The ether and the matter

Post N.121

Electrons: a new insight

Electrons: with this chapter, I will consciously move on to a theme which was not, till now, correctly dealt with. It will be certainly a difficult subject to touch, but once it will be opened, it promises to achieve many great results.

As a consequence of the reintroduction of such an old concept as the ether, a super-fluid that is filling all the space, I’ll have to review the fundamentals of the physics and chemistry, I mean the atom. This is due to the fact that normally physicists and chemists do not consider the ether as the basic element in their analysis. Moreover and in addition, we’ll have to make a thorough revision of electromagnetism as well. The idea is to arrive to define the relation between the ether, the electric field, the magnetic field, the strong and the weak nuclear forces.

A non-uniform distribution of etherons

We all are aware that an electric field entails a change of the space characteristics due to a non-uniform distribution of etherons in the space. This generates a wind of ether, that is to say, a movement of etherons in the space that consequently will change its basic features, thus giving birth to an electric field. The same will happen for a gravitational field: it is a vertical wind of etherons.

Within the limits of this research, this is not the first time I have to mention the Higgs boson. It is that particle that participates in generating mass. We have already set a comparison between the etheron and the Higgs boson while opening the hypothesis that the ether is responsible for the creation of matter. The hypothesis I want to consider is that an accumulation of etherons in a specific point, with a specific energy and concentration, generates an atom that is thus a different entity from the atom generally suggested by the scientific establishment. In order to check the validity of this hypothesis, we have to reconsider many of the scientific fundamentals at the light of the existence of the ether.

The first point we want to focus on is that the atom is formed by a positive and a negative charge. The positive sign + is the nucleus while the negative sign – is formed by the electrons that, in the planetary-shaped atomic model, rotate around the nucleus. What are these charges? What can be a charge immersed in the ether?

LaViolette, a scholar of ether, has made the hypothesis of a double kind of ether. He could imagine an X and a Y etheron with different plus and minus charges. Although this can really be a possibility, in my research I never felt the need to introduce an ether made by two different particles. So, I would like to continue this way. Up to now, I described the ether as made of neutral particles that have the possibility to move in the space. They can only vibrate around their position as it turns up when a ray of light passes by. The same happens when the particles can move in a force field such as an electric field, a gravity field or inside the ether vortex that sets into motion the celestial bodies.

Since etherons can move, they can accumulate in a specific place creating points where there is an abundance of etherons and other points where there is a rarefaction of them. To make an analogy, you can think of the high and low-pressure systems (cyclone and anticyclone) that are responsible for winds formation. The idea is the following. This super-fluid ether that fills space and matter can create two different kinds of charge. There will be a positive charge when there is an abundance of etherons with respect to the average distribution of them. On the other hand, there will be a negative charge where there are fewer etherons than the average.

Positive and negative charges are always attracting because a system with a non-uniform distribution of etherons is in a high energy state. It is far from equilibrium, and it tries to equilibrate moving the etherons. It is like a pressure container in a room in which the void was made. If the container is opened, the filling air will immediately move to occupy the entire space now available.

When a negative and a positive charge approach, the system will again be neutral, in a low level of energy and etherons will cease to move.

In a body with a certain mass, etherons form the atoms. Atoms are packets filled with etherons that form the positive and the negative charge of the atom. Atom is thus inherently neutral. Bodies are neutral in normal situations because atoms are neutral. But bodies can lose their surface electrons or maybe the atoms can oscillate around their position, partially losing their neutral situation.

In insulating, non conducting materials atoms can only oscillate behaving like a dipole that orientates according to the external field of force. In a conductive metal, on the other hand, “electrons” are free to move in the whole material, like a fluid in which all atoms share their electrons. Scientists allow thus the negative charges the possibility to move, while they consider the positive charges as static.

The classic experiment allowing you to understand is the one of a comb. Once you rub it, it loses some surface electron and charges positively. If you, then, approach the comb to a piece of paper, this is attracted and lifted by the comb. Paper is not conductive: its atoms can only move a little orientating with their negative charge toward the comb. This is because the atoms of the paper are attracted by the positive charge of the surface of the comb. This way the paper is attracted and lifted due to an electrostatic attraction.

But how can an ether made atom lose an electron? What is an electron if the entire atom is filled with ether just with different concentrations? These are questions we have to answer.

