A new theory only has chances on acknowledgment if it is provable. For that physical

phenomena in the sense of the new theory are calculated and independently of this

experiments are being carried out. If the calculations are confirmed by reproducible

measurement results, then with that the correctness of the approach is proven.

In the here presented case we have chosen the field-theoretical approach instead of the

usual quantum physical approach. As a consequence of this we had found as a new

phenomenon the vortex of the electric field. With regard to the normally used Maxwell

theory this resulted in changed field equations in a dual formulation. If both equations,

each of which describes a source-free vortex field, are inserted into each other the result is

an only in time and space formulated, generally valid and hence fundamental field

equation (5.7, fig. 5.1).

This equation has many special cases; one of them, the Schrodinger equation, could be

derived by using an approach which was harmonic in time. We renounced to give special

solutions of the Schrodinger equation, because these are printed in numerous text books.

On the other hand experiments are known, which are capable to confirm the theoretical

solutions and thus to prove the Schrodinger equation. The eigenvalues of the equation

describe for instance the shell-shaped structure of the atoms with the by Niels Bohr given

radii.

Now this already proven equation was derived from the new field-theoretical approach.

Thus for the special case, the area where the Schrodinger equation is valid, the new theory

can be said to be proven (fig. 6.1).

We still are not content with that and put another stone on top: we will calculate the

quantum properties of the elementary particles for ourselves. These until now have only

been measured. Today is merely sought for symmetries and for models of explanation, like

e.g. the quark-hypothesis. From a calculation science is miles and miles away. We will

compare the calculation results with the measurement values. Then everyone can check

and compare for him or herself.

The conditions in an elementary particle are completely different. Here it concerns the

vortex itself, whereas the model of the atom merely describes vortex properties, so-called

actions at a distance. The differences in size and distances for an atom lie more than five

powers of ten over those of a particle!

Here a new problem of causality comes to light, at which we now must have a critical

look: the question of the by Einstein postulated constancy and universality of the speed of

light. Seen from a relativistic and subjective point of view of an observer, Einstein by all

means may be right. But may such a theory be generalized? How are the measurements

concerning the speed of light and the relativity of space and time to be judged when

looking at them objectively?

The current measurements of speeds faster than light speak a clear language and represent

a challenge (fig. 3.1, violation of the principle of causality no. 5).

6.2 Law of conservation of energy

Let the starting-point for our considerations be the electromagnetic wave in a particle-free

vacuum. Here no vortices appear, so that the plane wave can propagate undamped with the

speed of light, and in this way a transport of energy takes place. Electric and magnetic

energy each are the same magnitude.

Let's now imagine the symmetry is disturbed as the wave is "slowed down" on one side.

As a possible result the wave rolls up to a spherical vortex.

As we will see such a process is possible, for instance at impact on a strong field. Thus

part of the energy is bound in the inside. This part from now on withdraws itself from

every possibility to measure it. We can only measure the second part of the field energy,

with which the particle interacts with its neighbourhood.

We c an assume that: _______________________________________________________

The amount of energy bound in the inside of the particle is identical with the free and

measurable amount of energy on the outside of the particle.

The same energy We = 0,51 MeV, we attribute to the electron for reason of its mass with

the help of the Einstein relation (6.1), is also bound in its inside. This conclusion is also

applicable to other elementary particles and with that to all matter.

We here again recognize the principle of the duality between the to the outside striving

eddy current in the inside of the elementary vortex and the concentrating potential vortex

on the outside. Thus also seen energetically both are of the same magnitude.

Whereas in the case of the electromagnetic wave it concerns a symmetrical oscillation

around "zero", by the process of quantization, by the rolling up to a spherical vortex, there

forms an energetic state of space different from zero. The order of magnitude is

determined by the number of elementary vortices, of which the particles and all matter

consist.

Anti-matter forms the opposite energetic state and this again is for the particles of matter

available in their inside in a bound form.

As long as we do not artificially produce new elementary vortices and thus keep the

number of available vortices constant, the energetic state will not change, or as it is

formulated in text books: _____________________________________________________

In an isolated system the sum of the energy is constant.

THE law of conservation of energy is not an axiom, but follows without compulsion from

the vortex theory. It is not elementary, but a consistently derivable consequence of the

field-theoretical approach, according to which solely the field acts as cause for all other

physical phenomena, also for the conservation of energy! Because the cause of it is the

electromagnetic field, the following has to hold: ______________________________

Energy is a state description of electromagnetism.

Now we finally can explain why energy can be converted. Different forms of energy only

are different forms of formation of the same phenomenon!

Of course this statement of the field-theoretical approach does not yet explain what, for

instance, the temperature has to do with electromagnetism. I ask for some patience; no

question will be left unanswered.

6.3 Radius of the electron

For the crucial process, in which the electromagnetic wave rolls up to a vortex, it is for

reasons of continuity to be expected that the velocity of propagation remains equal that

thus for the vortex oscillation exactly like for the electromagnetic wave the speed of light

is determining. The direction of propagation in the case of the vortex takes place

perpcndicular to the in fig. 6.2 shown field direction of the electric field strength. Not even

in that both field-phenomena differ.

Summarizing: the propagation takes place with the speed of light c along a circular path

with the perimeter Therefore holds:

(6.2)

According to this equation the radius and with that the size of the electron is determined

by the speed of light. Therefore the question of the size of the electron is raised.

The energy interpretation predicts that for the theoretical case of a change of size the

energy density in the inside of the particle is influenced that however the quantity of the

included energy remains unchanged. We therefore can further proceed from the

assumption that the bound amount of energy is independent of the size of the particle!

Consequently for the elementary quantum the energy We = 0,51 MeV is assumed, which it

has acccording to the Einstein relation We = mec2. For the electron of mass me the with

measuring techniques determined value is inserted.

The spherical electrode of a spherical capacitor with the above given energy We

(according to eq. 6.1) and the capacity Ce (according to equation 6.4, fig. 6.3) represents a

very realistic model of the negatively charged particle.

In this manner the classical radius of the electron is calculated to be

*: re = 2,82*10 -15 m.*

But in the case of Kuchling it only is half this size, what according to equation 6.2

would mean that in the case of Kuchling the light would be on the way only half this

fast. Therefore if one is careful, one prefers to be silent concerning this delicate theme

and if one is honest, one admits not to know anything exact.

Not only the electron but also all the other elementary particles are according to the fieldtheoretical

approach formed from concentrated potential vortices. For these equation 6.2

hence has to hold in the same manner, so that more generalized we can conclude:

The speed of light determines the size of the elementary particles.

This statement is incompatible with the assumption of a constant speed of light! Because

then all elementary particles would have identical size. As is known, however, are the

building parts of the atomic nucleus, the protons and neutrons very much smaller than

individual electrons. The constancy of the speed of light is to be questioned.

This question is of such an elementary importance that we are not content with these

considerations and in addition undertake a mathematical derivation in the sense of the

field approach.

6.4 The Maxwell field equations

The laws of transformation of the electromagnetic field shall form the starting-point for

the coming up considerations. To exclude any doubts with regard to the interpretation, the

equations will be derived from the Maxwell laws under the assumption that no sources or

charge carriers are present (fig. 3.2 and 3.3) and as a consequence no current density (j =

0) is to be expected.

This corresponds to the vanishing of the time independent terms, which consequently are

responsible for the occurring of force effects like e.g. the Lorentz force. Only at the end of

this derivation we can understand the sense of this assumption (with = 0 and = 0).

The procedure at first corresponds to that of fig. 5.1. Here the fundamental field equation

had been derived from Faraday's law of induction and Ampere's law. With the

assumptions made this time the in fig. 5.2 treated undamped wave equation is left (5.9,

here 5.9*). Whom the derivation is still present can go in at this point.

In a sufficiently great distance from the source we are dealing with a plane wave, in which

the field factors only depend on the direction of propagation x. The Hertz' wave is a

transverse wave, in which the field pointers oscillate perpendicular to the direction of

propagation and in addition stand perpendicular to each other:

The curl, applied to the electric field pointer, itself points in the y-direction:

rot E = - dE/dx . This for the transverse wave carried out curl operation is now

compared with Faraday's law of induction (5.4):

rot E = -dE/dx = - dB/dt (6.9)

The relation won in a mathematical way, with the speed fixed by (6.8), reads:

dE = (dx/dt) • dB = v * dB (6.9*)

The result of this derivation at first only is valid for the introduced simplification, for

instance for the case of the transverse electromagnetic wave. Better known is apart from

that the generalized formulation, which among others by G. Bosse

But in the case of Kuchling it only is half this size

would mean that in the case of Kuchling the light would be on the way only half this

fast

and if one is honest, one admits not to know anything exact.

Not only the electron but also all the other elementary particles are according to the fieldtheoretical

approach formed from concentrated potential vortices. For these equation 6.2

hence has to hold in the same manner, so that more generalized we can conclude:

The speed of light determines the size of the elementary particles.

This statement is incompatible with the assumption of a constant speed of light! Because

then all elementary particles would have identical size. As is known, however, are the

building parts of the atomic nucleus, the protons and neutrons very much smaller than

individual electrons. The constancy of the speed of light is to be questioned.

This question is of such an elementary importance that we are not content with these

considerations and in addition undertake a mathematical derivation in the sense of the

field approach.

6.4 The Maxwell field equations

The laws of transformation of the electromagnetic field shall form the starting-point for

the coming up considerations. To exclude any doubts with regard to the interpretation, the

equations will be derived from the Maxwell laws under the assumption that no sources or

charge carriers are present (fig. 3.2 and 3.3) and as a consequence no current density (j =

0) is to be expected.

This corresponds to the vanishing of the time independent terms, which consequently are

responsible for the occurring of force effects like e.g. the Lorentz force. Only at the end of

this derivation we can understand the sense of this assumption (with = 0 and = 0).

The procedure at first corresponds to that of fig. 5.1. Here the fundamental field equation

had been derived from Faraday's law of induction and Ampere's law. With the

assumptions made this time the in fig. 5.2 treated undamped wave equation is left (5.9,

here 5.9*). Whom the derivation is still present can go in at this point.

In a sufficiently great distance from the source we are dealing with a plane wave, in which

the field factors only depend on the direction of propagation x. The Hertz' wave is a

transverse wave, in which the field pointers oscillate perpendicular to the direction of

propagation and in addition stand perpendicular to each other:

The curl, applied to the electric field pointer, itself points in the y-direction:

rot E = - dE/dx . This for the transverse wave carried out curl operation is now

compared with Faraday's law of induction (5.4):

rot E = -dE/dx = - dB/dt (6.9)

The relation won in a mathematical way, with the speed fixed by (6.8), reads:

dE = (dx/dt) • dB = v * dB (6.9*)

The result of this derivation at first only is valid for the introduced simplification, for

instance for the case of the transverse electromagnetic wave. Better known is apart from

that the generalized formulation, which among others by G. Bosse

*is called law of*

transformation.

(6.10)

With Ampere's law (5.1) we now should proceed in an analogous manner. The result is:

(6.10*)

This equation 6.10* is given among others by Simonyi. Now that we know, under

which circumstances these equations of transformation can be derived from the Maxwell

equations, the actual work can start.

<

6.5 Equations of transformation

As a consequence of the in fig. 6.5 again written down laws of transformation of the

electromagnetic field (6.10 and 6.10*) magnetic phenomena can be traced back to electric

phenomena and vice versa. The mathematical formulation reveals us the two sides of the

same medal and points to a perfect duality between both fields and their factors of

description.

Because a way exists, as is shown here, in which the equations of transformation can be

derived from the Maxwell field equations, the same generally valid and extensive

importance should be attributed to them. They can with the same right be called the

foundation of electromagnetism. Wherein does lie its message for physics, the always

curious researcher will ask? For that the relations of material 3.5 and 3.6 are completed:

(6.10) und . (6.10*)

The here presented equations state, that we measure an electric field strength E, if we are

moving with regard to a magnetic field H with the speed v and vice versa.

