TUTORIAL NOTE 16
Welcome to the Second 'Semester' of Ten Tutorial Notes, which teach the mathematical basis of Aether Science theory.
PHYSICS AND THE CHARMING GIPSY
© Harold Aspden, 1999
One of the most bizarre features of physics is the use of expressions such as charm, beauty, colour, up and down, and so forth to distinguish between the imaginary components that go into the make up of fundamental particles.
Some 25 years ago, back in 1974, there was great excitement amongst the fraternity of particle physicists owing to the discovery of the 'gipsy particle'. Consequent upon this discovery and subsequent events:
"The first agony of charm had abated, but fresh worries set in. One reason was that the charm/anti-charm theory of the gipsy was not exclusive or definitive. Interpretations having nothing to do with charm could not be ruled out."
These words are quoted from Nigel Calder's book: The Key to the Universe a 1977 publication by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
At the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), there was a great three-kilometre electron machine, a ring accelerator called SPEAR in which electrons accelerated one way were brought into collision with positrons accelerated in the opposite direction. It had begun operations in 1973. The expectation was that electrons and positrons coming together with a combined energy of a few billion electron volts would concentrate sufficient energy to give birth to any of the known elementary particles. If the energy of the collision was just right and fitted a 'resonance' at which a high energy particle state could materialize then that event would occur.
A team from Berkeley and Stanford found in 1974 that something was happening in the energy range between 3000 and 3200 MeV and, when they looked repeatedly at 3100 MeV energy collisions they sometimes noticed that unusually intense bursts of particles were appearing in their detectors.
Independently, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, at the same time, late October 1974, attention was also focused on that same energy threshold of 3100 MeV, because Samuel Ting had discovered a particle he called the 'J' particle. Then, into November 1974, with improved accuracy and a more straightforward version of the experiment than Ting's, the SPEAR accelerator at Stanford revealed a strong resonance at 3105 MeV to which Burton Richter assigned the term 'psi' particle.
On December 2, 1974 the journal Physical Review Letters published three short papers, one by Ting and his colleagues, another by Richter and his colleagues and a third from Frascati in Italy by Giorgio Belletini's group in the ADONE laboratory, where the existence of that particle, whether termed J or psi, was confirmed within two days of hearing the news from USA by tuning their machine to that energy range close to 3000 MeV.
The champagne had been poured to celebrate the birth of a new particle. It was duly baptised by the inebriated particle community and given the name 'gipsy', the phonetic equivalent of J/psi, and almost immediately, just a few days after they had found the 'gipsy', there was to be more joy when SPEAR gave birth to another such particle at 3695 MeV. The electron-positron collider experiments were showing us how particles of matter in the heavy range can be created from the most elementary form of matter, electrons and positrons, which we know can emerge spontaneously from the background medium which I call the 'aether', but which orthodox scientists refer to as the seat of a quantum-electrodynamic process involving vacuum energy fluctuations, without conceding that they are simply referring to the aether.
Now, why, you may wonder, am I telling you all this about that 1974 discovery of the 'gipsy' particle? My reason is that here was an event in physics that seems now to have lost its significance as those machines seeking to create heavier and heavier particles have gone about their task in that ongoing quest to replicate in some small measure the events of Creation and the Big Bang. Maybe the world of particle physics has also begun to lose some of its 'colour' and 'charm', and perhaps also its 'beauty' as theoretical features of the presumed quark composition of those particles. However, as far as I am concerned, the discovery of the J/psi particle and its heavier relative marks an important step in the the development of the the unified field theory, owing to the relevance of these particular particles in confirming something about the theory of gravitation.
I had, in 1966, published my discovery that gravitation, including the precise value of G, the constant of gravitation, could be explained if a virtual particle of mass-energy 2587 MeV existed hidden in the aether underworld. I had, already in 1966, in the 2nd Edition of my book The Theory of Gravitation published the data you can see in the Table below.
| Hadron Energy Product of Graviton Decay |
|---|
| No. of particles | Energy in electron units |
|---|
| gravitons | muons | 1843 | leptons (L) | gravitons (G) | hadrons (G-L) |
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 412+0 | 5064 | 2(2326) |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 412+3686 | 5064 | 966 |
| 1 | 4 | 2 | 824+3686 | 5062 | 2(276) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 412+7372 | 2(5063) | 2342 |
| 2 | 4 | 4 | 824+7372 | 2(5064) | 2(966) |
The graviton referred to is the hypothetical particle predicted by my theory that gives also the constant of gravitation G, by mediating in the gravitational interaction between matter. By first-principle analysis my theory deduces its value as being 5063 electron mass units (2587 MeV) and by this Table I was bringing to attention some empirical evidence to show that such a graviton does reveal itself in high energy particle interactions. See Tutorial No. 6 for details concerning that theoretical derivation of G.