The atom is a packet of etherons. Anyway, inside this packet, the etherons concentrate mostly in the nucleus. It acquires, this way, a positive charge. The etherons contained in the atom all around the nucleus arrange in layers according to a concentric spherical shape. These concentric layers have a number of etherons that is lower than in the nucleus and lower than the average concentration of the whole atom. This originates a stress between the external part of the atom and the internal part of it. So, the need arises to release etherons to reach an equilibrium. The atom would naturally collapse in this situation, reaching the balance by an internal shuffling of the etherons. But something happens that gives stability to the structure.

The atom is not simply a mere packet of etherons but it has its internal energy giving it stability. How will this be possible? It will achieve such results by putting in vibration the external layer of etherons that concentrate circularly all around. The external spheres have to oscillate of a circular oscillation. In reality, the shape of the wave could be different and not a sphere as we will apprehend in the future. This means that all etherons oscillate around their position, transmitting the wave to the next etheron.

According to its inner energy, the wave can assume different shapes. This is the electron: a sound wave around an agglomeration of etherons. This sound wave engenders the stability of the atom and constitutes the electron. By giving it stability, it also gives neutrality. The atom is not, however, a uniform amalgam of etherons. On the contrary, it is a non-uniform and continuously stressed double-faced packet. It has a nucleus enveloped by one or more sound waves that move through spheres of etherons. From the outside the atom is neutral. Anyway, the continuous movement of the electrons can in any moment reveal an eventful hidden internal life inside the atom. To have an idea of the appearance of the atom we can think of the figures generated by sound in cymatics. In the image below you can see some image of electrons compared with cymatic figures generated by sound.

When an atom loses an electron, this means that one of the waves has stopped oscillating. In this case, the nucleus is hidden no more and the atom becomes positively charged. So, we will discover a positive ion that will be able to acquire its neutrality again. This will be possible only in the case it can recover back the lost etherons. This will allow the wave to restart oscillating.

So when we rub the comb, it loses some electron and the relative atoms remain positively charged. Consequently, in the paper, the atoms move their waves deforming their structure toward the positive comb ions. With this geometry, the comb can attract the paper piece and lift it.

This model seems to give a first rough explanation of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. According to this principle, it is not possible to measure at once, together with the speed, the position of the electron. This is due to the fact that the electron is a sound wave that moves through the etherons. When I measure the speed, I’m evaluating a characteristic of the wave. If I measure the position, I’m evaluating a characteristic of the particle, i.e. of a single etheron. But there are plenty of etherons to build the sphere around the nucleus. The uncertainty seems, this way, due to a wrong understanding of the electron conformation. An ether explanation seems to clarify the idea.

The vortex atom made of ether

Till now, I have introduced a new atomic model. Its main characteristic is that the atom is completely made of ether. The electron is a spherical wave that moves around the nucleus and is made of oscillating etherons arranged all around the nucleus. I was assuming that the nucleus, or the positive charge inside the atom, owes its positive charge to an abundance of etherons (in respect of the average quantity inside the atoms). On the other hand, I posited the electron, the negative side of the atom, owes its charge to a scarcity of etherons in respect to the average.

We will try to prove if the hypotheses made are true.  To give an answer, I have to define what the cause of the atom is. How does this non-uniform distribution of etherons have an origin? Why? In the past, a number of physicists groped to describe the atoms as made of ether. Many of them sketched the atoms as made of vortexes of ether.Tesla, Lord Kelvin, the same Thompson, the discoverer of the electron, were describing the atom as made by a toroidal vortex of ether.

This hypothesis had followers for about 30 years, up to the end of the 19th century. However, it was not accepted in Germany where physics were in expectation for Einstein’s theories. After the Michelson Morley experiment, the idea of ether fell into disuse and science began to refuse its same existence.

Anyway, up to now, I always considered the existence of a cosmic vortex that moves all celestial bodies and generates gravity.

Let’s try to make an analogy with the vortex that constitutes the atom. The vortex is an entity able to create a different concentration of etherons. Think of the cyclone and the anti cyclone. One creates a low pressure system, while the other creates a high pressure system. The total system generates the wind.

We want to make some more consideration to better understand what the atom is. So, we will try to find evidence of the hypothesis we have made. Is the positive charge the result of an abundance of etherons while the electron of a scarcity of them ?