The electric and the magnetic field therefore prove to be an experience of the observing

person and we can say:

We experience the magnetic field as electric field and the electric field

as magnetic field simply and solely for reason of the relative motion!________

Let's assume, v is the component of the relative velocity (6.8), which stands perpendicular

to the area defined by the field pointers (6.8*), then the equations of transformation (6.9*

with 3.5) now read:

(6.11) and . (6.11*)

If we are moving with the velocity v in a basic field which is present with the field

strength E, then according to equation 6.11* we observe a magnetic field, which again

according to equation 6.11 is to be interpreted as an additional electric field Ez:

(6.12)

In duality equation 6.11 inserted into equation 6.11* provides for the magnetic field

strength a corresponding additional field Hz:

(6.12*)

W e obviously owe the measurable overlap fields in a laboratory simply and solely to the

relative velocity v with which the laboratory is moving. But now we must pay attention to

the fact that a terrestrial laboratory rotates along with the earth, that the earth orbits the sun

and the sun again rotates around the centre of the milky way. Eventually the whole milky

way is on the way in the cosmos with a galactic, for us hardly understandable speed. If we

further take into consideration that for every subsystem an additional field occurs as a

consequence of the relative motion with regard to the super ordinate system, then one

additonal field follows after the next and overlaps this one.

Let's imagine, the relative velocity could be reduced towards zero - and maybe we are

moving around such a cosmic point - then here no overlapping field would be measurable.

6.6 Field overlap

Field vectors can be superpositioned. In this manner the additional field Ez resp. Hz which

depends on the velocity, according to equation 6.10, overlaps the respective basic field (E

resp. H) to produce the measurable overall field (E0 resp. Ho):

(6.13)

(6.13*)

In the result something surprising the factor (l-v2/c2) appears, which is well-known from

the special theory of relativity and for instance appears in the Lorentz contraction.

If we rewrite both equations for the characteristic factor and compare with the in a purely

mathematical way, over the Lorentz transformation, won length contraction

(1 - v2/c2) = (l/l0)2 , then it becomes clear that the Lorentz contraction physically seen

should have its cause in the changed field conditions which a with relativistic speed

moving body finds with regard to a resting body.

(6.14)

The equation is a compulsionless consequence of known physical laws. In this derivation

actually no new factor was introduced and nevertheless a completely new picture for the

natural scientific reality results

transformation.

(6.10)

With Ampere's law (5.1) we now should proceed in an analogous manner. The result is:

(6.10*)

This equation 6.10* is given among others by Simonyi

which circumstances these equations of transformation can be derived from the Maxwell

equations, the actual work can start.

<

6.5 Equations of transformation

As a consequence of the in fig. 6.5 again written down laws of transformation of the

electromagnetic field (6.10 and 6.10*) magnetic phenomena can be traced back to electric

phenomena and vice versa. The mathematical formulation reveals us the two sides of the

same medal and points to a perfect duality between both fields and their factors of

description.

Because a way exists, as is shown here, in which the equations of transformation can be

derived from the Maxwell field equations, the same generally valid and extensive

importance should be attributed to them. They can with the same right be called the

foundation of electromagnetism. Wherein does lie its message for physics, the always

curious researcher will ask? For that the relations of material 3.5 and 3.6 are completed:

(6.10) und . (6.10*)

The here presented equations state, that we measure an electric field strength E, if we are

moving with regard to a magnetic field H with the speed v and vice versa.

The electric and the magnetic field therefore prove to be an experience of the observing

person and we can say:

We experience the magnetic field as electric field and the electric field

as magnetic field simply and solely for reason of the relative motion!________

Let's assume, v is the component of the relative velocity (6.8), which stands perpendicular

to the area defined by the field pointers (6.8*), then the equations of transformation (6.9*

with 3.5) now read:

(6.11) and . (6.11*)

If we are moving with the velocity v in a basic field which is present with the field

strength E, then according to equation 6.11* we observe a magnetic field, which again

according to equation 6.11 is to be interpreted as an additional electric field Ez:

(6.12)

In duality equation 6.11 inserted into equation 6.11* provides for the magnetic field

strength a corresponding additional field Hz:

(6.12*)

W e obviously owe the measurable overlap fields in a laboratory simply and solely to the

relative velocity v with which the laboratory is moving. But now we must pay attention to

the fact that a terrestrial laboratory rotates along with the earth, that the earth orbits the sun

and the sun again rotates around the centre of the milky way. Eventually the whole milky

way is on the way in the cosmos with a galactic, for us hardly understandable speed. If we

further take into consideration that for every subsystem an additional field occurs as a

consequence of the relative motion with regard to the super ordinate system, then one

additonal field follows after the next and overlaps this one.

Let's imagine, the relative velocity could be reduced towards zero - and maybe we are

moving around such a cosmic point - then here no overlapping field would be measurable.

6.6 Field overlap

Field vectors can be superpositioned. In this manner the additional field Ez resp. Hz which

depends on the velocity, according to equation 6.10, overlaps the respective basic field (E

resp. H) to produce the measurable overall field (E0 resp. Ho):

(6.13)

(6.13*)

In the result something surprising the factor (l-v2/c2) appears, which is well-known from

the special theory of relativity and for instance appears in the Lorentz contraction.

If we rewrite both equations for the characteristic factor and compare with the in a purely

mathematical way, over the Lorentz transformation, won length contraction

(1 - v2/c2) = (l/l0)2 , then it becomes clear that the Lorentz contraction physically seen

should have its cause in the changed field conditions which a with relativistic speed

moving body finds with regard to a resting body.

(6.14)

The equation is a compulsionless consequence of known physical laws. In this derivation

actually no new factor was introduced and nevertheless a completely new picture for the

natural scientific reality results

*.*

In our observer system, where the field Eo exists, a rule has its proper length l0. In another

system, which is moving with the speed v relative to the observer, as a consequence of the

here prevailing field E the corresponding rule has a length 1. In which relation the factors

stand to each other, is described by equation 6.14. Accordingly the following

proportionality holds:

and

(6.15)

If we are exterior to a very fast moving body with velocity v, we immediately can observe

how this body for reason of its relative velocity experiences the calculated additional field

and in this way experiences a length contraction. If the observer is moving along with the

body, then he purely subjective seen doesn't detect a length contraction, because he

himself and his entire measuring technique is subjected to the same length contraction.

From the axiomatic approach what would be, if the field, which itself only represents an

experience, would determine perceptible space and its dimensions, quickly a fundamental

realization can develop if the described experiences should coincide with real

observations.

In our observer system, where the field Eo exists, a rule has its proper length l0. In another

system, which is moving with the speed v relative to the observer, as a consequence of the

here prevailing field E the corresponding rule has a length 1. In which relation the factors

stand to each other, is described by equation 6.14. Accordingly the following

proportionality holds:

and

(6.15)

If we are exterior to a very fast moving body with velocity v, we immediately can observe

how this body for reason of its relative velocity experiences the calculated additional field

and in this way experiences a length contraction. If the observer is moving along with the

body, then he purely subjective seen doesn't detect a length contraction, because he

himself and his entire measuring technique is subjected to the same length contraction.

From the axiomatic approach what would be, if the field, which itself only represents an

experience, would determine perceptible space and its dimensions, quickly a fundamental

realization can develop if the described experiences should coincide with real

observations.

*: Because in this point of view the subjective status of the observer is determining,*

it is not completely impossible that there is an error in the interpretation of the

equations of transformation (6.10 and 6.10*). But because we started from the same

point of view of the observer for the derivation of the length contraction from the

Lorentz transformation, here the same error is to be expected. In putting both results

equal (6.14), a like constituted error on both sides will cancel out in any case and the

result stays above all doubts!

106 field dependent curvature of space

(Model):

Two particles of matter each in the field of the other particle.

Two elementary particles or two accumulations of matter

consisting of these are able to reduce the distance to each

other for reason of their fields, which we interpret as a

force of attraction.

B: (Example): The orbits of the planets in the field of the sun.

Fig. 6.7: The influence of the field on interactions.

theory of objectivity 107

6.7 Field dependent curvature of space

Let's assume, an accumulation of matter, as big as our earth, wanted to fly past the sun in

the distance earth-sun. But it would not succeed. Because the fields arising from the sun

decreases with increasing distance and according to equation 6.15 as a consequence the

size of the particles of matter increases. The planet hence is more strongly contracted on

its side turned towards the sun, as on the turned away "night side". It bends towards the

sun and its flight path becomes a circular path around the sun. That is the interaction

known as gravitation!

To an earth inhabitant this curvature reveals itself merely in the observation that the

duration of sunshine at daytime is longer, than it would be expected to be under the

assumption of the earth as a homogeneous sphere. In this context one willingly speaks of a

curvature of space. Actually it is a curvature of matter under the influence of the field

dependent length contraction.

Exactly this contraction the planets owe their circular orbits around the sun and by no

means the equilibrium of forces between the force of attraction and the centrifugal force

(fig. 6.7 B). It obviously is a fundamental mistake to think that gravitation would causally

be connected with a force effect!

If, in this context, we speak of a force of attraction for the sake of our subjective

observation, then we must realize that it merely can concern an auxiliary term founded in

usefulness.

A thought experiment should bring us clarity (fig. 6.7 A). The field, which surrounds

every particle of matter, reaches till infinity but becomes less effective with increasing

distance. If the distance between two particles is 1, then one particle is in the field of the

other particle. As a consequence of the field the length 1 reduces and in this way the size

determining field increases, which again leads to a further reduction of length etc. As a

consequence it can be observed that both particles are moving towards each other. We

speak of a force of attraction, because we can't register the influence of the field with our

senses.

In this way the consistent result that we and our environment at daytime must be smaller

than in the night will as well remain hidden. We experience the effect only indirectly as

gravitational pull of the earth.

Because we don't see the cause of a subjectively observed force effect, for the

electromagnetic interaction, just as for the gravitation, the field dependency of the length

contraction will be responsible. Hence the following conclusion holds for both interactions

equally way.

Two elementary particles or two accumulations of matter consisting of these are able to

reduce the distance to each other for reason of their fields, which we interpret as a force

of attraction.

Now the question still is open, why gravitation only knows forces of attraction, whereas

the electromagnetic interaction also permits forces of repulsion and which are the causal

fields for each.

6.8 Electromagnetic interaction

A convincing answer to the open question provides us the analysis of the course of the

field lines, on the one hand for charged particles and on the other hand for uncharged

particles, which do not participate in the electromagnetic interaction.

If at first we consider electrically charged particles, like e.g. electrons, protons or ions.

Then all in common is that the towards infinity running field lines of the electric field are

open. With this field the particle is able to interact with its environment. We measure a

charge and an electromagnetic force effect. In the case of unequal charges, as is wellknown,

a field amplification and attractive acting forces are observed whereas for equal

charges a field reduction results and repulsion is observed.

If we make a connection between the field conditions and the electromagnetic interaction

in the sense of the proportionality (6.15), then the particle in reality is able to influence the

distance to other particles merely with the help of its electric field. For unequal charges a

compression of field lines arises, in which one particle stays in the focussed field of the

other and vice versa. In this way a contraction of all lengths occurs and the observable

attraction happens (fig. 6.8 A).

For equal charges the opposite case is present, in which even a local field freedom can

occur (fig. 6.8 B). If the field tends towards zero on the dashed line, then the distance will

go to infinity (according to eq. 6.15). Consequently, the observable effect that both bodies

go away from each other, will reach to infinity.

Actually the electromagnetic interaction proves to be a result of the field dependent length

contraction.

The electromagnetic interaction of a particle is a result of the influence of the open field

lines arising from it on the dimensions of the space, in which it is.

It is important that the field lines are open, for which reason they are bent away from like

charges and are directed towards unlike charges. Subjectively seen we find out that as a

consequence of the field reduction repulsive force effects and as a consequence of the field

compression attractive acting force effects are observed (fig. 6.8).

The consequence of is every electric field is, as is well-known, a magnetic field standing

perpendicular on it. The field lines of the magnetic field run parallel to the surface of the

particle and have a closed course (fig. 6.9 A)!

Therefore no magnetic poles form, which would be measurable. Seen from the outside the

particle behaves neutral magnetically seen, because of the closed course of the field lines.

An artificial field reduction and as a consequence observable forces of repulsion, like in

the case of the electromagnetic interaction, hence in principle are impossible.

