Albert Einstein and The Unified Field
Albert Einstein and the Unified Field
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." - Albert Einstein

We begin this journey for knowledge, by following the path of one of the greatest, most curious scientists to have ever lived, Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a true scientists, in that he had a sincere curiosity and a deep desire to understand the meaning and mechanism behind the world in which he lived. This is our measure of true science, a desire for knowledge for the sake of curiosity itself and to know who we are and our place in the world. Here we will follow Albert Einstein's path and let it guide our own path.
The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer feel amazement is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle. - Albert Einstein
The unexamined life is not worth living. - Socrates
We will begin by discussing the ideas Albert Einstein is best know for, the Theory of Relativity. We will then continue with a deeper look at Albert Einstein's pursuit of an even broader and all encompassing theory of the Universe.
When Albert Einstein completed his Theory of Relativity, the likely possibility of creating an even broader, more unifying theory of physics became apparent. At the time Relativity theory was released there were known to science two predominant forces at work in the Universe, which defined how everything interacted. The forces of Gravity and Electromagnetism.
We were familiar with the force of gravity, as defined by Sir Isaac Newton, using it to calculate the motion of the heavenly bodies we saw in the sky. James Clerk Maxwell had released his Electromagnetic Theory, which successfully unified the physics of electric fields with the physics of magnetic fields into one field, the electromagnetic field. This definition of the relationships of electromagnetic fields, brought civilization into the current electrical age. The bigger question then became, could these two theories of Gravity and Electromagnetism be linked together, like the ideas of electricity and magnetism were, thus advancing civilization even further?
Relativity theory was merely a means to an end for Albert Einstein to lay down the framework and foundation for the development of a much broader theory, a theory which unified the electromagnetic field and gravitational field into a single theory. He sought to simplify our understanding of the underlying nature of the Universe, which had the potential bring about even greater advancement to humanity, like the mastery and control of gravity itself.
According to his recollections, Einstein (1949a, 73-75) had always considered his 1915 field theory of gravitation, the general theory of relativity, as nothing but a stepping stone toward a ‘unified field theory’, which would somehow integrate both gravitational and electromagnetic fields into a single field structure. - Marco Giovanelli
What Albert Einstein eventually proposed was the electromagnetic field and gravitational field were the effects of a single, greater field, which he called the "one harmonic field" or "Unified Field". Contrary to the established notions of Albert Einstein's effort at unification failing, we find evidence in papers, letters and even experiments, Albert Einstein considered his efforts at unification successful and most importantly an experimentally verifiable form of his Unified Field Theory was completed.
In the meantime, modern physics continues to grow and advance without taking account of Einstein's unifying attempts and in fact denying even the possibility of such an attempt being successful.- Dr. Cornelius Lanczos
Albert Einstein was not the first, nor last to attempt such a grand unification in physics, as such a simplification of science and our understanding of the Universe is a the most just and noble pursuit in all of science. The idea of unification in physics is considered the most difficult problem of them all. These unification theories, otherwise known as Grand Unification Theories or Grand Theories of Everything attempt to bring all of physics within one simple equation.
Such a singular or unified solution would explain the deep fundamental workings of the Universe we live in. The discovery of this unification, would bring about remarkable and unimaginable benefits to humanity. It would allow humanity to travel to other stars, harness unlimited energy, and prolong life. Today physicists are faced with an enormous challenge to solve such a unification.
We see many great scientists considered and thought about this idea of unification even before Albert Einstein. Michael Faraday's work hinted at a unified theory of forces and although Faraday's work led to the unification of electric and magnetic forces developed by Maxwell, Faraday saw the possibility of a deeper "common origin" for all forces. Faraday strongly believed that different forces, such as electric and magnetic forces, were mutually dependent and stemmed from one common origin.
2146. I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin; or, in other words, are so directly related and mutually dependent, that they are convertible, as it were, one into another, and possess equivalents of power in their action. - Michael Faraday. Experimental Researches in Electricity Vol.3 1855
2702. The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power (2146.), has made me often think upon the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity, and so introducing the former into the group, the chain of which, including also magnetism, chemical force and heat, binds so many and such varied exhibitions of force together by common relations. Though the researches I have made with this object in view have produced only negative results, yet I think a short statement of the matter, as it has presented itself to my mind, and of the result of the experiments, which offering at first much to encourage, were only reduced to their true value by most careful searchings after sources of error, may be useful, both as a general statement of the problem, and as awakening the minds of others to its consideration. 2703.