It seems clear that this description of the atom is very different from the one given by the scientific apparatus. The currently accepted description of the atom is, however, based on a series of experimental results that we simply can’t ignore. We will evaluate some of them to see if they can be set into harmony at the light of the new model.

The discovery of the electron as a particle with mass got developed thanks to a series of experiments. They were performed during the nineteenth century on the basis of the electric conduction through rarefied gases. Crookes was one of the scientists implied in those experiments. He was using a device made with a glass tube with two electrodes welded at the extremities of it. These electrodes were supplied from a continuous current generator with a potential of 10000V.

At the interior of the tube, air was replaced with a known gas whatever. Then Crookes made the void in the tube with a void pump.  The scientist noticed that, under 0,4 atmospheres of absolute pressure, a diffuse luminosity between the two electrodes generated. Going down till 10-6 atmospheres, the luminosity interested the whole gas. In this situation, the glass in front of the cathode emitted a weak luminescence due to fluorescence.

At the time, scientists were thinking that radiations were produced by the cathode. Today, science says that these rays are formed by electrons that move from the cathode to the anode, making the surface they hit fluorescent.

Scientists were able to behold that the electrons projected a shadow, proving hence that they were moving in a rectilinear way.

In 1895, Perrin saw that an electroscope hit by the cathodic radiation was negatively electrified. This was the evidence of the negative charge of the electrons. Other experiments, led on the cathode rays, proved the rays are particles. This is because they are able to put into the rotation a small turbine mounted between the electrodes.

So, we have to keep into consideration all these initial experiments. On the other hand, there is an emerging new model based on the notion that the ether is an actual reality and it is on the basis of the structure of all the physical matter. How could we explain these experiments at the light of this new model?

Empirically we can say that, between two electrodes with a big difference of potential, the ether arranges in a non-uniform way.  We could thus suppose that, by applying an electrical tension to the electrodes, the etherons begin to move toward the cathode in order to establish the new non-uniform distribution in the space. When this tension is applied, a wind of ether arises.

The etherons move and hit in their movement the gas particles. While hitting them, a part of the energy of the etheron is transferred to the gas particle. So, it gives back the energy in the form of luminous radiation (fluorescent effect).

The wind of etherons between the electrodes acts with a small force over the turbine that starts moving. This proves that a particle wind arises.  The idea is that these particles are not electrons but etherons. The fact that etherons are able to generate a force becomes clear when we consider the gravity force generated by a wind of etherons. These etherons forming the gravity wind act with a force over bodies having a mass. The same happens with the wind of etherons that arises in the tube of Crookes.

As I started to consider this subject, from the very beginning, I kept on speaking of charges as entities originated by scarcity or abundance of etherons. This different concentration (if compared with the average distribution of etherons in the space) is maintained by vortexes.  This is the force that, while spinning, can expel or attract the etherons from or toward the center generating a wind.

There is not just a single vortex in the atom. The proton is formed by an abundance of etherons. Hence a vortex is needed to maintain this abundance. The same is for the electron.

The vortexes are two and will rotate in a different manner. These two vortexes will attract, overlap and unite to form an atom made of the positive and negative charges. The atom is formed by many overlapping vortexes.

There is a clear motion of particles from the negative cathode toward the positive anode. The evidence comes from the fact that you can see fluorescence in the part of the tube opposite to the cathode, due to the cathodic rays. What happens in the tube?

Due to the difference of potential created by the battery, the negative charges existing in the circuit accumulate in the cathode plate. On the other hand, all positive ions accumulate in the anode plate. When the negative and positive charges reach their respective plates, they stop there. This happens because they can’t move in the air gap.

However, the charges create an electric field in this gap, i.e. an etheron wind. This is due to the fact that, from one side, charges expel etherons, while on the other side they attract etherons. We know that this wind flows from the cathode to the anode but also from the scarcity to the abundance. The aim is to maintain both the scarcity and the abundance.

We can thus confirm that the electron is in the scarcity side, while the positive ions are in the abundance side. Only this way we have a motion of particles from the cathode toward the anode. Similarly, we can notice the fluorescence on the other side of the cathode. The fluorescence is due to etherons hitting the fluorescent substances in the tube. This way they will move the electrons on a new energy level that, when returning in their position, release the energy they had received before.

