essay: ** IS THERE AN “AETHER” ?? CAN WE “SEE” THE ELEMENTS WHICH COMPOSE IT ??**

by Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur physics enthusiast), Chandler, Arizona, USA, 12-July-2017

email: MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

**SUMMARY [i.e., “abstract”] OF THE ESSAY**

Based on theoretical work by Sternglass and Simhony, one can argue that there is in our universe an aether-like substance [“epola”] which physicists have already “seen” by using “particle accelerators” (“atom smashers”) in experiments which “discovered” some of the heaviest unstable baryons. Because the standard model denies the existence of any kind of aether-like substance in our universe, this interpretation of these experiments has been overlooked.

**Key words: aether, de Broglie wavelength, epola, ether, relativistic mass, Simhony, Sternglass;**

**DEFINITION:** “Epola” is the aether-like electron-positron lattice in the model of Dr. Menahem Simhony. He says that “The epola is not an aether as originally defined, and far from being aethereal … but a dense aggregation … of leptons [i.e., of electrons and positrons]”.

[**Ref. #1a**, in section 5 of the FAQ (frequently asked questions) link, titled “Is the epola model an aether theory?”]

**TEXT OF THE ESSAY**

Dr. Menahem Simhony **[Ref.#1]**has postulated the existence of an ether-like substance in our universe, which permeates all the space in our universe and inter-penetrates all the ordinary matter in it. According to Simhony’s model, this ether-like substance is composed of nothing but electrons and positrons, and the elements which compose it are so near to each other that there are more than 10,000 of them between the nucleus of a sodium atom and the nucleus of a chlorine atom in a salt crystal !!

According to my interpretation of the theoretical work of Simhony and that of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Ref.#2] one can postulate that the SIZE of each of the tiny elements which compose this ether-like substance, (which Simhony calls “epola”— short for “electron-positron lattice”), is such that its radius is approximately only 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm [= 4.11 x 10^(-17) meter] [Ref.#3]. This is a very tiny size: much smaller than a proton. Just to illustrate how small these little hypothetical objects (“epola-elements”) are, (if in fact they exist): one could put more than a billion billion of them inside the space which a single hydrogen atom occupies. In fact, it’s so small that one would need a very powerful “electron microscope” to see one of the little rascals.

Note1: Some of the “particle accelerators” which physicists have used to discover the characteristics of the many unstable “particles” are, in effect, powerful “electron microscopes”, in the sense that they use very speedy and very energetic electrons to “see” what these objects look like, and how they behave. Sternglass describes this in his book [Ref.#2] in the chapter where he describes collaborating with Robert Hofstadter at Stanford University during the 1950s. He says that the 150-feet-long particle accelerator —(“atom smasher”)— which they used was one of the first machines with enough power “to begin to disclose the size and structure of the proton” [p.113, **Ref.#2**]. Hofstadter later won a Nobel prize (1961) for this research.

Note2: The numeric value for the radius was calculated on the assumption that the mass-density of the epola-element is approximately 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc, as the writer details elsewhere [Refs.#3, #4]**.** Note that a “cc” is a cubic centimeter, and also that the writer proposes that the tiny object is shaped like a little donut (i.e., like a torus). See the POSTSCRIPT, below, for the alternative possibility that they are sphere-shaped rather than torus-shaped.

An “electron microscope” works by accelerating electrons to a speed almost equal to the speed of light, to give them an energy [“kinetic energy”] which causes their so called “de Broglie wavelength” to shrink down to a tiny size equal to the tiny size of the object which one wants to “see.” In fact, an “electron microscope” cannot “see” objects which are smaller than the de Broglie wavelength of the speedy and energetic electrons which it uses. One can calculate the amount of energy which each of these electrons would need, to be able to “see” something as small as 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm, by using de Broglie’s famous formula for the wavelength of “matter waves.” {Please google “Debroglie matter waves” if you need to}.

The calculation is easy: m = h / (WL x c), where “m”is the mass of the object, “h”is Planck’s constant,”WL”is the object’s DeBroglie wavelength,and”c” is the speed of light.

Using numeric values h = 6.63 x 10^(-27) gram.cm.cm/sec, WL = (4.11 x 10^(-15) cm) x (2 x pi) = 2.58 x 10^(-14) cm, and c = 3 x 10^(10) cm/sec, one calculates a mass of 8.55 x 10^(-24) gram, approximately the mass of five [5] protons. Please note that one multiplies the radius 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm by (2 x pi) to get the appropriate “wavelength” to use in the calculation. Note also that the mass calculated in this way is the “relativistic mass” of the electrons which the “electron microscope” would use.

Using Einstein’s famous E = mc2, i.e., E = m x c^2, one can translate this mass to energy:

E = [8.55 x 10^(-24) gram] x [9 x 10^(20) **cm.cm/sec.sec****]** = 7.69 x 10^(-3) erg, which is equivalent to 4.8 gigavolts. This is the minimum energy which the electrons in an “electron microscope” would need to be able to “see” one of the elements which compose the epola.