In searching for some principle on which an experimental inquiry after the identification or relation of the two forces could be founded, it seemed that if such a relation existed, there must be something in gravity which would correspond to the dual or antithetical nature of the forms of force in electricity and magnetism. To my mind it appeared possible that the ceding to the force or the approach of gravitating bodies on the one hand, and the effectual reversion of the force or separation of the bodies on the other, might present the points of correspondence; quiescence (as to motion) being- the neutral condition. The final unchangeability of gravity did not seem affected by such an assumption; for the acting bodies when at rest would ever have the same relation to each other, and it would only be at the times of motion to and fro that any results related to electricity could be expected. Such results, if possible, could only be exceedingly small; but,
if possible, i. e. if true, no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish. - Michael Faraday on the possibility of all forces stemming from a common origin. The Bakerian Lecture.- Experimental researches in electricity.— Twenty-fourth series
Today we find established physics, at least from the perspective of achieving a unification of physics theories, in what could only be described as a 'complex mess'. Primarily we have two huge, competing theories which theoretical scientists and mathematicians are attempting to combine. At the large, macroscopic, cosmological scales we have the Relativity Theory developed by Albert Einstein, which describes the gravitational field and forces between mass, yet is unable to adequately explain the mass, particles and their interactions themselves. At the very small, microscopic, atomic scales we have the Theory of Quantum Mechanics developed by numerous scientists, which describes the electromagnetic forces at work within atoms and subatomic particles like electrons with no connection to gravity and large cosmological events. Thus we have two different physics theories which apply at two opposite scales of the Universe.
Physics has also introduced two new forces to explain the interactions within the nuclei of atoms, the Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak Nuclear Force, which are considered additional fundamental forces required in the Universe. Since the release of Relativity theory we have discovered numerous other particles of matter, neutrino's, quarks, meson's and other strange force carrying things. From this physicists have developed another complex theory called The Standard Model to describe all these entities.
The Standard Model proposed the idea of a gravitational force carrier, the graviton, but this appears to be ignored today and the gravitational field considered irrelevant. Thus the Standard Model is incomplete, because it gives no explanation for the gravitational forces between the various masses it defines. These additional theories, seem only to add further complexity and confusion to our understanding, rather then providing any deeper fundamental, unifying knowledge.
Despite being perhaps the most familiar fundamental interaction, gravity is not described by the Standard Model, due to contradictions that arise when combining general relativity, the modern theory of gravity, and quantum mechanics. However, gravity is so weak at microscopic scales, that it is essentially immeasurable. The graviton is postulated to be the mediating particle, but has not yet been proved to exist. - from The Standard Model - Wikipedia
Thus we see here how science has tended to disregard gravity, even within the very theory which proposes to describe matter itself, disregarding the original concept of gravity formulated as "the attractive force between matter". Quantum mechanics mostly dispenses with gravity as well, due to it being so weak, yet proposes additional strong forces to define the nuclear interactions and now attempts to "quantize" gravity under the wing of the theories of Quantum Mechanics. Modern science treats the gravitational force of matter, as inconvenient at best, irrelevant at worst.
The theory of relativity and gravity itself is not without its flaws and holes. In cosmology, they have discovered the stars of galaxies do not follow the paths predicted by simple Newtonian or Relativistic equations and the Universe seems to be expanding in a way we have yet to explain. The stars far out from the center of galaxies, should move slower due to the reduced influence of gravity at increasing distance from the center of mass. Yet, in measurements of stars far from galactic centers astronomers discovered the stars move faster than they should, as if there is more gravitational force or more mass than we can detect.
Thus the concept of Dark Matter was proposed. Dark matter, is an invisible, undetected, unknown substance, akin to magic, which supposedly holds the whole Universe together. It is currently estimated Dark matter would need to comprise an incredible 85% of the matter of the Universe to explain the observations. We too cannot determine why the Universe appears to be expanding at the rate observed and thus another invisible, undetectable, unknown magical force, Dark Energy, has been suggested as some unknown form of energy which powers the universal expansion. Thus current cosmology is clearly incomplete or mistaken in some significant manner as it essentially uses magic to explain the observations.
