for DI Herculis mentioned in the first of these lectures on cosmological questions.]
We have seen how the motion of an astronomical body through space provides a constrained aether constituent which prevents ionization owing to the induced charge caused by aether rotation. If a body such as the Sun did not move through space, then, apart from any other source of ionization, its rotation alone would induce electrical fields and cause ionization. Motion at varying speed through space arises from the need to be in balance with a satellite planet. Then ionization need not occur as a consequence of rotation. If it does occur its effects will moderate the induced magnetic field, but this moderating effect will be weaker, the faster the Sun moves through space.
The rotation of an astronomical body is accompanied by the rotation of the aether it contains. For the planets the aether rotation momentum about the centre of the solar system is insignificant compared with their material orbital momentum. However, for the Sun the contribution of the aether angular momentum due to the Sun's rotation is very substantial in relation to the angular momentum of the solar system. It has long been a difficult question to account for the formation of the solar system in terms of a solar explosion which somehow imparted substantial angular momentum to the planets but left the sun with a balancing angular momentum of the order of 1% that imparted to the planets.
This is no problem in the case of the formation of secondary satellite systems, where the satellites are assumed to form from a mother planet (see work of Alfven [H. Alfven, Astrophys. Jour., v. 137, pp. 981-990; 1963]). Yet, while it is debatable whether the Moon, for example, came from the Earth, it is less debatable that the Earth came from the Sun and it is here that angular momentum balance presents a baffling problem. This theory may help in resolving this anomaly because the value of aether lattice density mo/d3 is of the order of 100 times the Sun's density, showing that the aether angular momentum of the solar system might well be in balance with the material angular momentum. [Note that mo denotes the mass of an aether particle and that the value of mo and d, the cubic lattice spacing of the particles in the aether structure, were theoretically determined in the earlier pages of the book from which this text is quoted].
While this hypothesis will not be pursued here, it is of interest to mention, in passing, that in discussing the origin of the satellites and the planets, Alfven and Wilcox [H. Alfven & J. M. Wilcox, Astrophys. Jour., v. 136, pp. 1016-22; 1962] have proposed that this has come about from the interaction of a neutral gas and a plasma. In contrast, the present theory, which is concerned mainly with the magnetic and momentum properties of such bodies, regards them to consist in reality of a neutral material substance and an all-pervading plasma which we have termed the 'aether'.
It is appropriate to observe that the aether lattice moving with the Earth through aether fluid not only gives us the account of terrestrial magnetism presented but explains the experiment of Michelson-Morley by confirming the words of Campbell [N.R. Campbell, 'Modern Electrical Theory', 2nd. Ed., Cambridge University Press, pp. 387-388; 1913]:
"If we speak of 'aethers' and not 'the aether' all our experiments prove is that the particular aether with which we are concerned in any case is that which is at rest relative to the source and may be regarded as forming part of it. This is the simple way out of the difficulties raised by the Michelson-Morley Experiment. If from the beginning we had used a plural instead of a singular word to denote the (aether) system....those difficulties would never have appeared".
Thus, the Earth and the Sun may each have their own individual aethers as envisaged here and we need have no inconsistency with the observations from the Michelson-Morley Experiment."
[The above is quoted from a book I wrote in 1966, more than 30 years ago. About 10 years on from that time I was actually able to derive the quantitative basis for a theory explaining how the planets formed from the mother body, the Sun. Moreover, I then found that the Moon did, in fact, come from body Earth by the same process. Without aether theory there is no way of deriving this result. That theory appears in my 1980 book 'Physics Unified'. I hope, however, to provide a section later in these Web pages based on a lecture I was once invited to deliver to the students and staff of the Physics Department at the University in Cardiff in Wales, with diagrams to illustrate my case.]