The effect of the magnetic field thus is limited to a geometrical manipulation of the

environment, namely the curvature of space, with which we have founded the

phenomenon of the attraction of masses and of the gravitation.

110 Gravitation

A: The open field lines of the E-field and the closed field lines of

the H-field of an electrically charged particle (e.g. e-)

B: The closed field lines of the E-field and H-field of an electrically

uncharged particle (e.g. of the neutron n°).

Gravitation is a result of the influence of the field lines with a closed

course running parallel to the surface of the particles on the

dimensions of the space, in which they are.

Fig. 6.9: The influence of the closed field lines of the H-field.

theory of objectivity __________________________________________________________111

6.9 Gravitation

For uncharged, neutral particles (neutron, atom, molecule etc.) both the magnetic and the

perpendicular on them standing electric field lines have a closed course. Now both run

parallel to the surface of the particle (fig. 6.9 B).

As is said, the density of field lines with a closed course can't be influenced from the

outside. If we approach a particle, the consequence of an increase of the density without

exception is a decrease of the linear measures and thus a larger force of attraction. For this

case of field lines with a closed course, for which in general it doesn't give a field

attenuation and no forces of repulsion, there holds:

Gravitation is a result of the influence of the field lines with a closed course running

parallel to the surface of the particles on the dimensions of the space, in which they are.

Both interactions logically have an infinite range. Both form a whole in the influence of

the fields on the size conditions.

It surely is of the greatest importance that for this derivation of the field dependency of the

Lorentz contraction from the known equations of transformation of the electromagnetic

field we could do completely without the introduction of new factors of description or

neglects.

Solely by consistent derivation and interpretation of the result the unification already has

suceeded and the electromagnetic interaction and the gravitation could, with the derived

field dependent Lorentz contraction, be traced back to a single basic phenomenon. Doing

so we have to pay attention to the fact that the observer is subjected to the same Lorentz

contraction as his measuring technique and therefore he can't see the field dependency at

all. Merely as being an exterior observer it in rare cases will be possible to him to see the

curvature of space in the presence of strong fields.

From this for an astronaut practical consequences result. If he namely would land on

Jupiter, he would think flat hills to be gigantic mountains, that small he would be! Vice

versa if he landed on the moon, high mountains would appear to be insignificant hills, not

because of wrong altitude readings of the terrestrial mission control and measurement

centre, but only because of his own body size. The astronauts of the Apollo missions were

not prepared for this circumstance and after their landing on the moon were completely

surprised, how little validity learned textbook physics has, hardly has one left the earth.

They have brought photographs with them which prove the Lorentz contraction to depend

on the field and therefore on gravitation.

The fact that force effects should arise from the interactions is an auxiliary concept and

auxiliary description of the observing person founded in pure usefulness. The Lorentz

force therefore shouldn't be regarded as cause anymore. It actually appears only as

property of the field factors. Seen this way it only would be consistent to do without space

charges and currents as a result of moving charges and to assume a source-free and

quanta-free field description (fig. 6.4: j = 0).

From an unified theory it is demanded that it besides the electromagnetic interaction and

the gravitation also is able to integrate the strong and the weak interaction. We will also

solve this problem.

112 Field dependent speed of light

Fig. 6.10: Diversion of the light by a strong gravitational field.

Speed of light of the wave: c = *f (6.16)

For the wavelength holds (because of eq. 6.15):

From equation (6.16) follows (with f = constant):

E ~ 1/c2 , H ~ 1/c2

The speed of light depends on the field!

(6.17)

theory of objectivity 113

6.10 Field dependent speed of light

But not only matter is bent towards a gravitational field. If we only think of the much cited

phenomenon that the ray of light of a star is diverted towards the sun, if it passes very

close to the sun on its way to us, like this has been observed for the first time during an

eclipse of the sun in 1919 (fig. 6.10).

Quite obviously the field of the sun also slows down the speed of light. On the side of the

ray of light which is turned towards the sun, the field is somewhat larger and the speed of

light correspondingly is slower than on the side which is turned away, and with that the

ray of light changes its direction in the observable manner. Exactly this relation willingly

is interpreted as a consequence of a curvature of space.

The extremely strong field of a black hole can divert the light down to a circular path, in

order to in this way catch and bind it. The light now orbits the black hole like planets the

sun.

At this point the open-minded reader already might have tapped the confirmation of the

proportionality 6.2 (c ~ r), which has been derived from the vortex model (fig. 6.2).

The sceptic is offered still another derivation: for the borderline case that the relative

velocity v tends towards the speed of light c (fig. 6.6), according to equation 6.13 the

measurable overall field Eo (and also Ho) will go to zero and equation 6.12, with Ez. = - E

(and Hz = - H), will again turn into the wave equation (5.9*) after double differentiation

(fig. 6.4).

The speed v = c so to speak forms the escape velocity, with which the electromagnetic

wave runs away from the cosmic field. Under these circumstances of course neither an

attraction of masses nor an electromagnetic interaction can be exerted on the wave.

If E0 goes to zero at the same time l0 tends to infinity (equation 6.15, fig. 6.6): i.e. the

wave spreads all through space. This result entirely corresponds to the observations and

experiences.

For the wave length and in the end for the velocity of propagation c only the self-field of

the wave E resp. H is responsible. Because of

(6.16)

and the proportionality from equation 6.15: (6.17*)

obtain the new relation:

(6.17)

If the speed of light in the presence of matter decreases, then we now also know why. It is

the field, which surrounds matter, that slows down the speed of light. Therefore a

gravitational field is able to divert a ray of light in the same manner as matter which flies

past. Finally moves the speed of light in the proportionality 6.17 to the place of the linear

measure (in 6.15).

But if the rule fails one will try to replace by an optical measurement arrangement. In this

manner the field dependency of the Lorentz contraction should be measurable; but it isn't!

114 universality of the speed of light

From the comparison of the derived proportionalities:

follows:

1 ~ c (6.18)

The speed of light is proportional to the measurement path.

The variable speed of light is being measured with itself.

The result at all events is a constant value.

The constancy of the speed of light is based on a measurement

which is faulty from the principle!

Because of c ~ r: physical length contraction

Fig. 6.11: Derivation of the length contraction

(field dependent Lorentz contraction)

theory of objectivity 115

6.11 Universality

Why can't the rule be replaced by an optical measurement arrangement? The crucial

indication provides the comparison of both derived proportionalities 6.15 and 6.17.

According to them holds the same field dependency for both the Lorentz contraction and

the speed of light:

or 1 ~ c (6.18)

If the rule has proved to be useless, then we will experience the same disaster if we

measure optically, i.e. with the speed of light.

Obviously both, the length 1 and the speed of light c as a length per unit of time, depend in

the same manner on the respective local field strength. On the one hand do both measuring

methods lead to the same result; but on the other hand will anything which can't be

measured with one method, neither be measured with the other method.

If now the speed of light is being measured optically, then the measurement path will be

proportional to the speed of light and as a result will the unknown factor be measured with

itself. The result of this measurement, which is faulty from the principle, at all events is a

constant value, because here two variables which stand in direct proportionality to each

other are related to each other.

Was the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley unnecessary, the result trivial? And

how does it stand about the postulate of the universality of the speed of light?

If we for that consider a cube (fig. 6.11). And we assume that the speed of light is a

vectorial quantity, which in our experiment is for instance in one direction twice as large,

as in the direction of the other two space axes. By means of the mentioned influence of the

speed of light on the spatial length is, as a consistent consequence, the cube along this

edge pulled apart to a cuboid. We however register this spatial body with our eyes, which

is with the speed of light and that has increased proportionally to the length of the edges,

for which reason we as subjective observer still see a cube in front of us and not a cuboid.

If we trust an apparent objective measurement more than our sense organ and measure the

three lengths of the edges of the cuboid again with a rule then we get three times the same

length, which is a cube.

We probably are dealing with an optical deception using the true meaning of the word.

If the by Einstein postulated universality and constancy of the speed of light in reality

doesn't exist at all, we in no way would be capable to register this; neither to observe nor

to measure it!

The Galilean theorem of the addition of speeds objectively seen still is valid, even if the

fact that the speed of light apparently is independent of the speed of the source pretends us

the opposite.

If for instance a light source is moved towards a receiving device or away from it, then the

speeds will overlap, like for the passenger, who marches in a driving train against or in the

driving direction through the corridor. For the ray of light also the fields, which influence

the speed of light and the measurement equipment, overlap. As a consequence will a

measuring technician, who himself is exposed to this overlapping field, always observe

and "measure" the identical speed of light. The observer as a result imagines, there is an

universality of the speed of light.

116 aether

The field takes over the function of the aether.

Fig. 6.12: Experiment of Michelson and Morley to

detect an aetherwindit is not completely impossible that there is an error in the interpretation of the

equations of transformation (6.10 and 6.10*). But because we started from the same

point of view of the observer for the derivation of the length contraction from the

Lorentz transformation, here the same error is to be expected. In putting both results

equal (6.14), a like constituted error on both sides will cancel out in any case and the

result stays above all doubts!

106 field dependent curvature of space

(Model):

Two particles of matter each in the field of the other particle.

Two elementary particles or two accumulations of matter

consisting of these are able to reduce the distance to each

other for reason of their fields, which we interpret as a

force of attraction.

B: (Example): The orbits of the planets in the field of the sun.

Fig. 6.7: The influence of the field on interactions.

theory of objectivity 107

6.7 Field dependent curvature of space

Let's assume, an accumulation of matter, as big as our earth, wanted to fly past the sun in

the distance earth-sun. But it would not succeed. Because the fields arising from the sun

decreases with increasing distance and according to equation 6.15 as a consequence the

size of the particles of matter increases. The planet hence is more strongly contracted on

its side turned towards the sun, as on the turned away "night side". It bends towards the

sun and its flight path becomes a circular path around the sun. That is the interaction

known as gravitation!

To an earth inhabitant this curvature reveals itself merely in the observation that the

duration of sunshine at daytime is longer, than it would be expected to be under the

assumption of the earth as a homogeneous sphere. In this context one willingly speaks of a

curvature of space. Actually it is a curvature of matter under the influence of the field

dependent length contraction.

Exactly this contraction the planets owe their circular orbits around the sun and by no

means the equilibrium of forces between the force of attraction and the centrifugal force

(fig. 6.7 B). It obviously is a fundamental mistake to think that gravitation would causally

be connected with a force effect!

If, in this context, we speak of a force of attraction for the sake of our subjective

observation, then we must realize that it merely can concern an auxiliary term founded in

usefulness.

A thought experiment should bring us clarity (fig. 6.7 A). The field, which surrounds

every particle of matter, reaches till infinity but becomes less effective with increasing

distance. If the distance between two particles is 1, then one particle is in the field of the

other particle. As a consequence of the field the length 1 reduces and in this way the size

determining field increases, which again leads to a further reduction of length etc. As a

consequence it can be observed that both particles are moving towards each other. We

speak of a force of attraction, because we can't register the influence of the field with our

senses.

In this way the consistent result that we and our environment at daytime must be smaller

than in the night will as well remain hidden. We experience the effect only indirectly as

gravitational pull of the earth.

Because we don't see the cause of a subjectively observed force effect, for the

electromagnetic interaction, just as for the gravitation, the field dependency of the length

contraction will be responsible. Hence the following conclusion holds for both interactions

equally way.

Two elementary particles or two accumulations of matter consisting of these are able to

reduce the distance to each other for reason of their fields, which we interpret as a force

of attraction.

Now the question still is open, why gravitation only knows forces of attraction, whereas

the electromagnetic interaction also permits forces of repulsion and which are the causal

fields for each.

6.8 Electromagnetic interaction

A convincing answer to the open question provides us the analysis of the course of the

field lines, on the one hand for charged particles and on the other hand for uncharged

particles, which do not participate in the electromagnetic interaction.

If at first we consider electrically charged particles, like e.g. electrons, protons or ions.

Then all in common is that the towards infinity running field lines of the electric field are

open. With this field the particle is able to interact with its environment. We measure a

charge and an electromagnetic force effect. In the case of unequal charges, as is wellknown,

a field amplification and attractive acting forces are observed whereas for equal

charges a field reduction results and repulsion is observed.