To achieve unification today, a grand theory of everything would have to include Relativity Theory, Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model, the Strong and Weak nuclear forces as well as solve many cosmological problems. We can see, rather than trying to simplify and unify physics since Relativity theory, the physics establishment has only contributed additional complexity and division to our understanding. It has even been suggested, there is no unification possible, that modern scientists should just entirely give up on such proposals for unification and instead we must begrudgingly accept all these different theories are just the way it all works.
Sabine Hossenfelder proposes any Final Theory of Unification is impossible, due to the "UV Finite problem". This is why I think a Theory of Everything does not exist - Sabine Hossenfelder. Basically, things get very 'blurry' at very small scales. For this reason, Sabine proposes, no theory could every hope to be complete, because it would have to account for things which cannot be measured or known. This leads to a circular argument is which a theory of everything cannot exist, because we cannot even know everything because things just become so obscure at small scales we simply cannot know them. Thus it seems any grand theory, would have to accommodate within it, this incalculable, unknowable, nature of things. Yet despite this supposed incalculable, unknowable character of the universe, we certainly exist and experience the reality of things around us.
We see how the problem of unification with today's physics is so difficult, many have just chosen to give up. Perhaps there is a different way we can approach the whole problem.

Accepting this idea of theories which 'Decouple at Scale' and this 'Division of Theory' or reality as "Multiple Competing Theories", is not something many scientists are willing to do. This is rightly so, and we would agree, the most sensible way to approach the problem is with Albert Einstein's original assumption that "The same laws should apply at all scales" and that a "Unification is possible".
If our theories do not work at different scales nor provide unification, than sensibility would suggest they must be considered incomplete. What really needs to be accepted, regarding the current state of physics, is there is a significant, fundamental, deep flaw or a crucial missing concept in our understanding. We for one cannot fathom how the mechanism and laws of the Universe would change and involve different laws and processes depending on how and from where we look at it.
Physical division of theory in fact violates fundamental physics itself. The laws of physics are the same in all references frames, which by extension must include reference frames at different scale as well.
It is not at all illogical to state, if our current theories of physics do not adequately describe the entirety of reality and are not even compatible with each other, then clearly there is a very fundamental and important element missing from those theories and thus our understanding.
We have to admit the current theories as a whole are unarguably, incomplete due to their incompatibility with and omissions from each other. We should be willing to accept that we may need to seriously revisit and reconsider many of our original assumptions and be open to new perspectives and information. We should consider somewhere along the road, we might have taken a wrong turn. We should consider, there is somewhere we forgot to look.
This does not entirely disregard any of these modern theories and in no way saying these theories are totally wrong, because they are indeed very successful and accurate, as far as they go. These theories of Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model, and Relativity have been proven successful both mathematically and experimentally for the specific problems to which they are applied. As far as they reach and for their intended purposes, they are successful and entirely capable of predicting experimental results. Thus a solution must not contradict any of this existing theory, but present it in a new way which complements it and better unites it.
Our goal is to propose the existence of another, simpler, unified way to describe and define the same phenomenon. There may be different perspectives and different ways to look at the problem, which could provide a cleaner, more straightforward, less complicated understanding. Most of what we are going to say or discuss in this writing follows this precept and is compatible with established physics theory, although some reinterpretation is strongly suggested regarding certain theories.
Just because theory 'A' provides a solution, does not mean there are not other theories, like theory 'B' or theory 'C' which can also provide a solution. Just because we have theory 'A' and it works to a point, does not mean we should not continue to look for theory 'B' or 'C'. All three theories might work to solve a specific problem, but we may find theory 'B' or 'C' may offer a clearer path towards unification.
Most importantly, we should not let dogma, complacency or personal opinions, prevent us from considering other options. One of the best characteristics of science itself, is its ability to change misunderstandings or mistakes when new, more concise solutions present themselves. Thus scientists should always be open to the potential of new ideas and never solidly hold any theory as ever complete and certain.
The real difficulty today may not even be in finding the simple unifying solution itself, but in explaining how this simple solution applies and explains away the incredibly complex mess established physics has created. Could established physics even accept such a simplification if it was discovered today?