As you can imagine I was, in 1966, very anxious to see experimental evidence emerge which strengthened my beliefs. My theory also indicated that a resonance in which an electron-positron cluster of 1843 electron units of energy could feature in certain particle reactions, particularly where decay of the graviton was involved. Also the theory said that pairs of muons, a muon having a mass of the order of 206 electron units, would be involved as part of the decay products. I recognized the emergence of four different hadrons, all known to exist, as particle by-products of graviton decay, given that graviton mass of 5063 electron mass units or 2587 MeV. Hence the data as presented in the Table. I could say no more at the time I wrote the book, 1966, and so had to await events.
But yet it was in that very year, 1966, that a paper was to appear in Physical Review Letters, v. 16, p. 709 (1966), authored by A D Krisch et al., which declared:
"We believe that this is firm evidence for the existence of a nucleon resonance with mass 3245 +/- 10 MeV ...... It seems remarkable that such a massive particle should be so stable."
The paper reported that if protons are driven with that energy into an environment in which pions are present then there is such a resonance. I found opportunity to refer to this later in 1969 when I published my book Physics without Einstein, again presenting the data in the above Table, but further stressing that this proton-pion situation gave further support to my graviton theory.
Now, as I explained in Tutorial No. 15, where the energy formula 2e2/3x was used to relate the radius of a charge e with its energy, the transient creation of such a particle in the near presence of others in this same family will mean that it is quasi-stable. The reason is that an energy fluctuation by which small amounts of energy are pooled between members of the same family is a process in which energy is conserved rather than dissipated. The reason is conservation of space because diminution of the volume of one such particle matched by expansion in volume of another such particle by the same amount involves the release by the expanding particle of the same amount of energy as is absorbed by the other. A little differential analysis of that energy formula with respect to x will show you that that is the case for small changes of x.
What this means is that particle collisions in high energy particle accelerators can create artificially particle forms that correspond with those virtual particles present but hidden in the aether background, such as gravitons, muons and taons. I could see that a proton brought to rest in a sea of pions might shed its kinetic energy to form a quasi-graviton of mass-energy 2587 MeV. Added to the proton mass-energy of 938 MeV this amounts to 3525 MeV, but if this amount of energy were to shed the energy needed to form a pair of pions, namely 279 Mev, owing to that pion environment, then the net energy released would be 3246 MeV. In effect, the proton would have been converted into a charged particle having this mass-energy, and, as you can see this could well be the particle reported by Krisch et al in that 1966 Physics Review Letters paper.
Given that I was looking for evidence to support the existence of my predicted 2587 MeV graviton and thereby find endorsement for my theory of gravity you will understand why I took interest in this matter and commented on it in my 1969 book Physics without Einstein.
It was five years after that that the sensation of the discovery of the J/psi particles was reported. These were far better candidates for interpreting a connection with my graviton, because they were produced by the collision of very high energy electrons and positrons, which meant that virtually all of the energy involved in the collision was available to create the new particle form. I was also mindful of the fact, evident from the Table presented above, that my theory was telling me that the decay of a graviton-sized particle would shed dimuon energy quanta. These were very important and appreciating their importance had caused me to look away from the role which pions played in the bonding of nucleons together in the atomic nucleus. If you were to refer to my book Physics without Einstein you would see on pages 149-151, where I introduce the section on the pion in the Chapter 'Nuclear Theory', that I saw the close association of the proton and the pion, both represented by that Thomson energy formula, as accounting by its negative Coulomb interaction potential for a surplus residual energy. This energy was just sufficient to form a string-like electron-positron chain bonding of that proton to an adjacent lattice site in the nucleus, seen as having a geometric conformity with the corresponding lattice structure of the aether model that I had used to build my account of the photon from which I derived the fine-structure constant.
Soon thereafter I woke up to the fact that the dimuon energy quantum of 211 MeV was a better candidate than the pion for marrying up with the proton to shed that residual energy needed to form the nuclear bonds. The reason for this was that it gave me the inspiration from which I could see how Nature creates protons from the sea of virtual muons populating the sea of background energy in the aether. All I had to do was use the same theoretical argument as I had used in deriving equation (7.9) in my book Physics without Einstein, an argument repeated time and again in explaining the particle masses discovered by high energy physicists.