If we make a connection between the field conditions and the electromagnetic interaction

in the sense of the proportionality (6.15), then the particle in reality is able to influence the

distance to other particles merely with the help of its electric field. For unequal charges a

compression of field lines arises, in which one particle stays in the focussed field of the

other and vice versa. In this way a contraction of all lengths occurs and the observable

attraction happens (fig. 6.8 A).

For equal charges the opposite case is present, in which even a local field freedom can

occur (fig. 6.8 B). If the field tends towards zero on the dashed line, then the distance will

go to infinity (according to eq. 6.15). Consequently, the observable effect that both bodies

go away from each other, will reach to infinity.

Actually the electromagnetic interaction proves to be a result of the field dependent length

contraction.

The electromagnetic interaction of a particle is a result of the influence of the open field

lines arising from it on the dimensions of the space, in which it is.

It is important that the field lines are open, for which reason they are bent away from like

charges and are directed towards unlike charges. Subjectively seen we find out that as a

consequence of the field reduction repulsive force effects and as a consequence of the field

compression attractive acting force effects are observed (fig. 6.8).

The consequence of is every electric field is, as is well-known, a magnetic field standing

perpendicular on it. The field lines of the magnetic field run parallel to the surface of the

particle and have a closed course (fig. 6.9 A)!

Therefore no magnetic poles form, which would be measurable. Seen from the outside the

particle behaves neutral magnetically seen, because of the closed course of the field lines.

An artificial field reduction and as a consequence observable forces of repulsion, like in

the case of the electromagnetic interaction, hence in principle are impossible.

The effect of the magnetic field thus is limited to a geometrical manipulation of the

environment, namely the curvature of space, with which we have founded the

phenomenon of the attraction of masses and of the gravitation.

110 Gravitation

A: The open field lines of the E-field and the closed field lines of

the H-field of an electrically charged particle (e.g. e-)

B: The closed field lines of the E-field and H-field of an electrically

uncharged particle (e.g. of the neutron n°).

Gravitation is a result of the influence of the field lines with a closed

course running parallel to the surface of the particles on the

dimensions of the space, in which they are.

Fig. 6.9: The influence of the closed field lines of the H-field.

theory of objectivity __________________________________________________________111

6.9 Gravitation

For uncharged, neutral particles (neutron, atom, molecule etc.) both the magnetic and the

perpendicular on them standing electric field lines have a closed course. Now both run

parallel to the surface of the particle (fig. 6.9 B).

As is said, the density of field lines with a closed course can't be influenced from the

outside. If we approach a particle, the consequence of an increase of the density without

exception is a decrease of the linear measures and thus a larger force of attraction. For this

case of field lines with a closed course, for which in general it doesn't give a field

attenuation and no forces of repulsion, there holds:

Gravitation is a result of the influence of the field lines with a closed course running

parallel to the surface of the particles on the dimensions of the space, in which they are.

Both interactions logically have an infinite range. Both form a whole in the influence of

the fields on the size conditions.

It surely is of the greatest importance that for this derivation of the field dependency of the

Lorentz contraction from the known equations of transformation of the electromagnetic

field we could do completely without the introduction of new factors of description or

neglects.

Solely by consistent derivation and interpretation of the result the unification already has

suceeded and the electromagnetic interaction and the gravitation could, with the derived

field dependent Lorentz contraction, be traced back to a single basic phenomenon. Doing

so we have to pay attention to the fact that the observer is subjected to the same Lorentz

contraction as his measuring technique and therefore he can't see the field dependency at

all. Merely as being an exterior observer it in rare cases will be possible to him to see the

curvature of space in the presence of strong fields.

From this for an astronaut practical consequences result. If he namely would land on

Jupiter, he would think flat hills to be gigantic mountains, that small he would be! Vice

versa if he landed on the moon, high mountains would appear to be insignificant hills, not

because of wrong altitude readings of the terrestrial mission control and measurement

centre, but only because of his own body size. The astronauts of the Apollo missions were

not prepared for this circumstance and after their landing on the moon were completely

surprised, how little validity learned textbook physics has, hardly has one left the earth.

They have brought photographs with them which prove the Lorentz contraction to depend

on the field and therefore on gravitation.

The fact that force effects should arise from the interactions is an auxiliary concept and

auxiliary description of the observing person founded in pure usefulness. The Lorentz

force therefore shouldn't be regarded as cause anymore. It actually appears only as

property of the field factors. Seen this way it only would be consistent to do without space

charges and currents as a result of moving charges and to assume a source-free and

quanta-free field description (fig. 6.4: j = 0).

From an unified theory it is demanded that it besides the electromagnetic interaction and

the gravitation also is able to integrate the strong and the weak interaction. We will also

solve this problem.

112 Field dependent speed of light

Fig. 6.10: Diversion of the light by a strong gravitational field.

Speed of light of the wave: c = *f (6.16)

For the wavelength holds (because of eq. 6.15):

From equation (6.16) follows (with f = constant):

E ~ 1/c2 , H ~ 1/c2

The speed of light depends on the field!

(6.17)

theory of objectivity 113

6.10 Field dependent speed of light

But not only matter is bent towards a gravitational field. If we only think of the much cited

phenomenon that the ray of light of a star is diverted towards the sun, if it passes very

close to the sun on its way to us, like this has been observed for the first time during an

eclipse of the sun in 1919 (fig. 6.10).

Quite obviously the field of the sun also slows down the speed of light. On the side of the

ray of light which is turned towards the sun, the field is somewhat larger and the speed of

light correspondingly is slower than on the side which is turned away, and with that the

ray of light changes its direction in the observable manner. Exactly this relation willingly

is interpreted as a consequence of a curvature of space.

The extremely strong field of a black hole can divert the light down to a circular path, in

order to in this way catch and bind it. The light now orbits the black hole like planets the

sun.

At this point the open-minded reader already might have tapped the confirmation of the

proportionality 6.2 (c ~ r), which has been derived from the vortex model (fig. 6.2).

The sceptic is offered still another derivation: for the borderline case that the relative

velocity v tends towards the speed of light c (fig. 6.6), according to equation 6.13 the

measurable overall field Eo (and also Ho) will go to zero and equation 6.12, with Ez. = - E

(and Hz = - H), will again turn into the wave equation (5.9*) after double differentiation

(fig. 6.4).

The speed v = c so to speak forms the escape velocity, with which the electromagnetic

wave runs away from the cosmic field. Under these circumstances of course neither an

attraction of masses nor an electromagnetic interaction can be exerted on the wave.

If E0 goes to zero at the same time l0 tends to infinity (equation 6.15, fig. 6.6): i.e. the

wave spreads all through space. This result entirely corresponds to the observations and

experiences.

For the wave length and in the end for the velocity of propagation c only the self-field of

the wave E resp. H is responsible. Because of

(6.16)

and the proportionality from equation 6.15: (6.17*)

obtain the new relation:

(6.17)

If the speed of light in the presence of matter decreases, then we now also know why. It is

the field, which surrounds matter, that slows down the speed of light. Therefore a

gravitational field is able to divert a ray of light in the same manner as matter which flies

past. Finally moves the speed of light in the proportionality 6.17 to the place of the linear

measure (in 6.15).

But if the rule fails one will try to replace by an optical measurement arrangement. In this

manner the field dependency of the Lorentz contraction should be measurable; but it isn't!

114 universality of the speed of light

From the comparison of the derived proportionalities:

follows:

1 ~ c (6.18)

The speed of light is proportional to the measurement path.

The variable speed of light is being measured with itself.

The result at all events is a constant value.

The constancy of the speed of light is based on a measurement

which is faulty from the principle!

Because of c ~ r: physical length contraction

Fig. 6.11: Derivation of the length contraction

(field dependent Lorentz contraction)

theory of objectivity 115

6.11 Universality

Why can't the rule be replaced by an optical measurement arrangement? The crucial

indication provides the comparison of both derived proportionalities 6.15 and 6.17.

According to them holds the same field dependency for both the Lorentz contraction and

the speed of light:

or 1 ~ c (6.18)

If the rule has proved to be useless, then we will experience the same disaster if we

measure optically, i.e. with the speed of light.

Obviously both, the length 1 and the speed of light c as a length per unit of time, depend in

the same manner on the respective local field strength. On the one hand do both measuring

methods lead to the same result; but on the other hand will anything which can't be

measured with one method, neither be measured with the other method.

If now the speed of light is being measured optically, then the measurement path will be

proportional to the speed of light and as a result will the unknown factor be measured with

itself. The result of this measurement, which is faulty from the principle, at all events is a

constant value, because here two variables which stand in direct proportionality to each

other are related to each other.

Was the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley unnecessary, the result trivial? And

how does it stand about the postulate of the universality of the speed of light?

If we for that consider a cube (fig. 6.11). And we assume that the speed of light is a

vectorial quantity, which in our experiment is for instance in one direction twice as large,

as in the direction of the other two space axes. By means of the mentioned influence of the

speed of light on the spatial length is, as a consistent consequence, the cube along this

edge pulled apart to a cuboid. We however register this spatial body with our eyes, which

is with the speed of light and that has increased proportionally to the length of the edges,

for which reason we as subjective observer still see a cube in front of us and not a cuboid.

If we trust an apparent objective measurement more than our sense organ and measure the

three lengths of the edges of the cuboid again with a rule then we get three times the same

length, which is a cube.

We probably are dealing with an optical deception using the true meaning of the word.

If the by Einstein postulated universality and constancy of the speed of light in reality

doesn't exist at all, we in no way would be capable to register this; neither to observe nor

to measure it!

The Galilean theorem of the addition of speeds objectively seen still is valid, even if the

fact that the speed of light apparently is independent of the speed of the source pretends us

the opposite.

If for instance a light source is moved towards a receiving device or away from it, then the

speeds will overlap, like for the passenger, who marches in a driving train against or in the

driving direction through the corridor. For the ray of light also the fields, which influence

the speed of light and the measurement equipment, overlap. As a consequence will a

measuring technician, who himself is exposed to this overlapping field, always observe

and "measure" the identical speed of light. The observer as a result imagines, there is an

universality of the speed of light.

116 aether

The field takes over the function of the aether.

Fig. 6.12: Experiment of Michelson and Morley to

detect an aetherwind

*: A.P.French: Special Relativity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1966.*

: Nikola Tesla: "This is the same as writing a business letter and forgetting the

subject you wish to write about". To Einstein's Theories, Rare Book and

Manuscript Library, Columbia University, 15.4.1932.

: Einstein proceeds in the same manner with the time dilatation, by assuming

a time constant by definition for the derivation to present at the end of his

derivation a variable time. And with that he presents a result which

contradicts his approach completely.

theory of objectivity 117

6.12 Aether

Important experiments like the one of Doppler concerning the redshift or the one of

Bradley concerning the aberration of the stars show only to clear, where the influence of

the speed of light subjectively still is perceptible, or for laboratory experiments like the

one of Michelson and Morley, where the influence isn't perceptible anymore, because the

length of the interferometers always changes proportionally to the speed of light.

The look in the stars at the same time is a look in cosmic areas, where completely other

field conditions prevail and as a consequence completely other values for the speed of

light and for the dimensions of space are present. The mentioned observations suggest that

we together with our measuring station are moving through the cosmos and therefore a

relative velocity has to be present with regard to an aether which determines the respective

speed of light.

If we however constrict our range of vision and retire in a laboratory, then we no longer

are capable to observe the influence of the field on the speed of light. The experiments of

Michelson which Maxwell had prompted to and which Morley with a higher precision had

repeated with the goal, to detect the aether, inevitably had to turn out negatively. The

laboratory experiments resulted in the misleading picture, as if the earth was resting in the

aether.

The not understood measurements will suggest any observer, he forms the centre of the

universe and everything rotates around him, entirely in the sense of the Ptolemean view of

life, which, although long ago abolished, here belated has experienced support.

With a Swabia caper Albert Einstein has prevented a relapse into the dark Middle Ages

and removed the open contradiction in the question of the aether, which once is measured

as moving and another time as resting, by without further ado abolishing the aether. With

that he undoubtedly has solved a central problem of physics and at the same time created a

new one. As is known does the speed of light have a certain value, and therefore the

question is raised, what determines is size. Exactly for this purpose a luminiferous aether

had been introduced, however it is constituted.