On Unification in Physics - On Progress in Physics - opip.lol. Provides a visual Map on Unification. Points out excellent key points on the problem with Unification.
Thus it is logical to seek a simpler unified solution under the assumption such a solution exists, for the simplest, most unified solution is always the best solution. So long as there is evidence and experiments which can demonstrate and support a stance, then all such stances should be considered. Above all we want to see the applications and practical results from such a unification, what does it imply and how can it be utilized, not just for technological achievement, but in our lives directly.
Let us continue to follow this path towards unification with Faraday and Einstein's same conviction.
Understanding Relativity and Space/Time Curvature
Understanding Relativity and Space/Time Curvature
The Theory of Relativity is complex and it is not the goal here to provide a full explanation, but we must discuss certain aspects of Relativity and understand the basic idea in order to proceed. Relativity theory can be understood from a simple perspective and we stick to the idea that if we cannot explain it simply, then we do not fully understand it. Thus we provide here an easy to understand explanation of the complex theory of Relativity.
We need a little history of the idea of motion in physics prior to the development of Relativity theory. The motion of bodies in physics was adequately described by the laws of Sir Issac Newton. We could even consider Newton the founding father of Physics itself.
Sir Isaac Newton's theory was in essence the very first 'Unification' theory, in which a single physics theory attempted to explain all of reality. At the time, Newton had a much simpler physical problem, although he himself had to develop the entire framework within which that problem was defined and solved. Newton sought only to explain this puzzling force of gravity, which attracted objects downward towards the surface of the Earth.
In order to do so, he laid down laws of motion, mass and force itself. Thus he laid down the fundamental understanding of what mass, force and accelerating forces were and how they interacted with each other. This began the physical sciences, in which we attempted to define our observations of reality, with physical and mathematical laws. Thus as far as Newton was concerned, his final theory of motion was a complete unifying description of everything which physically happened in reality. The Newtonion laws of motion are:
- A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.
- At any instant of time, the net force on a body is equal to the body's acceleration multiplied by its mass or, equivalently, the rate at which the body's momentum is changing with time.
- If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.
For many years the Newtonian laws were adequate, even to the point of being physics dogma and unquestionable. There were no known exceptions or anything outside this understanding. However, with the discovery of electric and magnetic fields, new forces were found to be at work in nature and because of this new knowledge, Albert Einstein saw issues with some of the original postulates and assumptions of Newton's laws.
Newton had proposed there was an all pervasive "Ether" in the Universe, which was an all encompassing substance within which all this motion existed and occurred. We could always define motion as being 'relative to', 'within' or 'in regards to' to this ether. This concept in physics is called an 'absolute reference frame'. He further suggested the forces between bodies, including gravity, happened instantly or instantaneously so the forces between bodies effected all those bodies at the same time. This is a definition we would call 'absolute time'. Thus under the Newtonian understanding of physics, there was this idea of Absolute Space and Absolute Time.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity, revisited these assumptions as new experiments with electromagnetic fields, properties of light and the orbit of planets suggested some problems with the original assumptions of Newton.
What is really interesting and remarkable about relativity theory, is it came from Einstein's speculations of energy and mass equivalence. The energy considered, was primarily electromagnetic and determining how electromagnetic energy was related to mass and thus gravity was unknown at the time. This led to Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, which states that mass and energy are equivalent or that mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass.
Adding energy to mass, increased the mass. It was determined that all energy thus has some "apparent" mass and thus can be effected by acceleration or a gravitational field. Thus the idea of a unification or connection between the two, was strongly suggested. This idea of equivalence between matter and energy, led to the ideas of Relativity, which in turn laid down the foundation for a theory of unification.
The concept of energy/mass equivalence led too and was used to prove Relativity. Since light has energy Einstein speculated light should, by its energy/mass equivalence, also have some mass and thus would be effected by a gravitational field. When scientists observed light from a far off star, as that light passed very close to the Sun, they indeed detected the gravitational field of the Sun caused the light to bend or curve as it passed by the Sun. So they saw the star's position appear to be slightly shifted, as the light from that star passed close to the Sun. The path of the light, was bent by the gravity of the Sun.