If you take a pair of virtual muons, bare charges e of opposite polarity, each having the rest-mass energy of 206 electrons, giving 412 units, put them in close contact, and suppose that the negative muon transfers energy to the positive muon until it becomes an electron, you will find that you have a positive dimuon of self-energy greater than 412 units in contact with that electron of single unit energy. Curiously the negative energy potential of the charge interaction is about 1.5 units and so the individual energies of the two components can exceed that of their combination.
This is the 'stuff' from which elementary particles are built in high energy reactions. Now, if you imagine that more and more virtual muons are created in the above dimuon-electron form, feeding energy into the electron while the dimuon (denoted Q) keeps its energy intact owing to an external regulating 'family' influence and its longer lifetime, then you create a mystery particle of energy P as a substitute for that electron. I am going now to assume that the antiparticle version of this system can be formed just as easily and that at the end of this process we have two charges +e and -e complying with the Thomson formula, the charges having energies P and Q respectively and being in touching surface contact. The total energy E of such as combination is:
E = P + Q - 3(PQ)/2(P+Q)
as you may verify, if necessary, by reference to the analysis presented in Tutorial No. 9.
The negative term in this energy equation is the negative potential energy of the charge interaction. It reduces the total energy below the combined energy values of P and Q. However, there is a specific value of Q in relation to P at which the energy E is precisely equal to P. More important, however, is the fact that there is a value of P in relation to Q at which E is a minimum, given that P is stable and so constant.
Work this out by differentiating E with respect to Q to find the minimum and you will see that it occurs when Q/P has the value of the square root of 3/2 less 1, which is 0.2247. Now if we know the value of Q, that dimuon energy, we know P and vice versa. I saw this as telling me something about how protons are created, their energy being determined by the virtual muons in the sea of aether energy which fills space. A proton mass-energy P of approximately 1836 electron units would correspond to a dimuon mass-energy Q of approximately 412.5 electron units. I said "Eureka" to myself and began to look for data concerning experiments in which dimuon energy quanta are seen besides reports of reactions producing particles that would help my case in support of the 2587 MeV graviton.
In the period from 1969 to 1975 I found time to produce two more books, Modern Aether Science [1972] and Gravitation [1975] and began to break through the publication barrier by seeing, first, the publication of a paper in the Journal of the Franklin Institute [1969a] on the law of electrodynamics needed to accommodate gravity, second, the publication of my Physics Letters paper [1972a] on the role played by the aether in determining Planck's constant and, third, the paper published in Il Nuovo Cimento [1975a] on the proton theory with its aether foundations. Just to get such papers accepted by the peer review process was a landmark victory in my work, given the hostility shown universally towards aether-based theory and its anti-Einstein implications! It will not surprise you to note that I reported my discovery of the theoretical evaluation of the proton/electron mass ratio also in that 1975 book Gravitation, the value deduced being 1836.152, which, incidentally, proved to be in closer accord with today's measured value than did the then-known measured value.
Shortly thereafter I took special note of some analysis of experimental particle data reported by J M Lo Secco in Physical Review Letters, v. 36, p. 336, 1976, which indicated the discovery in 1975 of dimuon events in high energy neutrino scattering. Lo Secco demonstrated that these could be caused by the three-particle decay of a source particle in the mass-energy region of 2500 MeV. Was this a pointer to my 2.587 MeV graviton?
Certainly I took heart that here was a discovery that at least helped my reliance on the dimuon aspect of proton creation. However, the graviton was my primary concern as the real task I confronted was urging forward my theory of gravitation, where I was running into my main challenge of overcoming the resentment of the court followers of Einstein.
However, once into 1975, that 'gipsy' particle topic was very much on my mind and I soon saw how it all made sense in the light of my theory of particle creation based on intevention by the graviton, the g(2587) particle, as I shall now refer to it. My opportunity to get my thoughts on this published in a refereed journal came when I was invited to join the Editorial Board of a new scientific journal entitled 'Speculations in Science and Technology', published at that time from an academic institution in Western Australia (WAIT).
So it was twenty years ago, early in 1978, in volume No. 1 of that journal at pp. 59-63 [1978b] that I wrote under the title: 'Energy Correlation Formula Applied to PSI Particles'.
My topics were 'Charge Pair Interaction', introducing that P:Q formula above, 'Charge Interaction Stability' together with 'Pair Creation Stability', explaining how the interaction of charge according to that energy formula 2e2/3x can account for their quasi-stability, and 'The Psi Particles', deriving the psi particle mass-energies from the g(2587) graviton interaction.