One doubts that any experiments of this kind to look for the elements which compose the epola have ever INTENTIONALLY been done, for the simple reason that most Ph.D-holders are totally unaware of Simhony’s theoretical model. However, there have been many experiments in which electrons were accelerated to that energy, and to greater energy, while looking for other objects and/or for other reasons. These experiments have resulted in the “discovery” of many kinds of “particles” during the past 70 years, although the word “particles” is misleading, because these so called “particles” “decay” after less than a millionth of a second. Now you see it … !!!POOF!!! … now you don’t. In reality, they are merely tiny blips of energy, with VERY SHORT lifetimes, not “particles” in the common sense (pun intended) of the word “particle”; i.e., and in other words, one should use some common sense and refrain from using the word “particle” to describe something which lives for such a short period of time.

These very short-living objects have names like “lambda” and “sigma” and “eta” and “delta”; so many different names for the many different kinds of these objects that Enrico Fermi is supposed to have said that, if he could remember the names of all the different “particles”, then he would have been a botanist !!

Thanks to the internet, one can easily find lists of these objects, and their masses, i.e., their energy content. When I did this, I found three [3] different “particles” of this kind whose masses are close to the relativistic electron-mass calculated above: the “bottom lambda”, the “bottom sigma”, and the “bottom xi” (also called “Cascade B”). These weigh in at, respectively, 10.01 x 10^(-24) gram, 10.35 x 10^(-24) gram, and 10.31 x 10^(-24) gram, equivalent to 5.62 gigavolts, 5.81 gigavolts, and 5.79 gigavolts respectively [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons].

Please note that, according to the list which I looked at, there is no known “particle” of this kind [an unstable “baryon”] whose mass (i.e., whose energy content) is greater than this, except for the “bottom omega” — which is slightly heavier. Theoretically, it would make sense that the tiniest objects in our universe, (epola-elements), would manifest themselves as observations of the some of the heaviest unstable baryons known to science.

Please also note that, if one looks at a list of mesons. there are, likewise, several kinds of “B mesons” whose masses are in this range, and that these, too, are the most massive objects in the list, except for the “bottom eta meson” — which is approximately twice as heavy.

Compare the above energy-values to each other: they are almost exactly the same. Compare them also to the minimum energy-content of of the electrons in the “electron microscope”: they are all slightly larger.

Compare these energy-values also to the energy-content which physicists have assigned to the so-called “bottom quark”: 4.18 gigavolts. Note that this is slightly less than the amount of energy which the electrons in an “electron microscope” would need to be able to “see” an epola-element, according to the above calculation.

**CONCLUSION**

Perhaps the real meaning of these experiments, (which are supposed to have discovered many different kinds of “particles”), and the correct interpretation of their results is this: perhaps each of the three little blips of energy referred to above as “particles” is in fact a manifestation of the presence of the epola, in the sense that the measured energy-content of the “particle” is close to the theoretical minimum energy-content of the electrons in an “electron microscope” powerful enough to “see” the elements which compose the epola. Perhaps the “bottom lambda” and the “bottom sigma” and the “bottom xi” are [not particles, but] in fact a measure of the amounts of energy associated with several of the ways in which the high-energy electrons, moving at almost light-speed, cause the epola in their immediate vicinity to vibrate, resonate, and/or oscillate.

In other words, and to summarize the previous paragraph: perhaps the fact that scientists have discovered “particles” like the “bottom lambda” + the “bottom sigma” + the “bottom xi” is in fact evidence that they have been able to “see” the elements which compose the epola.

POSTSCRIPT

Due to some theoretical considerations which are too numerous to detail here, {for details, see my book, a series of essays re the work of Sternglass and Simhony [Ref.#5]}, the radius [4.11 x 10^(-15) cm] in the above calculation is that of a torus-[donut]-shaped object, on the assumption that that is the shape of the epola-element. If in fact the little rascals are sphere-shaped, then their radius would be even smaller, on the assumption that their mass is that of an electron and their mass-density is approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc [Ref.#3], where a “cc” is a cubic centimeter. Using that smaller radius in the calculation above gives a minimum energy content for the electrons in an “electron microscope” which is even nearer to the energy content of the three unstable “particles” mentioned above.

**REFERENCES**

(1a) Simhony, Menahem, internet site: www.EPOLA.co.uk;

(1b) ibid., internet site: www.EPOLA.org;

(2) Sternglass, Ernest, book: **Before the Big Bang** (1997,2001);

(3) Dorazio, Mark Creek-water, essay: “Size of the Epola-elements”,https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/appendix9-size-of-epola-elements-appendix10-a-radical-speculation/

(4) ibid., essay: “Regarding ‘Neutron stars’ as a Way to Test the Theoretical Work of Sternglass and Simhony”,

(5) ibid., internet-site: https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-new-proton-model-2/

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this:

## Recent Comments