Path of light from a star, curved by the gravity of the Sun
Thus even light itself was determined to have mass which could be effected by a gravitational field. Thus it was formally recognized, all energy has mass, all mass has an equivalent measure of energy and we can convert one to the other. This is the process at work in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Some of the mass of certain elements is converted to energy for heat or to create an explosion. These concepts of energy and mass equivalence, led Einstein to investigate the very concepts of space and time in greater detail in an effort to better define the nature of this principle of equivalence.
There are two parts to Relativity, Special Relativity and General Relativity. Although Special Relativity is a special case of General Relativity, it was developed first.
Special Relativity
Special Relativity
As discussed, Special Relativity revisited these notions of Absolute Space and Absolute time first proposed by Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein realized this reinterpretation was required, due to a recent discovery of his time. It was determined electromagnetic radiation, specifically 'light', had a definite speed. Under Special Relativity, this was proposed as a fundamental limit to all speed in the Universe. Nothing could go faster than the speed of light( the reasons for which we will go into later ), which we now refer to as the speed of light constant.
Thus forces could not propagate instantaneously as Newton thought, everything took some amount of time to happen, even mechanical forces and the force of gravity. There is no way in our Universe to say that this event here and that event over there, took place at the same time. This effectively removed the concept of 'absolute time' in the Universe, as nothing could propagate faster than light, not even information.
One of the most interesting consequences of the speed of light limit is when we look out into deep space, we are seeing back in time! Since it takes the light from those far off stars time to reach us, the light we are seeing from those stars right now, is in reality light which left the star a long time ago. So everything we see in the sky, happened in the past, and the further away we look, the further back in time we look.
Even if the Sun were to vanish in an instant, because it takes the light from the Sun about 8 minutes to reach us, the Earth would continue its orbit for 8 minutes and we would still see the light from the Sun for 8 more minutes. There is really no way to know what is going on out in the Universe, right now, everything we see is 'old news'. We know this to be a fact.
Special Relativity took a new look at the idea of an absolute frame of reference as well. If there was no absolute time, then there was likely no absolute space either.
Galileo originally considered a question, "Could a person in a dark room, within a ship, determine if the ship was moving or not, without looking outside? If the ship was moving in a straight line, on still water, he determined there was no way anyone could detect the motion. Under the ideas of Newton, we could in theory detect this absolute reference frame and find our motion relative to it, but Einstein saw this was unlikely.
This was defined originally by Galileo as the 'principle of invariance', and became a fundamental postulate under special relativity called the 'principle of relativity'. It states the laws of physics in any reference frame are the same, whether you are moving or at rest. You could not determine your motion using only experiments in your reference frame, because there was no way to detect this 'absolute frame of reference'.
The absolute frame of reference was not required to explain reality. How you perceived the laws of physics was dependant only on your relative reference frame and those laws would hold but could appear differently to someone in another reference frame.
As a consequence of these two new ideas, the character of the Universe changed from how Newton understood it. With a definite limit to the speed anything can happen and for the laws of physics to be the same for things in motion and things which were not, there were some rather odd things which needed to happen, especially as we got close to the speed of light.
Normally, if you were in a moving train car and you shot a bullet our in front of the moving train, you would expect the bullet to have its normal speed as fired from the gun, but also it would have the speed of the moving train. The speeds would add together. However, if you shone a beam of light our in front of the train, the speed of light has a limit and it cannot have the speed of the train added to it, the light still goes at the speed of light. This suggested there must be something else at work in the Universe, for this to be true, what happened to the speed from the train?
We can see for this to be true, something doesn't make sense. The solution Albert Einstein and Hendrick Lorentz proposed, was that the speed of the train must be changed somehow and how they changed it, is to reduce the length of the train! If the train was shorter due to its motion, then it would have to travel a longer distance, and thus our measurement of its speed would be different, as we measure speed as a distance over time. They further speculated that even the measurement of time might be different because the train is moving and this has been proven to be true as well. So when we measure the speed of light inside the moving train( when we cannot detect the motion of the train ) and we measure the speed of light plus the speed of the train from outside ( where we can see the train has motion ), both people get the same result because in one case the length and time itself have changed.
This is all quite confusing and contrary to our expected notions of measurements of time, distance and speed. Do not feel bad if you do not understand this yet as professional physicists argued and threw complete tantrums when this idea was first proposed, so you are definitely not alone.