Scientifically it does make little sense, to make an assumption, if at the end of the

derivation the prerequisite is deleted without substitute. In such a case either in the

approach or in the derivation is a principal error*1"*. Nikola Tesla comments on the

working method of Einstein with the applicable comparison, as if Einstein had, while he

was writing a business letter, forgotten completely the subject he wanted to write about

(fig. 6.12).

The answer, which removes all contradictions and is entirely in accord with all

observations and measurements, is obvious. Naturally a luminiferous aether exists, which

determines the velocity of propagation and of course it by no means is bound to the

observer.

As has been derived in figures 6.5 and 6.6, will for a relative velocity v arise a field, which

according to proportionality 6.17 determines the speed of light. With that we have derived

completely.

The field takes over the function of the aether.

The equations 6.10 also answer the question, why no aetherwind is being observed,

although such a wind actually is present: we experience, as we have discovered, an E-field

with ,,head wind" as a resting H-field and vice versa and therefore we aren't capable to

detect the head wind in the aether!

118 spin and tunnel effect

Key questions of quantum physics (fig. 4.4 + continuation):

IV. Why do the particles have the form of spheres?

(with increasing E-field decreases c)

VIII. Why is the elementary quantum localized?

(in the vortex centre: c = 0, see figures 4.3 and 6.2)

IX. Why do the elementary particles have a spin?

(spherical form demands field compensation)

X. Why is the magnitude of the spin quantized?

(cosmic basic field determines the need of Ez)

XI. Why can speeds faster than light occur in a

tunnel? ___________________________________

(a reduction of the cosmic basic field can only be realized

locally in a tunnel)

to XI:

Fig. 6.13: Consequences concerning the field

dependency of the speed of light: spin effect and tunnel effect

subject you wish to write about". To Einstein's Theories, Rare Book and

Manuscript Library, Columbia University, 15.4.1932.

a time constant by definition for the derivation to present at the end of his

derivation a variable time. And with that he presents a result which

contradicts his approach completely.

theory of objectivity 117

6.12 Aether

Important experiments like the one of Doppler concerning the redshift or the one of

Bradley concerning the aberration of the stars show only to clear, where the influence of

the speed of light subjectively still is perceptible, or for laboratory experiments like the

one of Michelson and Morley, where the influence isn't perceptible anymore, because the

length of the interferometers always changes proportionally to the speed of light.

The look in the stars at the same time is a look in cosmic areas, where completely other

field conditions prevail and as a consequence completely other values for the speed of

light and for the dimensions of space are present. The mentioned observations suggest that

we together with our measuring station are moving through the cosmos and therefore a

relative velocity has to be present with regard to an aether which determines the respective

speed of light.

If we however constrict our range of vision and retire in a laboratory, then we no longer

are capable to observe the influence of the field on the speed of light. The experiments of

Michelson which Maxwell had prompted to and which Morley with a higher precision had

repeated with the goal, to detect the aether, inevitably had to turn out negatively. The

laboratory experiments resulted in the misleading picture, as if the earth was resting in the

aether.

The not understood measurements will suggest any observer, he forms the centre of the

universe and everything rotates around him, entirely in the sense of the Ptolemean view of

life, which, although long ago abolished, here belated has experienced support.

With a Swabia caper Albert Einstein has prevented a relapse into the dark Middle Ages

and removed the open contradiction in the question of the aether, which once is measured

as moving and another time as resting, by without further ado abolishing the aether. With

that he undoubtedly has solved a central problem of physics and at the same time created a

new one. As is known does the speed of light have a certain value, and therefore the

question is raised, what determines is size. Exactly for this purpose a luminiferous aether

had been introduced, however it is constituted.

Scientifically it does make little sense, to make an assumption, if at the end of the

derivation the prerequisite is deleted without substitute. In such a case either in the

approach or in the derivation is a principal error*1"*. Nikola Tesla comments on the

working method of Einstein with the applicable comparison, as if Einstein had, while he

was writing a business letter, forgotten completely the subject he wanted to write about

(fig. 6.12

The answer, which removes all contradictions and is entirely in accord with all

observations and measurements, is obvious. Naturally a luminiferous aether exists, which

determines the velocity of propagation and of course it by no means is bound to the

observer.

As has been derived in figures 6.5 and 6.6, will for a relative velocity v arise a field, which

according to proportionality 6.17 determines the speed of light. With that we have derived

completely.

The field takes over the function of the aether.

The equations 6.10 also answer the question, why no aetherwind is being observed,

although such a wind actually is present: we experience, as we have discovered, an E-field

with ,,head wind" as a resting H-field and vice versa and therefore we aren't capable to

detect the head wind in the aether!

118 spin and tunnel effect

Key questions of quantum physics (fig. 4.4 + continuation):

IV. Why do the particles have the form of spheres?

(with increasing E-field decreases c)

VIII. Why is the elementary quantum localized?

(in the vortex centre: c = 0, see figures 4.3 and 6.2)

IX. Why do the elementary particles have a spin?

(spherical form demands field compensation)

X. Why is the magnitude of the spin quantized?

(cosmic basic field determines the need of Ez)

XI. Why can speeds faster than light occur in a

tunnel? ___________________________________

(a reduction of the cosmic basic field can only be realized

locally in a tunnel)

to XI:

Fig. 6.13: Consequences concerning the field

dependency of the speed of light: spin effect and tunnel effect

*: Nimtz,G.: Instantanes Tunneln, Tunnelexperimente mit elektromagnetischen*

Wellen, Phys.B1.49, VCH Weinheim (1993) Nr.12, S. 1119-1120<*>

: Thoma, P., Weiland.T.: Wie real ist das Instantane Tunneln? Phys.Bl.50, VCH

Weinheim (1994) Nr.4, S. 359-361<*>

<*>: The measurement results are in accord with the theory of objectivity, not

however the contradictory attempts to interpret them Wellen, Phys.B1.49, VCH Weinheim (1993) Nr.12, S. 1119-1120<*>

Weinheim (1994) Nr.4, S. 359-361<*>

<*>: The measurement results are in accord with the theory of objectivity, not

however the contradictory attempts to interpret them

*and* et al.

theory of objectivity 119

6.13 Spin and tunnel effect

Only with the field dependency of the speed of light (6.17) we can understand, why the

elementary quanta can form as spheres, like is drawn in the figs 4.3 and 6.2. In the centre

the field lines run together, i.e. the field increases and the speed of light decreases. Only

in this way it will be possible for the vortex oscillation to everywhere occur with the speed

of light, even in the inside of the particle! In the centre of the vortex particle the field in

theory will become infinitely large and the speed of light zero. This circumstance again is

the foundation why the elementary particles are localized and it answers key question

VIII of quantum physics. The absence of a speed after all is the characteristic of an

immobile thing.

The field dependency of the speed of light answers also further basic and up to today

unanswered key questions of quantum physics, like why the elementary particles have a

spin (IX) and why the magnitude of the spin is quantized (X).

A vortex particle after all does not exist alone in the world, but it is in the field of other

particles. We can call this the cosmic basic field (E resp. H). This basic field overlaps the

self-field and takes effect the strongest in the area of the spherical shell, where the selffield

is correspondingly small. In order to keep the form of a sphere, this influence of the

basic field has to be compensated. The additional field (Ez resp. Hz according to eq. 6.12)

necessary for the compensation is produced by the particle, by rotating in a spiral around

itself with a speed v which increases towards the outside of the spherical shell. Therefore

does the elementary particles have a spin. The electron spin is therefore determined by the

cosmic basic field.

Another effect of the field dependent speed of light is the tunnel effect. As an example we

consider the two differently charged particles shown in fig. 6.8 A. The open, outside of the

particles running, field lines of the electric field are predominantly bent towards the each

time oppositely charged particle. If another particle wants to pass between the two, then it

gets into an area of increased field strength. As a consequence it will be slowed down,

because here a smaller speed of light is present.

Water molecules show with their polar nature exactly this property. Water has a remarkably

high dielectricity e and slows down the speed of light correspondingly according to

equation 5.6 ( = 1/c2). The refraction of light at the water surface is an observable result

of the reduced speed of light in the presence of matter.

If we now examine the case in which the two particles have the same charge as is shown

in fig. 6.8 B (and fig. 6.13 belonging to XI). The field lines repel each other, so that

exactly in between the two particles a field free area forms, in which the speed of light

goes to infinity! This area acts like a tunnel. If we send through a particle exactly here,

then purely theoretically seen it won't need any time to run through the tunnel, and for a

short time the signal becomes infinitely fast.

If a particle hits only slightly besides the tunnel, then it will one-sidedly be slowed down

and diverted by the respective field. We call this process reflection or scattering. Only the

few particles, which exactly hit the tunnel, arrive behind the hurdle and in the ideal case

even almost without loss of time!

The current measurements of speeds faster than light demonstrate in a convincing manner

the superiority of the field-theoretical approach with regard to the nowadays normally

used quantum physical approach.

6 . 1 4 Interpretation of the measured speed faster than light

Now the attempt can be undertaken, to interpret the spectacular experiments, in which a

speed faster than light has been measured. It is reported

theory of objectivity 119

6.13 Spin and tunnel effect

Only with the field dependency of the speed of light (6.17) we can understand, why the

elementary quanta can form as spheres, like is drawn in the figs 4.3 and 6.2. In the centre

the field lines run together, i.e. the field increases and the speed of light decreases. Only

in this way it will be possible for the vortex oscillation to everywhere occur with the speed

of light, even in the inside of the particle! In the centre of the vortex particle the field in

theory will become infinitely large and the speed of light zero. This circumstance again is

the foundation why the elementary particles are localized and it answers key question

VIII of quantum physics. The absence of a speed after all is the characteristic of an

immobile thing.

The field dependency of the speed of light answers also further basic and up to today

unanswered key questions of quantum physics, like why the elementary particles have a

spin (IX) and why the magnitude of the spin is quantized (X).

A vortex particle after all does not exist alone in the world, but it is in the field of other

particles. We can call this the cosmic basic field (E resp. H). This basic field overlaps the

self-field and takes effect the strongest in the area of the spherical shell, where the selffield

is correspondingly small. In order to keep the form of a sphere, this influence of the

basic field has to be compensated. The additional field (Ez resp. Hz according to eq. 6.12)

necessary for the compensation is produced by the particle, by rotating in a spiral around

itself with a speed v which increases towards the outside of the spherical shell. Therefore

does the elementary particles have a spin. The electron spin is therefore determined by the

cosmic basic field.

Another effect of the field dependent speed of light is the tunnel effect. As an example we

consider the two differently charged particles shown in fig. 6.8 A. The open, outside of the

particles running, field lines of the electric field are predominantly bent towards the each

time oppositely charged particle. If another particle wants to pass between the two, then it

gets into an area of increased field strength. As a consequence it will be slowed down,

because here a smaller speed of light is present.

Water molecules show with their polar nature exactly this property. Water has a remarkably

high dielectricity e and slows down the speed of light correspondingly according to

equation 5.6 ( = 1/c2). The refraction of light at the water surface is an observable result

of the reduced speed of light in the presence of matter.

If we now examine the case in which the two particles have the same charge as is shown

in fig. 6.8 B (and fig. 6.13 belonging to XI). The field lines repel each other, so that

exactly in between the two particles a field free area forms, in which the speed of light

goes to infinity! This area acts like a tunnel. If we send through a particle exactly here,

then purely theoretically seen it won't need any time to run through the tunnel, and for a

short time the signal becomes infinitely fast.

If a particle hits only slightly besides the tunnel, then it will one-sidedly be slowed down

and diverted by the respective field. We call this process reflection or scattering. Only the

few particles, which exactly hit the tunnel, arrive behind the hurdle and in the ideal case

even almost without loss of time!

The current measurements of speeds faster than light demonstrate in a convincing manner

the superiority of the field-theoretical approach with regard to the nowadays normally

used quantum physical approach.