Someone could wonder how simple, neutral, etherons moving in the tube deviate if a magnetic field is approached to the tube. The answer is simple. That’s true, a single etheron cannot create a field but the idea is that it stays under the field influence. We will see that a magnetic field generates an etheron wind with constant speed. Like a drop is affected by the flow of a river, an etheron is affected by the magnetic field engendered by a magnet set in the neighborhood.

Charge in the ether

Atom means overlapping vortexes of ether. This statement will have many surprising consequences. The vortex movement produces a non-uniform concentration of etherons in the space. Any abundance of etherons produces a positive charge, while scarcity engenders a negative charge. The two vortexes producing scarcity or abundance can overlap forming thus the atom.

At first, at least, I have to be remindful of another theory. The idea is from Paul LaViolette, an ether physicist that was able to introduce an alternative model. His aim was to describe some other kind of etherons. He could imagine they were arranged in a particular way in the space. With a positive charge Y, etherons are denser next to the charge, while X etherons become denser far from the charge. Etherons can change from X to Y and vice versa, with kinetic reactions depending on the situation.

Etherons can also become, according to LaViolette, G etherons, which are responsible for the gravity field.  He supposes that, in the ether, any force field produces elastic stress or a form of deformation. This can be the result of a different arrangement of the etherons. It will happen according to different densities, due to their position, further or nearer to the charge.

This is an idea quite similar to the one I want to develop.  What we have proved is that normal etherons produce gravity. It engenders a vertical wind due to the cosmic ether vortex. In my opinion, there are no G etherons. I tend to avoid the concept of the existence of an X and a Y etheron. However, I have to admit, my ideas are still in evolution.

If we speak of a negative charge we are not really intending, in the new model, a negative particle.  On the contrary, we mean a number of particles bound together. They constitute a point where there is scarcity of them if compared with the average distribution.

The energy that collects and keeps united this abundance of etherons (if we speak about the positive charge) needs to attract them toward the center of the charge. It is a sort of anticyclone that constitutes the high-pressure system and that drives the air toward the center and then downward. Incredibly enough, the electric field is the basic matter of fluid dynamics. “Quantum hydrodynamics” is the discipline that studies all this. The negative charge is the cyclone, a vortex that pushes away the air to produce a low-pressure area, i.e. a zone of a scarcity of etherons.

A negative and a positive charge will attract each one. The measuring unit for the charge is the Coulomb. One Coulomb is the electric charge moved in one-second trough a conductor by a current of one Ampere. Current is nothing else than a movement of etherons caused by a difference of potential, i.e. by an electric field.

One Coulomb is about 6.15×1018 times the charge of one electron. It is an enormous value. To exist, a charge has to be produced by a vortex, an oscillating movement of electrons developing by accumulated energy. Without the vortex, a casual accumulation or scarcity of etherons will immediately disperse in the average distribution of etherons to reconstitute the equilibrium.  The influence that the vortex exerts in the near space is called the electric field. This field is a change in the state of things of the space that, being filled with ether, has characteristics of elasticity and inertia. Einstein was defining this elastic deformation like the curvature of the space-time.

The attractive or repulsive force that a charge exerts over another charge is given by the well-known formula:

where ε0 is a characteristic of the empty space, i.e. of the ether. It is called dielectric constant or permittivity of the void. This constant quantifies the propensity of the ether to deform under the influence of an electric field. The value of the permittivity for the ether is:

This is the lower value. It is a little higher for the air, 80 times greater for water and, however, higher for any other material.

The formula for the force expresses the idea that the force diminishes with the distance between the two charges. For this reason, you can see the squared radius at the denominator. This thing is easy to understand. Think for example of two magnets. These are not two charges but they are something not too different. The magnetic effect of one magnet over the other diminishes with the distance. It becomes much stronger as the magnets get nearer.

To better explain the concept of the radius being squared let’s think again to the cyclone-anticyclone analogy. When the cyclone and the anticyclone are very near, the pressure gradient is bigger. This means that there is a big difference of pressure in a little distance. The consequent wind will be as strong as a tornado. If the high and low-pressure points are further, the wind will be much weaker.

This above-given formula appears to be well describing the effect of an electric field. Many have been deceived so that they started to imagine and describe the gravity effect in the same way. They say that two bodies endowed with a mass exert an attractive force one upon the other. They feel it appropriate to highlight the analogy between these two formulas:

We can take into the account the possible analogy:  the two bodies are the two charges. The generated force is proportionally inverse to the squared radius. However, while the first formula is reasonably correct, the second one should be excluded. If this second formula were true, the Earth would be a globe. We have by now a lot of proofs that this is not the reality.