Just understand at this point, this is very simply what special relativity defined:
- A fixed, constant, invariant speed of light limit for the Universe
- The laws of physics are the same in different reference frames
You cannot determine if you are moving or not when under constant motion or at rest( without comparing yourself to some other frame of reference ). Reference frames for motion are relative to each other but the speed of light is not relative to anything. The speed of light is an absolute speed limit. These are the important things which were defined by special relativity.
Events are invariant under special relativity. An experiment performed in one reference frame should produce the same results in another reference frame. The laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe, and do not change depending on your position in the Universe. Certain properties remain invariant as well, like Charge.
Further, the principle of "Special" relativity concerns only such systems as are moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to each other. In the form in which it has been so far developed it is not applicable to accelerated systems. - (p 261 ) Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Max Born 1965 Dover Publications.
General Relativity
General Relativity
The reason Special Relativity is 'special' is because it is only for a certain case of motion. The special case of motion, is simply, motion in which no changes of that motion are occurring. That is special relativity applies only to situations where something is at rest or is moving with constant unchanging velocity. Thus we must redefine relativity in a broader more general capacity, which also includes motion under acceleration or changing motion. Special relativity becomes a special case of general relativity, when there is no acceleration occurring.
Albert Einstein realized, the force of gravity we experience at the surface of the Earth, a force measured as 9.8 m/s^2 of acceleration, would be felt exactly the same if we were in a rocket whose engine was pushing it with 9.8 m/s^2 of acceleration. Gravity was not some force pulling us down, but acted the same as the floor of the rocket accelerating up toward us. Gravity on Earth could be considered the same as if the surface of the Earth was accelerating upward as it could be considered as something pulled down toward the Earth. Thus gravity was not really some all pervasive force of its own, but was the result of a reference frame undergoing acceleration. Thus the accelerating reference frames were equivalent as well.
This discovery by Einstein was said by him to be one of his most remarkable achievements. He realized if you were falling, or accelerating under the force of gravity, you would no longer feel its effect, you would be weightless. We feel a 'force' of gravity, because the surface of the Earth is pushing us back against this accelerating force.
The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly a thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity. - Albert Einstein, 1922
Thus the two phenomena of inertia and attraction which are so different in Newton's formulation must have a common root. This is the great discovery of Einstein which has transformed the general principle of relativity from an epistemological postulate into a law of exact science. - ( p313 ) Einstein's Theory of Relativity. by Max Born 1965 Dover Publications.
Visualizing General Relativity and Gravitational Field
When we consider this though, we are puzzled because how can we think of the surface of the Earth as accelerating like the floor of an elevator accelerating? If the force of gravity attracting objects down to the surface of the Earth, is equivalent to the surface of the Earth being accelerated upward, why isn't the Earth just blown apart? How can the surface of the Earth be under acceleration when it is not moving? Einstein speculated the Earth's surface is not moving, but in fact it is the Space and Time surrounding the Earth which is moving or as he put it, "curving."
If you want to understand General Relativity better, here are a couple video's which really demonstrate this concept better than the rubber sheet example:

How Gravity Actually Works - Veritasium on YouTube
You can see how Veratasium struggles a little when they try to explain the idea of the surface of the Earth being under acceleration. He has to resort to some complex math to try to explain how you can be accelerating but staying still. Here, the analogy of the acceleration being a flow of space/time inward into the center of the Earth is much easier to understand and closer to the reality of how gravity is actually working. Likewise, you can think of the accelerating space ship, as moving through the space/time causing it to flow through the space ship, causing a force toward the back of the ship.
We can use a 'falling water' analogy to better visualize what gravity really is. The force of gravity on the Earth works as if there is a flow of water, but all the water is flowing into the center of the Earth. We are being moved along with this flow of water. This is a good analogy, but in reality of course there is not water flowing into the center of the Earth. It is the very framework of space and time itself which is flowing into the Earth. The very definition of where and when you are in space and time is what is changing, not any physical medium. Thus the Earth is not going to get full and there is no need for the flow to 'go somewhere'.