6 . 1 4 Interpretation of the measured speed faster than light

Now the attempt can be undertaken, to interpret the spectacular experiments, in which a

speed faster than light has been measured. It is reported

*that in experiments with*

photons at the University of California in Berkeley on an average a speed of 1.7 times the

speed of light has been measured by Prof. Raymond Chiao and his co-workers. At the

Technical University of Vienna Prof. Dr. Ferenc Krausz already has obtained 2.4 times

the, according to Einstein at maximum obtainable, speed of light with tunnelling laser

light.

The first measurements of speeds faster than light have been carried out with microwaves

at the University of Cologne by Prof. Dr. Gunter Nimtz and co-workers. They at first

had published the measurement of a speed 2.5 times the speed of light. In the meantime

they even have transmitted a symphony of Mozart with a speed almost 10 times the speed

of light and with that have contradicted Einstein's hypothesis, according to which the

speed of light in vacuum would be the highest possible speed for the transmission of

signals. The different experiments only resemble each other in the point that the particles

have to tunnel, because one has put a barrier in their way. This "tunnelling" apparently is

the cause for obtaining speeds faster than light. With the prevailing physical view of life

these measurement results are incompatible.

In the measurement set up in Cologne the microwaves are sent through a wave guide,

which they pass with the speed of light. If a parts with narrowed cross-section is inserted,

where the microwaves actually don't fit through at all, then the signal gets damped

strongly. Now however arrives nevertheless a small part of the signal at the other end of

the wire, but much faster than allowed, namely with the measurable speed faster than

light.

The answer of the here presented potential vortex theory reads as follows: the waves

picked up by the wave guide run up to the entry of the tunnel, in order to find out that they

don't fit through. They are reflected or absorbed. A small part however rolls up to

potential vortices and these fit through the tunnel. They however have to be compressed

additionally. In the derivation of the photon (fig. 4.5 and 4.6) we had seen that the inner

vortex always is faster than the bigger one, through which it slips through. The

compression therefore causes an increase in speed. In flow dynamics is known an analogy:

the Venturi-tube. The flow-technical potential vortices also confirm exactly this property.

One can as well start with the Lorentz contraction (fig. 6.6, eq. 6.14*). This states that a

particle moving with a higher speed actually becomes smaller and not only appears to be

smaller as an optical deception of the observer. Because only smaller particles fit through

the tunnel, the particles, measurable at the other end, must be correspondingly faster: quod

erat demonstrandum. In the same manner also the experiments of Berkeley can be

explained physically, because here is worked with photons from the start

photons at the University of California in Berkeley on an average a speed of 1.7 times the

speed of light has been measured by Prof. Raymond Chiao and his co-workers. At the

Technical University of Vienna Prof. Dr. Ferenc Krausz already has obtained 2.4 times

the, according to Einstein at maximum obtainable, speed of light with tunnelling laser

light.

The first measurements of speeds faster than light have been carried out with microwaves

at the University of Cologne

had published the measurement of a speed 2.5 times the speed of light. In the meantime

they even have transmitted a symphony of Mozart with a speed almost 10 times the speed

of light and with that have contradicted Einstein's hypothesis, according to which the

speed of light in vacuum would be the highest possible speed for the transmission of

signals. The different experiments only resemble each other in the point that the particles

have to tunnel, because one has put a barrier in their way. This "tunnelling" apparently is

the cause for obtaining speeds faster than light. With the prevailing physical view of life

these measurement results are incompatible.

In the measurement set up in Cologne the microwaves are sent through a wave guide,

which they pass with the speed of light. If a parts with narrowed cross-section is inserted,

where the microwaves actually don't fit through at all, then the signal gets damped

strongly. Now however arrives nevertheless a small part of the signal at the other end of

the wire, but much faster than allowed, namely with the measurable speed faster than

light.

The answer of the here presented potential vortex theory reads as follows: the waves

picked up by the wave guide run up to the entry of the tunnel, in order to find out that they

don't fit through. They are reflected or absorbed. A small part however rolls up to

potential vortices and these fit through the tunnel. They however have to be compressed

additionally. In the derivation of the photon (fig. 4.5 and 4.6) we had seen that the inner

vortex always is faster than the bigger one, through which it slips through. The

compression therefore causes an increase in speed. In flow dynamics is known an analogy:

the Venturi-tube. The flow-technical potential vortices also confirm exactly this property.

One can as well start with the Lorentz contraction (fig. 6.6, eq. 6.14*). This states that a

particle moving with a higher speed actually becomes smaller and not only appears to be

smaller as an optical deception of the observer. Because only smaller particles fit through

the tunnel, the particles, measurable at the other end, must be correspondingly faster: quod

erat demonstrandum. In the same manner also the experiments of Berkeley can be

explained physically, because here is worked with photons from the start

*. With that the*

process of rolling up the wave can be left out. The tunnel lets pass only compressed and

therefore faster light particles.

6.15 Definition of the speed of light

If a light signal propagates in space, then as a consequence of the velocity of propagation

c, it at a certain point in time t is in a distance r of the light source:

r = c * t (6.19)

S h o u l d the speed of light become smaller for instance by then the light signal

obviously has covered a distance less by Ar or the time interval has changed by

(6.20)

This equation describes purely mathematically the most general case which can be

assumed. By writing out the multiplication and subtraction of equation 6.18 the change in

distance considered for itself is:

(6.21)

The answer of mathematics is that the change in distance can have its cause in a change in

time, in a change of speed or in both. We now want to turn to the physical interpretation

and have a closer look at the two possibilities, in which either c or t is to be taken constant

(see fig. 6.16).

In the first case the speed of light c is constant and as a consequence the change = zero.

The mathematical formulation (according to eq. 6.21) therefore reads:

case 1:

(relativity) (6.22)

If in this conception world a change in distance is observed, for instance the Lorentz

contraction, then in order to save this relation inevitably a change in time, for instance a

time dilatation, has to make the compensation. Einstein in an applicable manner speaks of

relativity, because according to his opinion in the case of both variables, the length

contraction and the time dilatation, it only concerns observed changes.

For the time dilatation experiments are given. But for the measurement of time always

only atomic clocks are available and their speed of running of course could also be

influenced by the Lorentz contraction. In any case it can't be claimed the time dilatation is

proven experimentally as long as we do not know the mechanisms of decay of atoms.

Otherwise the statements of the theory of relativity are familiar to us, for which reason

further remarks seem unnecessary.

In the second case the time t is constant and consequently the change At = zero. At a closer

look this case is much more obvious, since why should time change. After all time has

been stipulated by definition.

After all, we are the ones who tell, what simultaneity is!

The mathematical formulation for this case reads (eq. 6.21 with = 0):

case 2:

(objectivity) (6.23)

This equation does open up for us an until now completely unknown and fundamentally

other way of looking at the physical reality.

124 relativity and objectivity

Fig. 6.16: Theory of relativity and theory of objectivity,

derivation and comparison.

theory of objectivity 125

6.16 Relativity and objectivity

New to the second case (equation 6.23) is particularly the proportionality contained in it:

(6.25 = 6.2)

But to us it is not new, because we have derived the same proportionality from the model

conept (equation 6.2, fig. 6.2), in which the elementary particles are understood as

spherical vortices.

Equantion 6.25 unconcealed brings to knowledge that any change of the speed of light c

[m/s] in the same way leads to a change of the radius r [m], the distance between two

points in space or even the length of an object, e.g. a rule. Such a rule after all consists of

nothing but spherical atoms and elementary particles and for their radius r again the

proportionality 6.25 holds. Therefore it is to be set:

r ~ 1 (6.26)

and taken both together we already had derived as equation 6.18 (fig. 6.11) from the field

dependency. Here the vortex model as well finds a confirmation of its correctness, as in

the derivation from the equations of transformation of the electromagnetic field. Because

all three, the derivation according to the model, the physical and the mathematical

derivation, lead to the same result, this second case should be called "objective".

With that the first case, which describes the subjective perception of an observer, is not

supposed to be devaluated. It contains the definition of reality, according to which only is

real what also is perceptible. The theory of relativity of Poincare and Einstein is based on

this definition.

With the second case, the case with a variable speed of light, we however get serious

problems, since we observe with our eyes, and that works with the speed of light. If that

changes, we can't see it, as already said. If we could see it, then "reality" would have a

completely different face and we surely would have great difficulties, to find our way

around. In this "objective world" neither electromagnetic interactions nor gravitation

would exist, so no force effects at all. Because all distances and linear measures depend on

the speed of light, everything would look like in a distortion mirror.

The concept of an "objective world" at first has not a practical, but rather a theoretical and

mathematical sense. The distinction between an observation domain and a model domain

is founded in pure usefulness.

The observation domain should correspond to case 1 and the model domain to case 2. The

mathematical derivation tells us, how we can mediate between both domains (equation

6.21): This mediation amounts to a transformation, which provides us the instruction, how

a transition from the observation into a not perceptible model concept, from the relativity

into an objectivity has to.

126 transformation

Fig. 6.17: Model-transformation between

theory of relativity and theory of objectivity.

theory of objectivity 127

6. 17 Transformation

The observation domain is, as the name already expresses, perceptible (observable) with

the help of our sense organs and measurable with corresponding apparatus. The special

theory of relativity for the most part provides us the mathematics needed for that. And in

that is assumed a constant speed of light. Because a length contraction is being observed

and can be measured, a time dilatation must arise as a consequence. Such is the consistent

statement of this theory. Because we already could make us clear that it concerns a

subjective theory, of course caution is advisable if generalizations are being made, like the

one of the inductive conclusion of the length contraction on the time dilatation. We'll

come to speak about that in this chapter (fig. 6.20).

The model domain however is not observable to us and only accessible in a mathematical

manner. Here the time is a constant. On the other hand do the radii of the particles and all

other distances and linear measures stand in direct proportionality to the speed of light. If

that changes, then does that lead to a change in length. The length contraction occurs

physically, which means actually. We propose the name "theory of objectivity" for the

valid theory which is derivable with this prerequisite and independent of the point of view

of the observer.

The importance of this model domain and of the possible model calculations is founded in

the circumstance that many physical relations within our observation domain aren't

recognized by us and can't be mathematically derived. Besides is only all to often worked

with unallowed generalizations and with pure hypotheses. Such a thing does not even exist

in the model domain.

The model domain can be tapped over a transformation. For that we select an approach

x(r) in the to us accessible observation domain. This then is transformed into the model

domain by a calculation instruction M{x(r)}. Here we can calculate the sought-for relation

In the usual manner and transform back again the result according to the same calculation

instruction M-1{x(r)} but in the reversed direction. After being returned in our familiar

observation domain, the result can be compared and checked with measurement results

(fig. 6.17).

In this way we will derive, calculate and compare the quantum properties of the

elementary particles with the known measurement values. Here we remind you of the fact

that all attempts to calculate the quantum properties conventionally, without

transformation, until now have failed. Not even a systematization may succeed, if it

concerns for instance explanations for the order of magnitude of the mass of a particle.

A transformation at first is nothing more than an in usefulness founded mathematical

measure. But if a constant of nature, and as such the quantum properties of elementary

particles until now have to be seen, for the first time can be derived and calculated with a

transformation then this measure with that also gains its physical authorization.

We now stand for the question: how does the instruction of transformation M{x(r)} read,

with which we should transform the approach and all equations from the observation

domain into the model domain?

128 transformation table

Fig. 6.18: Transformation of the dependencies on radius

theory of objectivity 129

6.18 Transformation table

The attempt to write down at this point already a closed mathematical relation as instruction

of transformation, would be pure speculation. Such an instruction first must be

verified by means of numerous practical cases, i.e. be tested for its efficiency and

correctness. But we not even know the practical examples necessary for this purpose, if we

apply the transformation for the first time!

For his reason it unfortunately is not yet possible, to calculate absolute values in a direct

We have to be content to work with proportionalities and to carry out comparisons.

In fig. 6.18 the proportionalities are compared in the way, how they would have to be

transformed: on the left side, how they appear and can be observed in the view of the

special theory of relativity, and on the right side, how they can be represented and

calculated in the theory of objectivity.