The first formula describes the force exerted by an electrical field. But what about a magnetic field? I will try an answer in my next chapter. Moreover, we’ll have to understand how, in our model, an atom combines with the other atoms.

Electric and magnetic field over a Flat Earth

The idea I’m trying to introduce is that of an electric field intended as a deformation of the ether. Many thinkers tried to give a unifying explanation for all the existing things. It is the idea that everything physical is made of the same basic substance. The concept holds up well under modern science. Plato introduced Chora as a principle endowed with receptacle like properties. Aristotle did the same with his Hyle, indefinite matter that receives a form and definiteness. These are concepts which have much to do with energy or matter-energy.

In the same way, I would like to associate the electric field to a similar conception: the magnetic field B(r). This is a function of the distance and deformation or stress induced in the ether. It is possible to visualize the field strength lines of this deformation by putting some iron powder between two magnets on a table. You will see the powder to get arranged according to the magnetic field lines.

You could wonder what is the relation or maybe the difference between the electric and the magnetic fields. If they are both deformations of the ether, what could be the difference between the two? Electrical charges generate an electric field, while magnets generate a magnetic field.

Øersted noticed that a magnetic needle posited near electric current deviates. An electric current (that is the result of charges in motion) generates a magnetic field. And this can be observed in addition to the electric one. Both, an electric and a magnetic field, can be the result of an electric charge. To generate a magnetic field, the charge has to move. If motionless, it generates only an electrical field and a magnetic needle is not affected in this case.

How can we explain this difference by staying within the boundaries of a simple, ethereal model? A lot of people tried to do this. They were dreaming to be able to explain gravity, celestial bodies’ motion, electromagnetism, the atom, and optical phenomena, all of them within the limits of just a single model. Anassagora, Descartes, Lord Kelvin, Huyghens, Fresnel, Todeschini and, in antiquity, Plato and Aristotle, all of them strived to give an ethereal explanation of all things.

Anyway, in order to give an explanation of the magnetic field, in my model, I have to understand what a magnetic field is. I want to know how is it produced, in what it differs from an electric field and why these differences can exist.

After Øersted had performed his experiment in 1820, scientists were in excitement. They verified that a conductor run by an electric current produces a magnetic field. It can attract another conductor run by another electric current. It was clear that the two currents produce a magnetic field able to attract one the other.

A conductor run by electric current can attract a magnet and vice versa. But a strange thing happens when you try to move an electric charge with a magnetic field. The charge doesn’t move. If the charge moves inside a Crookes tube and gets near a magnet, it deviates because the action of the magnetic field affects it. But if the charge is motionless the magnet doesn’t have any influence on it.

An experiment led by Faraday in 1831  proved to be rather interesting. He was trying to move electric charges with an electromagnet, i.e. a coil supplied by a battery wrapped around a ferromagnetic torus. On the other side of the torus, he set a different coil. This was a wrapped coil connected with a galvanometer. By doing so, Faraday intended to register the movement of even the slightest charge induced by the electric coil.

Passage of current in the coil would produce a magnetic field able to deviate the needle of the galvanometer. Faraday saw that no current was generated in the torus until the switch was closed. When he opened the switch, he observed for a very short moment that the needle deviated with a short impulse.

Faraday understood that the static magnetic field the battery generated in induction was not able to move the electric charges extant in the iron. It was necessary a variation in the magnetic field to move a charge and produce an electric current in the torus. When he opened the switch, as a consequence, the magnetic field was passing from the maximum value to zero in a very short time. This sudden variation produced an electric current in the torus registered by the deviation of the galvanometer.

Faraday extended this experiment trying to move a magnet inside a coil connected with a galvanometer.

He saw that a moving magnetic field, i.e. a variable magnetic field, due only to the movement, produced an electric current registered by the galvanometer.

Now, I wonder how this phenomenon could be explained from an ethereal point of view. How can we justify the difference between the electric and the magnetic fields?

Let’s go back to the premises. An electric field is an etheron wind that moves toward or from the charge. Gravity is a wind of etherons with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s2. Similarly, an electric field is a wind that moves the etherons with a certain acceleration. The acceleration is necessary to move the charge.