The River Model of General Relativity - Dialect on YouTube
This may seem like an odd analogy and misrepresentation of how gravity works, but this 'falling water' analogy is a much better way to visualize what gravity and the curve of space/time is then the commonly used analogy of space/time being like a stretched rubber sheet, with a weight in the center. The problem with using the stretched sheet, is although we can use this to show the path of objects rolling on the sheet, it still requires the force of gravity to be acting to stretch the sheet and cause the balls to roll. So in the stretched rubber sheet analogy, you are in reality using the forces of gravity to explain the forces of gravity, which is not really very informative as to the true reality of what is happening. Thinking of the bending of space/time and the resulting force of acceleration as the actual flow of something into the center of the Earth, is a better analogy as to what is really happening.
Realize though, there is a significant difference between 'acceleration' and 'constant motion'. The concept of a flow of space/time being like water flowing only happens when motion changes, when there is acceleration. With constant motion or relative rest, there is no curvature of Space/Time and thus no 'flow'. Think of this as when you are in constant motion, you are moving with the 'flow', at the exact same speed as the 'flow'.
Only when you want to change your motion, will there be resistance to that change as inertia. To change your frame of reference, you need to accelerate, you need to put energy in to change your state of motion, and thus you will experience a resistance to that change. Space/time will resist your attempt to change your motion, thus you require acceleration and feel a resisting inertial force. If you are not changing your motion, there will not be any inertial resistance change, and thus there is no acceleration. When you are stopped at the surface of the Earth, you are resisting this 'flow' of Space/Time and thus feel a 'force' holding you onto the surface.
Inertia or the resistance to change in motion is determined only by the distribution of the remaining masses in the universe - ( p313 ) Einstein's Theory of Relativity. by Max Born 1965 Dover Publications.
Curved Space/Time
Curved Space/Time
The reason this curvature of Space/Time is difficult for us to visualize, is what is often not mentioned about curved this advanced concept of Space/Time. Space/time is four dimensional. Thus if we are talking about the curvature of Space/Time we are really talking about a curve through the fourth dimension. Showing curvature in the fourth dimension, using something in the 3rd dimension like a rubber sheet is inaccurate and misleading. Curvature through the fourth dimension, is a difficult concept to visualize. Curving through the fourth dimension is akin to the strange idea of a of a flow of water, which flows faster and faster and which can never fill the space it flows into.
A Space/Time curve in 4 dimensions, can produce a spherical accelerating force in 3 dimensions, just like the force of gravity towards the center of the Earth. Space/Time around the earth is not curved in just 2 or 3 dimensions. Curved Space/Time is not like a flat stretched rubber sheet, so trying to visualize it these ways is misleading. We are just trying to represent the strange 4 dimensional curvature, with something in 2 or 3 dimensions. We find it better to think of fourth dimensional curvature, or Space/time curvature, as this endless 'falling water', like a flow which goes faster and faster as you get closer the center of a sphere. Physicists use special graphs, plotting the 3 spatial dimensions on 1 axis and time on the other axis, to better visualize how space/time behaves.
What we want to take away from Albert Einstein's theory of Relativity, is its approach to understanding gravity. Einstein laid down a very different way to understand the "geometry" or "structure" of the Universe. Rather than just accept the ideas of three dimensions of space, he attempted to formalize and define this understanding in much more detail. He wanted to define the very ideas of geometry with the physics, rather than using geometry to define the physics.
Relativity theory was a ‘physicalization of geometry’ rather than a ‘geometrizaton of gravitation’ - Giovanelli, 2021.
We can ask what is the difference between 'physicalization of geometry' and 'geometrization of gravitation'? What this means is rather than trying to define how gravity works using theoretical purely mathematical concepts of geometry, we are attempting to find a physical representation of gravity which has inherent geometry. The geometry which describes gravity, should be able to be understood by some physical reality and the explanation should not reside purely within the mathematical realm. Gravity becomes a result or relationship due to the geometry, gravity is part of the definition of the geometry. Gravity is not just some force calculated using a geometric, mathematical approach.
More simply speaking, we want to be able to visualize and understand a real life meaning and application of the theory, not just have some purely mathematical concept which does explain the results but which we cannot ascribe to any real physical understanding. The geometry should represent some real physical concepts, not just some arbitrarily chosen situation which mathematically models reality without explicitly defining its connection to real physical things in reality. Essentially, the idea here is too not get 'lost in theoretical mathematics' and remain grounded too what that mathematics represents. A mathematical theory may be elegant, fantastic and workable, but if it is so complex as to lose its meaning in reality, than it has lost its way. We must maintain some coordination of these theories to reality.