The change, which here would have to be transformed, is the physical length contraction,

which is the change in length as it depends on the speed of light. For spherical symmetry

the length 1 becomes the radius r (eq. 6.26), of which is to be investigated the influence.

In the observation domain we had derived the proportionality (6.15 + 6.18):

E ~ 1/r2 and H ~ 1/r2.

The field of a point charge or of a spherical capacitor confirms this relation:

Because the speed of light in our observation is constant, also both constants of material

which are related to it (eq.5.6: = 1/c2), the dielectricity and the permeability are

to be taken constant.

With that the same proportionality as for the field strengths also holds for the induction B

and the dielectric displacement D:

B ~ 1/r2 and D ~ 1/r2.

In the model domain everything looks completely different. Here the radius and any length

stands in direct proportionality to the speed of light. In this way we get problems with our

usual system of units, the M-K-S-A-system (Meter-Kilogram-Second-Ampere). The basic

u n i t Meter [m] and as a consequence also the unit of mass Kilogram [kg = VAs3/m2]

appear here as variable. It would be advantageous, to introduce instead the Volt [V] as

basic unit.

But in any case does the dimension of a quantity show us, in which proportionality it

stands to the unit of length. This in the model domain then is authoritative! As an example

does the speed of light have the dimension Meter per Second. In the model domain there

consequently has to exist a proportionality to the length r [m].

The speed of light determines with equation 5.6 again the constants of material:

[Vs/Am] ~ 1/r and [As/Vm] ~ 1/r (6.28)

According to the model holds unchanged:

B [Vs/m2] ~ 1/r2 and D [As/m2] ~ 1/r2. (6.29)

But if we insert the proportionalities 6.28 and 6.29 into the equations of material 3.5 and

3.6, then holds for the field strengths:

H [A/m] ~ 1/r and E [V/m] ~ 1/r. (6.27)

Further dependencies of the radius can be read in the same manner either by inserting into

well-known laws or immediately from the dimension.

6.19 Interpretation of the transformation table

The transformation should tell us, what we would see if the variable speed of light would

be observable to us. Doing so highly interesting results come out.

The energy density of a field is as is known . (6.37)

In the observation domain will, according to fig. 6.19, decrease the energy density w

proportional to 1/r4. Multiplied with the respective volume we obtain for the energy itself

the proportionality: W ~ 1/r . (6.38)

If we make use of the Einstein relation W = m • c2

with c = constant holds also for the mass m: m ~ 1/r . (6.39)

In this manner we finally find out, why the small nucleons (protons and neutrons) subjectively

seen are heavier than the very much larger electrons. As a consequence does a relativistic

particle experience the increase of mass (with the length contraction according to

equation 6.24*):

(6.40)

This result is experimentally secured. Our considerations therefore are entirely in accord

with the Lorentz-transformation. There at least is no reason to doubt the correctness.

In the model domain we with advantage assume a spherical symmetry. As easily can be

shown with equations 6.4 and 6.31, are the capacity and charge of a spherical capacitor

independent of the radius (6.30 and 6.32). In that case also the from both values calculable

energy (6.1) must be constant. We come to the same conclusion, if take we the above

equation 6.37 for the energy density of a field or if we carry out a verification of

dimensions:

W [VAs] = konst. . (6.33)

This simple result is the physical basis for the law of conservation of energy! With that

we have eliminated an axiom.

The result states that the energy stays the same, even if the radius, the distance or the

speed of an object should change. To the subjectively observing person it shows itself

merely in various forms of expression. Consequently is the energy, as is dictated by the

here presented field theory, formed by binding in the inside of the quanta the same amount

of energy but of the opposite sign. The amount of energy therefore is bound to the number

of the present particles, as we already had derived.

Under the assumption of a constant time (6.35) there results for the electric conductivity

by calculating backwards over the equation of the relaxation time (5.3), the

proportionality: (6.36)

(6.36)

Maybe the result surprises, because it can't be observed. Actually we know that the

(microscopically observed conductivity in reality only represents an approximated

averaged measure for the mobility of free charge carriers. In a particle-free vacuum

however this well-known interpretation doesn't make sense anymore. Hence it is

recommended, to only work with the relaxation time constants. Who nevertheless wants to

eontinue to work with as a pure factor of description, can do this. But he mustn't be

surprised, if in the model domain with decreasing radius the conductivity suddenly

increases. But this is necessary, because otherwise the elementary particles would

collapse. Only by the increase of the conductivity, which is produced by the spherical

vortex itself, will the expanding eddy current build up in the inside of the particles, which

counteract the from the outside concentrating potential vortex.

132 ________________________________________________________ Particle decay

Approach:

a.The particles don't decay by themselves, but only by a

corresponding disturbance from the outside.

b.The decay time is the statistical average in which such a disturbance

can occur and take effect.

c.The elementary particles consist of an integral and finite

number of elementary vortices, which can't decay anymore for

their part.

d.If the compound particles get into the disturbing range of

influence of high-frequency alternating fields, then they are

stimulated to violent oscillations and in that way can be torn

apart into individual parts.

e.As disturbing factor the high-frequency fields of flying past

neutrinos are considered primarily.

f. Authoritative for the threshold of decay and with that also for

the rate of decay is the distance, in which the neutrinos fly past

the particle.

g.The distance becomes the larger, the smaller the particle is. If

the particle thus experiences a relativistic length contraction,

then it will, statistically seen, to the same extent become more

stable!

That has nothing to do at all with time dilatationl

We are entitled to demand a simultaneity, after all we are the ones,

who tell what that is!

Fig. 6.20: Proposal for an interpretation of the particle decay

process of rolling up the wave can be left out. The tunnel lets pass only compressed and

therefore faster light particles.

6.15 Definition of the speed of light

If a light signal propagates in space, then as a consequence of the velocity of propagation

c, it at a certain point in time t is in a distance r of the light source:

r = c * t (6.19)

S h o u l d the speed of light become smaller for instance by then the light signal

obviously has covered a distance less by Ar or the time interval has changed by

(6.20)

This equation describes purely mathematically the most general case which can be

assumed. By writing out the multiplication and subtraction of equation 6.18 the change in

distance considered for itself is:

(6.21)

The answer of mathematics is that the change in distance can have its cause in a change in

time, in a change of speed or in both. We now want to turn to the physical interpretation

and have a closer look at the two possibilities, in which either c or t is to be taken constant

(see fig. 6.16).

In the first case the speed of light c is constant and as a consequence the change = zero.

The mathematical formulation (according to eq. 6.21) therefore reads:

case 1:

(relativity) (6.22)

If in this conception world a change in distance is observed, for instance the Lorentz

contraction, then in order to save this relation inevitably a change in time, for instance a

time dilatation, has to make the compensation. Einstein in an applicable manner speaks of

relativity, because according to his opinion in the case of both variables, the length

contraction and the time dilatation, it only concerns observed changes.

For the time dilatation experiments are given. But for the measurement of time always

only atomic clocks are available and their speed of running of course could also be

influenced by the Lorentz contraction. In any case it can't be claimed the time dilatation is

proven experimentally as long as we do not know the mechanisms of decay of atoms.

Otherwise the statements of the theory of relativity are familiar to us, for which reason

further remarks seem unnecessary.

In the second case the time t is constant and consequently the change At = zero. At a closer

look this case is much more obvious, since why should time change. After all time has

been stipulated by definition.

After all, we are the ones who tell, what simultaneity is!

The mathematical formulation for this case reads (eq. 6.21 with = 0):

case 2:

(objectivity) (6.23)

This equation does open up for us an until now completely unknown and fundamentally

other way of looking at the physical reality.

124 relativity and objectivity

Fig. 6.16: Theory of relativity and theory of objectivity,

derivation and comparison.

theory of objectivity 125

6.16 Relativity and objectivity

New to the second case (equation 6.23) is particularly the proportionality contained in it:

(6.25 = 6.2)

But to us it is not new, because we have derived the same proportionality from the model

conept (equation 6.2, fig. 6.2), in which the elementary particles are understood as

spherical vortices.

Equantion 6.25 unconcealed brings to knowledge that any change of the speed of light c

[m/s] in the same way leads to a change of the radius r [m], the distance between two

points in space or even the length of an object, e.g. a rule. Such a rule after all consists of

nothing but spherical atoms and elementary particles and for their radius r again the

proportionality 6.25 holds. Therefore it is to be set:

r ~ 1 (6.26)

and taken both together we already had derived as equation 6.18 (fig. 6.11) from the field

dependency. Here the vortex model as well finds a confirmation of its correctness, as in

the derivation from the equations of transformation of the electromagnetic field. Because

all three, the derivation according to the model, the physical and the mathematical

derivation, lead to the same result, this second case should be called "objective".

With that the first case, which describes the subjective perception of an observer, is not

supposed to be devaluated. It contains the definition of reality, according to which only is

real what also is perceptible. The theory of relativity of Poincare and Einstein is based on

this definition.

With the second case, the case with a variable speed of light, we however get serious

problems, since we observe with our eyes, and that works with the speed of light. If that

changes, we can't see it, as already said. If we could see it, then "reality" would have a

completely different face and we surely would have great difficulties, to find our way

around. In this "objective world" neither electromagnetic interactions nor gravitation

would exist, so no force effects at all. Because all distances and linear measures depend on

the speed of light, everything would look like in a distortion mirror.

The concept of an "objective world" at first has not a practical, but rather a theoretical and

mathematical sense. The distinction between an observation domain and a model domain

is founded in pure usefulness.

The observation domain should correspond to case 1 and the model domain to case 2. The

mathematical derivation tells us, how we can mediate between both domains (equation

6.21): This mediation amounts to a transformation, which provides us the instruction, how

a transition from the observation into a not perceptible model concept, from the relativity

into an objectivity has to.

126 transformation

Fig. 6.17: Model-transformation between

theory of relativity and theory of objectivity.

theory of objectivity 127

6. 17 Transformation

The observation domain is, as the name already expresses, perceptible (observable) with

the help of our sense organs and measurable with corresponding apparatus. The special

theory of relativity for the most part provides us the mathematics needed for that. And in

that is assumed a constant speed of light. Because a length contraction is being observed

and can be measured, a time dilatation must arise as a consequence. Such is the consistent

statement of this theory. Because we already could make us clear that it concerns a

subjective theory, of course caution is advisable if generalizations are being made, like the

one of the inductive conclusion of the length contraction on the time dilatation. We'll

come to speak about that in this chapter (fig. 6.20).

The model domain however is not observable to us and only accessible in a mathematical

manner. Here the time is a constant. On the other hand do the radii of the particles and all

other distances and linear measures stand in direct proportionality to the speed of light. If

that changes, then does that lead to a change in length. The length contraction occurs

physically, which means actually. We propose the name "theory of objectivity" for the

valid theory which is derivable with this prerequisite and independent of the point of view

of the observer.

The importance of this model domain and of the possible model calculations is founded in

the circumstance that many physical relations within our observation domain aren't

recognized by us and can't be mathematically derived. Besides is only all to often worked

with unallowed generalizations and with pure hypotheses. Such a thing does not even exist

in the model domain.

The model domain can be tapped over a transformation. For that we select an approach

x(r) in the to us accessible observation domain. This then is transformed into the model

domain by a calculation instruction M{x(r)}. Here we can calculate the sought-for relation

In the usual manner and transform back again the result according to the same calculation

instruction M-1{x(r)} but in the reversed direction. After being returned in our familiar

observation domain, the result can be compared and checked with measurement results

(fig. 6.17).

In this way we will derive, calculate and compare the quantum properties of the

elementary particles with the known measurement values. Here we remind you of the fact

that all attempts to calculate the quantum properties conventionally, without

transformation, until now have failed. Not even a systematization may succeed, if it

concerns for instance explanations for the order of magnitude of the mass of a particle.

A transformation at first is nothing more than an in usefulness founded mathematical

measure. But if a constant of nature, and as such the quantum properties of elementary

particles until now have to be seen, for the first time can be derived and calculated with a

transformation then this measure with that also gains its physical authorization.

We now stand for the question: how does the instruction of transformation M{x(r)} read,

with which we should transform the approach and all equations from the observation

domain into the model domain?