The charge is a vortex that contains etherons, i.e. particles with a certain mass. The energy of the vortex has also some characteristics of the mass. To move a mass, as you know, a force is needed. According to the second principle of mechanics F=m*a, to produce a force an acceleration is necessary.

The hypothesis that I want to introduce is that the magnetic field is a wind of etherons with the following characteristics:

  1. it is endowed with constant speed.
  2. it does not possess any acceleration.
  3. it is devoid of the possibility to put in motion an electric charge.

Someone could think that, if a body is thrown into a river, it is led away by the current,  in any case. It doesn’t matter if the speed of the water is constant or not. But, in this case, you have to consider that a charge is vortex made. A vortex in a river is motionless because it can cut the flux and it is not driven away by the water.

I can conclude that a magnetic field is static, with a constant speed of the etherons. To have acceleration the magnetic field has to move: you have this way a speed changing in time, i.e. acceleration. The acceleration is necessary to move a charge and create an electric current.

However, a further question comes to the mind. Which is the reason why two magnets are able to attract one the other? A static magnetic field is not able to move a charge but it can move another magnet. Why? We have to understand how a magnet generates its proper field.

In a magnet, according to Ampere, charges are continuously moving. They generate an induced magnetic field.  This magnetic field enters into the second magnet where there are other moving charges. These charges interact with the incoming magnetic field, by producing a magnetic, attractive or repulsive force. This depends on the direction of the rotation of the charges.

So, even if the magnetic field is static, it can move another magnet. This is because, inside a magnet, the charges are already moving.

In short, by this, I have tried to explain that both, the electric and the magnetic field, are generated by the ether. An electric field is a wind of accelerated etherons, while a magnetic field is a wind of etherons moving at a constant speed.

The structure inside the atom

The structure inside the atom: this is something I have to understand. The atom is made of a vortex of ether with a non-uniform distribution of etherons. Vortexes are able to do such things. The electron is given by a scarcity of etherons while the proton is an abundance of etherons. Abundance and scarcity are referred to the average distribution of etherons in the space.

Mass particles are behaving like waves

From DeBroglie’s experience, we know that mass particles behave like waves. The electron is a wave that develops in the more external part of the atom, over the orbitals that are set at fixed distances from the center. The radius of these orbits is such to have integer waves around the atom. They don’t overlap over themselves provoking auto interference and self-destruction.

An atom losing an electron

What happens at the very moment when an atom loses an electron? The electron is a negative charge. You will probably wonder on what a negative charge is. It is a scarcity of etherons. This scarcity is maintained by a vortex that moves etherons. This is a deformation or stress of the ether around the charge. Without the vortex, we would not have the charge nor the electric field. In the exact moment when the charge moves, it produces a hydrodynamic effect on the near ether. This induced movement on the ether has a constant speed and constitutes the magnetic induced field.

An outward wind of ether

The nucleus, after losing the electron, is the positive charge. The vortex, in this case, rotates in the opposite direction, in order to produce an abundance of etherons.  The vortex continuously attracts etherons in the center, creating, this way, an inward wind of ether. This is the electric field associated with the positive charge. When the proton or the positive ion and the electron reunite, the two vortexes merge together and the atom will result as possessing an overall neutral charge.

The positively charged nucleus can be made up by many protons and a neutron as well. They are kept together by the overall vortex of the nucleus.  I will as soon as possible explain what neutrons consist of. They are neutrons because of the fact they have not a charge. They are not deviated in their motion by an electric or magnetic field.

Millikan’s experiment

Amazing is the experiment led by Millikan to determine the charge of the electron. He nebulizes some oil ionized with x rays between the two plates of a capacitor. By varying the tension between the two plates, the electric field of the capacitor changes.

E=V/d is the electric field. V is the tension and d is the distance between the two plates. The small drops move downward due to gravity. But drops are also under the action of the electric field. By regulating the electric field, Millikan said he was able to find a position of equilibrium. With a microscope fixed in its apparatus, he was able to find the tension necessary to reach the equilibrium position. With this tension, it is possible to calculate the charge of the ion: q=m*g/E.

Millikan saw that the charge of the drops was always a multiple of the same value 1.602×10-19 Coulomb that is thus the smallest possible charge, the charge of the electron. Remember that φ is 1,618.