In that paper I argued that a very energetic environment containing a poulation of particles of energy Ex will, very probably, mean that some particles of energy (2)1/3Ex are present as well. My reason is that if we are talking about leptons, as such, then pair creation can occur as part of the quantum electrodynamic activity in which the aether participates as a catalyst in energy reactions. I had every reason to believe that space is conserved as between material particle forms involved in such reactions and so I reasoned that two Ex particles might have to share their charge volume with an energy quantum surplus to 'requirements', meaning that four new particles would be created, each having half the volume of the Ex particle, would emerge from the two host particles.
Hence the cube root of 2 becomes a scaling factor by which the charge radius is reduced, and by the Thomson formula this means that the energy of the particle is scaled up in inverse proportion, so giving that (2)1/3Ex value.
So the scenario I described was one in which, given that energy is released in those high-energy collisions between electrons and positrons, then there must be the Ex and the (2)1/3Ex particles present in considerable numbers.
I will use that formula above for E in terms of the energies P and Q, but here I will replace P by g(2587) and Q by g*(3259). You can verify that I have assumed that Ex is the graviton energy 2587 MeV and so (2)1/3Ex becomes 3259 MeV. From the formula work out the value of E using these values for the energies P and Q and you will find that E is 3683 MeV. So here I could again say "Eureka", because I was looking at the mass-energy value of the heavier of the two 'gipsy' particles. Above, I gave its mass as 3695 MeV, that being its first-reported value but later higher-precision determination reduced it to the value I was seeing from my analysis. The lower energy J/psi particle was also revised downwards to 3095 MeV, as one can see by reference to the Scientific American article by S D Drell, in v. 232 at page 50 (1975).
So now you may ask how my theory explains that 3095 MeV 'gipsy' particle. Well, can you not guess the answer? It is the more stable of the two and so it could develop from the same P:Q combination, where the smaller energy component sheds energy whilst the higher energy 3259 MeV component holds onto its energy, as the combination reduces to a minimal energy state. Work that out using that same energy minimization condition as I used above for the proton-dimuon situation, but this time we are interested in the combined energy value of that minimal state. It takes a little algebra to show that the minimal energy of the resulting charge combination is given by multiplying the energy 3259 MeV by the square root of 6 from which one has subtracted 3/2. The answer is in accord with that 3095 MeV value. If you shirk at doing the algebra then calculate the value of that P form in the minimal energy combination to find that it is 0.2247 times 3259 or 732 MeV and use this as the Q value, with P as 3259 MeV in the above P:Q equation for E to confirm that E is the energy of that lighter 'gipsy'.
So you see, whilst those interested in high energy particle physics have moved on to the world of even higher energy in their 'Tower of Babel' attempts to probe into the mysteries of Creation, with their superstring theories and their quark picture of a world full of charm, beauty and the like, one can, by mere plodding through the fruits of aether theory, assemble a comprehensive picture of the physical processes they are discovering. Yet, the physics community chooses to ignore all this, as they search for their own kind of glory.
Again I emphasize that if you, the reader, happen to be young and a student of physics, the future before you can be more rewarding if you face up to the fact that the aether exists and that it has something to tell you concerning energy. The alternative is to gaze out into space to see if you can glimpse a sight of what happened out there billions of years ago or to work on those giant accelerators trying to analyse data which might indicate that some new particles have been created that you may name but not understand.
Rest assured that my theory puts you on the right track. I have found that, as it developed, it yielded the more important information first, almost in the sequence in which the phenomena involved were discovered. I refer to the properties of light, the photon quantum, and gravitation, here explained as being of electrodynamic nature. My first refereed paper accepted on my theory [1969a] concerned that electrodynamic law as needed to account for gravity. My second paper concerned the photon and Planck's constant [1972a] and my third concerned the proton [1975a]. The interpretation of the electron, with the applicability of that J J Thomson formula, sometimes called the Abraham formula, and the explanation of inertia were all basic to that effort. However, the onward development of the theory followed in some respects a step by step sequence in delivering explanations for muons, pions, kaons etc, much in the same sequence as their chronological discovery.
I shall now move on to the next Tutorial No. 17, where we shall see how a myriad of other particle forms all fit into place using the principles presented above. The governing conservation laws are those pertaining to charge parity and energy, plus, and this is a vital step, the conservation of space, vital because it has special meaning when we consider the nature of gravitation and what determines G.
To progress to the next Tutorial press:
Tutorial No. 17
*