128 transformation table

Fig. 6.18: Transformation of the dependencies on radius

theory of objectivity 129

6.18 Transformation table

The attempt to write down at this point already a closed mathematical relation as instruction

of transformation, would be pure speculation. Such an instruction first must be

verified by means of numerous practical cases, i.e. be tested for its efficiency and

correctness. But we not even know the practical examples necessary for this purpose, if we

apply the transformation for the first time!

For his reason it unfortunately is not yet possible, to calculate absolute values in a direct

We have to be content to work with proportionalities and to carry out comparisons.

In fig. 6.18 the proportionalities are compared in the way, how they would have to be

transformed: on the left side, how they appear and can be observed in the view of the

special theory of relativity, and on the right side, how they can be represented and

calculated in the theory of objectivity.

The change, which here would have to be transformed, is the physical length contraction,

which is the change in length as it depends on the speed of light. For spherical symmetry

the length 1 becomes the radius r (eq. 6.26), of which is to be investigated the influence.

In the observation domain we had derived the proportionality (6.15 + 6.18):

E ~ 1/r2 and H ~ 1/r2.

The field of a point charge or of a spherical capacitor confirms this relation:

Because the speed of light in our observation is constant, also both constants of material

which are related to it (eq.5.6: = 1/c2), the dielectricity and the permeability are

to be taken constant.

With that the same proportionality as for the field strengths also holds for the induction B

and the dielectric displacement D:

B ~ 1/r2 and D ~ 1/r2.

In the model domain everything looks completely different. Here the radius and any length

stands in direct proportionality to the speed of light. In this way we get problems with our

usual system of units, the M-K-S-A-system (Meter-Kilogram-Second-Ampere). The basic

u n i t Meter [m] and as a consequence also the unit of mass Kilogram [kg = VAs3/m2]

appear here as variable. It would be advantageous, to introduce instead the Volt [V] as

basic unit.

But in any case does the dimension of a quantity show us, in which proportionality it

stands to the unit of length. This in the model domain then is authoritative! As an example

does the speed of light have the dimension Meter per Second. In the model domain there

consequently has to exist a proportionality to the length r [m].

The speed of light determines with equation 5.6 again the constants of material:

[Vs/Am] ~ 1/r and [As/Vm] ~ 1/r (6.28)

According to the model holds unchanged:

B [Vs/m2] ~ 1/r2 and D [As/m2] ~ 1/r2. (6.29)

But if we insert the proportionalities 6.28 and 6.29 into the equations of material 3.5 and

3.6, then holds for the field strengths:

H [A/m] ~ 1/r and E [V/m] ~ 1/r. (6.27)

Further dependencies of the radius can be read in the same manner either by inserting into

well-known laws or immediately from the dimension.

6.19 Interpretation of the transformation table

The transformation should tell us, what we would see if the variable speed of light would

be observable to us. Doing so highly interesting results come out.

The energy density of a field is as is known . (6.37)

In the observation domain will, according to fig. 6.19, decrease the energy density w

proportional to 1/r4. Multiplied with the respective volume we obtain for the energy itself

the proportionality: W ~ 1/r . (6.38)

If we make use of the Einstein relation W = m • c2

with c = constant holds also for the mass m: m ~ 1/r . (6.39)

In this manner we finally find out, why the small nucleons (protons and neutrons) subjectively

seen are heavier than the very much larger electrons. As a consequence does a relativistic

particle experience the increase of mass (with the length contraction according to

equation 6.24*):

(6.40)

This result is experimentally secured. Our considerations therefore are entirely in accord

with the Lorentz-transformation. There at least is no reason to doubt the correctness.

In the model domain we with advantage assume a spherical symmetry. As easily can be

shown with equations 6.4 and 6.31, are the capacity and charge of a spherical capacitor

independent of the radius (6.30 and 6.32). In that case also the from both values calculable

energy (6.1) must be constant. We come to the same conclusion, if take we the above

equation 6.37 for the energy density of a field or if we carry out a verification of

dimensions:

W [VAs] = konst. . (6.33)

This simple result is the physical basis for the law of conservation of energy! With that

we have eliminated an axiom.

The result states that the energy stays the same, even if the radius, the distance or the

speed of an object should change. To the subjectively observing person it shows itself

merely in various forms of expression. Consequently is the energy, as is dictated by the

here presented field theory, formed by binding in the inside of the quanta the same amount

of energy but of the opposite sign. The amount of energy therefore is bound to the number

of the present particles, as we already had derived.

Under the assumption of a constant time (6.35) there results for the electric conductivity

by calculating backwards over the equation of the relaxation time (5.3), the

proportionality: (6.36)

(6.36)

Maybe the result surprises, because it can't be observed. Actually we know that the

(microscopically observed conductivity in reality only represents an approximated

averaged measure for the mobility of free charge carriers. In a particle-free vacuum

however this well-known interpretation doesn't make sense anymore. Hence it is

recommended, to only work with the relaxation time constants. Who nevertheless wants to

eontinue to work with as a pure factor of description, can do this. But he mustn't be

surprised, if in the model domain with decreasing radius the conductivity suddenly

increases. But this is necessary, because otherwise the elementary particles would

collapse. Only by the increase of the conductivity, which is produced by the spherical

vortex itself, will the expanding eddy current build up in the inside of the particles, which

counteract the from the outside concentrating potential vortex.

132 ________________________________________________________ Particle decay

Approach:

a.The particles don't decay by themselves, but only by a

corresponding disturbance from the outside.

b.The decay time is the statistical average in which such a disturbance

can occur and take effect.

c.The elementary particles consist of an integral and finite

number of elementary vortices, which can't decay anymore for

their part.

d.If the compound particles get into the disturbing range of

influence of high-frequency alternating fields, then they are

stimulated to violent oscillations and in that way can be torn

apart into individual parts.

e.As disturbing factor the high-frequency fields of flying past

neutrinos are considered primarily.

f. Authoritative for the threshold of decay and with that also for

the rate of decay is the distance, in which the neutrinos fly past

the particle.

g.The distance becomes the larger, the smaller the particle is. If

the particle thus experiences a relativistic length contraction,

then it will, statistically seen, to the same extent become more

stable!

That has nothing to do at all with time dilatationl

We are entitled to demand a simultaneity, after all we are the ones,

who tell what that is!

Fig. 6.20: Proposal for an interpretation of the particle decay

*: Walter Theimer: Die Relativitatstheorie, Seite 106,*

Francke Verlag, Bern, 1977, ISBN 3-772O-126O-4

Theory of objectivity 133

6.20 Particle decay

We still have to get rid of a fundamental misunderstanding. It concerns the problem of the

time dilatation. Here the model domain doesn't give us any difficulty, because it dictates a

constant and therefore by us definable time. In the relativistic view however should in

moving systems clocks go wrong! But how does one want to explain a time dilatation

physically, if it merely represents a purely mathematical result of the actually taking place

length contraction on the one hand and the postulate of a constant speed of light on the

other hand?

Nobody has troubled more about the physical interpretation than Einstein himself. But he

had as less as we nowadays the possibility to verify the so-called phenomenon experimentally,

by accelerating a laboratory clock to values close to the speed of light.

Only atomic particles can, e.g. in accelerator systems, be brought on such high speeds and

then be observed for their properties. But also these experiments don't have any power of

proof, as long as we don't know the atomistic structure of the particles and there exists the

danger of misinterpretations.

So the slowing down of the rate of decay of instable. particles at high speeds willingly is

cited as "proof for time dilatationFrancke Verlag, Bern, 1977, ISBN 3-772O-126O-4

Theory of objectivity 133

6.20 Particle decay

We still have to get rid of a fundamental misunderstanding. It concerns the problem of the

time dilatation. Here the model domain doesn't give us any difficulty, because it dictates a

constant and therefore by us definable time. In the relativistic view however should in

moving systems clocks go wrong! But how does one want to explain a time dilatation

physically, if it merely represents a purely mathematical result of the actually taking place

length contraction on the one hand and the postulate of a constant speed of light on the

other hand?

Nobody has troubled more about the physical interpretation than Einstein himself. But he

had as less as we nowadays the possibility to verify the so-called phenomenon experimentally,

by accelerating a laboratory clock to values close to the speed of light.

Only atomic particles can, e.g. in accelerator systems, be brought on such high speeds and

then be observed for their properties. But also these experiments don't have any power of

proof, as long as we don't know the atomistic structure of the particles and there exists the

danger of misinterpretations.

So the slowing down of the rate of decay of instable. particles at high speeds willingly is

cited as "proof for time dilatation

*. "The most cited example for the time dilatation is*

the "long-living" meson. The is a charged particle, which exists only 2,2 * 10-6

seconds if it is observed in rest. Then it decays ... About 10 % of the mesons reach the

earth' s surface. Even if they fly with approximately the speed of light, they at least must

have used 30 • 2,2 * 10-6 seconds, in order to reach the earth. Their "life" therefore by the

movement has been extended for a multiple... to the supporters of the theory of relativity

here the time dilatation is revealed..."

This "proof however is worthless, as long as "the structure and the mechanism of decay

of the particle are not known", like W. Theimerthe "long-living" meson. The is a charged particle, which exists only 2,2 * 10-6

seconds if it is observed in rest. Then it decays ... About 10 % of the mesons reach the

earth' s surface. Even if they fly with approximately the speed of light, they at least must

have used 30 • 2,2 * 10-6 seconds, in order to reach the earth. Their "life" therefore by the

movement has been extended for a multiple... to the supporters of the theory of relativity

here the time dilatation is revealed..."

This "proof however is worthless, as long as "the structure and the mechanism of decay

of the particle are not known", like W. Theimer

*expresses himself.*

On the basis of the new field theory the approach standing on the left page is dared (fig.

6.20). Accordingly the particles don't decay by themselves, but only by a corresponding

disturbance from the outside, which for instance is triggered by the high-frequency fields

of flying past neutrinos. The closer the neutrinos fly past the particle, the sooner it will

decay. But the distance becomes the larger, the smaller the particle is. If the particle thus

experiences a relativistic length contraction, then it will, statistically seen, to the same

extent become more stable!

That has nothing to do at all with time dilatation, as this proposal for an interpretation

shows (fig. 6.20). The same effect of course also occurs, if atomic clocks are taken for a

fly in a plane and compared to identically constructed clocks on earth.

The time was stipulated by us and therefore should be able to keep its universal validity.

We are entitled to demand a simultaneity, after all we are the ones, who tell what

simultaneity is!

An interesting technical use would be the acceleration of the rate of decay in order to

dispose of radioactively contaminated waste. For that the waste has to be irradiated by

collecting and focussing free neutrinos or with the help of a neutrino transmitter, like one

which will be discussed in chapter 9. After such a neutrino shower dangerous radioactive

waste would be reusable or at most be harmless domestic refuse.On the basis of the new field theory the approach standing on the left page is dared (fig.

6.20). Accordingly the particles don't decay by themselves, but only by a corresponding

disturbance from the outside, which for instance is triggered by the high-frequency fields

of flying past neutrinos. The closer the neutrinos fly past the particle, the sooner it will

decay. But the distance becomes the larger, the smaller the particle is. If the particle thus

experiences a relativistic length contraction, then it will, statistically seen, to the same

extent become more stable!

That has nothing to do at all with time dilatation, as this proposal for an interpretation

shows (fig. 6.20). The same effect of course also occurs, if atomic clocks are taken for a

fly in a plane and compared to identically constructed clocks on earth.

The time was stipulated by us and therefore should be able to keep its universal validity.

We are entitled to demand a simultaneity, after all we are the ones, who tell what

simultaneity is!

An interesting technical use would be the acceleration of the rate of decay in order to

dispose of radioactively contaminated waste. For that the waste has to be irradiated by

collecting and focussing free neutrinos or with the help of a neutrino transmitter, like one

which will be discussed in chapter 9. After such a neutrino shower dangerous radioactive

waste would be reusable or at most be harmless domestic refuse.

## 1 comment:

Yes indeed, we must talk. My e-mail is zeusrdx@yahoo.com

Your paper hit me like a ton of bricks and has confirmed what I and Dr. Milo Wolff have been working on. Also see:

Fitz book site http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/276352

Dan fitzpatrick

Post a Comment