Thompson made another experiment. He applied a magnetic field to a Crookes tube and measured the deviation of the electron due to the field. He was able, hence, to calculate the mass of the electron since he already knew the value for the charge. The calculated mass of the electron was 9.109×10-31 kg. It is a value almost 2000 times less than the smallest known atom, the hydrogen atom. The electron is thus 1836 times smaller than the proton.

We were, until now, still  considering the situation of an atom made by an electron and a proton. Let’s see the case of a bigger atom. They have a bigger number of electrons. An electron requires a vortex that oscillates like a wave. A wave that vibrates in the ether is electromagnetic radiation. A spherical wave, once you have fixed the wavelength, can develop completely. It always develops without overlapping itself. It just stays at a certain distance from the center of the atom. This being the condition, electrons can stay only in seven different layers or electronic shells. In these shells electrons, i.e. waves in the ether, keep moving. Each of these shells will possess certain energy said energy level. Every layer can contain more than one orbital. Each orbital can contain two electrons or wave with opposite spin direction. This is the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

There are four different kinds of orbital, s, p, d and f that will arrange in the seven energetic shells. Do you remember the cymatics figures? We set in a relationship the atom vortex with sound generated vibrations. There are 7 notes like 7 energetic shells around the atom.

The electrons always occupy the empty shell with lower energy. Hund’s rule about the maximum multiplicity says that electrons fill all orbitals with parallel spin to semi-saturate them. Then, they complete the orbitals following the Pauli principle.

To interact with the others, atoms use mostly the more external electrons, in the more external shell, called valence electrons. An external wave can be shared with other atoms that have the right electronic configuration to accept it. The vortex wave will hence become bigger to the point of reaching  the power to envelope both atoms and constitute a molecule. The wave will conserve its amplitude and wave length, i.e. its energy.

The correct geometry

In order to have a resulting wave that closes without overlapping and entering in interference with itself, the atoms have to arrange within the correct geometry. They are forced to. This geometry will give the molecule its electric and chemic characteristics.

Our vortex model seems to work better and better. It can describe atoms and molecules. We have still to see something in some next article about strong and weak nuclear force.

The strong nuclear force

This time I want to speak about the strong nuclear interaction. This is a force commonly reckoned among the four fundamental interactions in particle physics. It goes hands in hands with electromagnetism, weak interaction, and gravitation. It is the force that holds most ordinary matter together and binds neutrons and protons to create the atomic nuclei. The strong force field energy stays on the basis of most of the mass of a common proton or neutron. This was, since the beginning, the most common definition of this force.

In 1935 the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa introduced the definition of a new kind of force. It is the force keeping united protons in the nucleus. The physicist called this force “strong nuclear force”. It is a much stronger force than the electromagnetic force and it works keeping together the protons.

This is a force that acts strongly in the very short distances because immediately when a proton is out of the nucleus, it is repelled away. It acts only over distances of the order of 10-15 m, corresponding with the dimensions of the nucleus of the atom.

The scientific quantum explanation of the weaker electromagnetic force is a non-uniform distribution of virtual photons. When I have read this explanation in a book of physics, I felt excited. It is an explanation very similar to the one I have introduced.  You have only to notice that the photons are in reality etherons that, by concentrating in a non-uniform way, create the electromagnetic field.

The strong nuclear force, on the other hand, originates, according to official science, by the action of particles called mesons. Electromagnetic interaction means that the electric charges emit or absorb virtual photons. Accordingly, protons should have a nuclear charge and should absorb or emit virtual mesons. The mechanism should be the same for the virtual photons and the virtual mesons.

Till now, in my reference model, I have introduced only one particle, the etheron and this has been enough to explain the gravity, the magnetic field, and the electric field. What about the stronger nuclear force? The hypothesis I want to make is that it is not necessary to introduce any other particle like the mesons.

I’m convinced that the ether vortex is enough. When we have an atom with more than one proton, the proximity of the protons is guaranteed by the overlap and concentricity of the vortexes. The rotation of the vortexes guarantees the continuous concentricity and they can’t escape one from the other. The vortex of ether is responsible for the stronger nuclear interaction. In the next chapter, I will show another application of this idea. Then I’ll start thinking of the weaker nuclear force.


Protons stay at the very heart of the atoms. Moreover, there is a force keeping united the protons in the nucleus of the atom. Science states that protons are not the ultimate particle of the matter but that there are inside smaller particles called quarks.

The proton, in itself, does not exist in nature. In chemistry, the term proton is often used to describe a hydrogen ion in water solution. The mass of the proton is 1.672×10-27kg and its charge is 1.602×10-19C. The two numbers are very near to the value of the golden number:  φ=1,618.

The greater part of the mass of a proton is given by the gluonic field energy. This exotic name is to describe the force that keeps together the quarks forming the proton. And this field is nothing else than the strong nuclear force created by virtual particles called gluons. On the other hand,  when the strong nuclear interaction is viewed as the force keeping together the protons of the nucleus, the mesons are called pions. How can we explain, within the new model, the role of quarks and the force field keeping them together?

A system of particles in a vortex

In the new model, as you can personally deduce, the proton is not a particle but a system of particles kept together by a vortex. It is an abundance of particles due to the fact that the constituting vortex keeps on attracting etherons toward the center of the proton. So the proton, as stated by mainstream science, is formed by many sub-particles. These sub-particles are etherons and not quarks. Etherons are thus the elementary particles constituting the protons. The gluonic field of force is not intermediated by some new particle like gluons, but it is our vortex. By rotating, the vortex keeps the etherons inside and maintains their number constant. This is the glue that produces the proton. No gluons are needed.

The difference between protons and electrons

Can we say the same for electrons? The electron is formed exactly like the proton by etherons. Science, however, doesn’t apply the strong nuclear force to the electrons as well. This is because they are not formed by quarks, as they claim. We know however that an electron is a scarcity of etherons. However, electrons are formed by etherons. What is the difference between protons and electrons?

Electrons, when they overlap the protons and form atoms, are however somewhat different from protons. When the electrons overlap the protons to form an atom, their vortex oscillates with different frequency, according to their energy. In this sense, electrons are different from protons. However, when they are taken per se alone, they are exactly like protons, a vortex that works on ether.


We have till now discussed of protons, electrons and strong nuclear interaction (or force). I want now to speak about neutrons. Science states that a neutron mass is slightly greater than the proton one. Analyzing the neutron, we will be driven to consider the weaker nuclear force. To understand this, we have to examine how a neutron is made.

The beta decay of a neutron

To comprehend, we have to consider what the beta decay of a neutron is. This is radioactive decay, i.e. a nuclear reaction. Through it, a radioactive chemical element gets transformed in another one, with a different atomic number. It is a decay that occurs when, in a nucleus, there is a number of neutrons greater in comparison with protons. The consequence will be a lack of equilibrium. The decay leads to a situation of energetic equilibrium.

The decaying of the neutrons

Neutrons decay by emitting Beta rays, i.e. fast electrons. This point can appear strange since electrons are emitted by a nucleus containing only protons and neutrons. This is because neutrons are not stable when being let alone and disintegrate only by decaying in a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.

The antineutrino

The antineutrino has a negligible mass, much smaller than the electron’s one and neutral charge. Antineutrinos keep with them only energy, making this way more stable the nucleus which is emitting them. This is because they pass to a lower state of energy.

How can we explain the beta decay of the neutron with our new ether model?

The neutron has no charge but it decays in a proton plus an electron and an antineutrino. Science states that this decay is due to the weak nuclear interaction (force). It acts by changing the “flavor” of the quarks that are composing the neutron, in order to produce a proton. A proton is in fact made by two quarks up and one quark down. The neutron has on the other way two quarks down and one up. One quark changes flavor thanks to the weak interaction.

Dividing the proton from the electron

In reality, a neutron doesn’t change. It is already formed by a proton plus an electron. The two vortexes are kept united, forming the neutron, by the weak nuclear interaction. The neutron is thus a sort of very simple atom formed by a positive and a negative charge. The antineutrino, this particle with a very small mass, is, in reality, the energy necessary to divide the proton and the electron, once the neutron is expelled. When the neutron is expelled by the nucleus, the antineutrino divides the proton and electron. The neutron this way decays.

The antineutrino is a vortex that rotates in such a way to divide the proton end the electron. This vortex is the weak nuclear force that can create a proton from a neutron. It is weaker than the strong nuclear force that keeps united the nucleus; in fact, it can’t divide the neutron until this is included in the nucleus.

With this chapter, we conclude. We have described till now the gravity force, the force that moves the celestial bodies, the electric field, the magnetic field, the strong nuclear force and the weak one. All these are forces that are generated by the ether.

Leave a Reply