What we see here, is the beginnings of the idea of the forces defining the space, rather than the forces acting within a space. The force of gravity, is the geometry, defining the very character of the space in which it acts.
Einstein Field Equations of Relativity Theory
Einstein Field Equations of Relativity Theory
We do not really need to get into the mathematical complexity of the theory of relativity here, we only need to grasp its fundamental principles and how they let use develop a different perspective on gravity and the nature of the Universe. If however, you would like to go deeper, you can find some relevant information here.
The Einstein field equations are the 16 coupled hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations that describe the gravitational effects produced by a given mass in general relativity. As result of the symmetry of G_(munu) and T_(munu), the actual number of equations reduces to 10, although there are an additional four differential identities (the Bianchi identities) satisfied by G_(munu), one for each coordinate.
The Einstein field equations state that
G_(munu)=8piT_(munu),
where T_(munu) is the stress-energy tensor, and
G_(munu)=R_(munu)-1/2g_(munu)R
is the Einstein tensor, with R_(munu) the Ricci curvature tensor and R the scalar curvature.
Read more of the mathematical development of Relativity. History of the Lorentz Transformations - Wikipedia. The Lorentz transformation play a significant role in the mathematical development of the Theory of Relativity.
Three Mind-Blowing Ideas in Physics: The Stationary Action Principle, Lorentz Transformations, and the Metric Tensor - Angjelin Hila. An excellent summary of Relativity mathematics.
Unifying Gravitation and Electricity
Unifying Gravitation and Electricity
In the meantime, modern physics continues to grow and advance without taking account of Einstein's unifying attempts and in fact denying even the possibility of such an attempt being successful.- Dr. Cornelius Lanczos
Here we will attempt to shed more light on the principles behind and the real world repercussions of Albert Einstein's complicated Unified Field Theory.
First let us clarify some terminology, as there is already some confusion. We can talk about the 'unification' of gravity and electricity and even the 'unification' of various theories of physics. However, we should not confuse this with the idea of a 'unified field' as this is a different concept entirely.
Unification refers to combining separate entities into one. A Unified Field refers to one field.
Thus when Einstein is talking about a 'unified field', we should be clear he is referring to the existence of a single field in the Universe, one field, from which the other fields we know of are composed or related. A unification of theories, may or may not result in the existence of a single field as an explanation, only that these theories may be combined into some more encompassing theory. This distinction is important to understand what the Unified Field theory represents.
With the framework of Relativity established, Albert Einstein finally saw the potential to connect the ideas of gravity and the electromagnetic field. Einstein saw in Relativity that electromagnetic field and indeed all energy had an associated value of mass and could be effected by the gravitational field. Further he saw that mass was not something in and of its own special character, but that mass could be converted into energy. He saw here some glimmer of a possible connection between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field and thus began an effort to unify the two concepts.
This idea of a potential unification of gravity and electromagnetism was what drove Einstein to develop energy/mass equivalence and the Relativity theory. There was a bigger more fundamental conclusion which could be drawn from Relativity theory and its development was not an end in and of itself, but to lay down a framework upon which a much grander, unification between gravitational field and electromagnetic field could be established. This was Einstein's real goal.
According to General relativity, as explained by many established physicists, gravitational force is Space/Time curvature. What we find though is this Space/Time curvature simply becomes physically apparent as an acceleration, which we can equate with the action of a force, what we called the Force of Gravity. You can say relativity proved gravity is not a force, but we can still consider gravity as such and we worked quite well with only Newton's theories for a long time. However, maybe we are better to say gravity is not a force, just an acceleration?
Whether the force causing the acceleration comes from the force of gravity or curvature of Space/Time does not really make much difference in our physical experience of the result, which is being pulled down to the surface of Earth. However, when we consider the gravitational force as acceleration, we do find a possible connection to electromagnetism, for in electromagnetism we find also a relationship to acceleration. Perhaps, through this common bridge of acceleration of electromagnetic fields and acceleration of curved Space/Time, is where we find the connection between gravity and electromagnetism. That is there is no direct connection between gravity and electromagnetism, but through some intermediary related to the forces of acceleration, we could potentially make a connection.
In order to relate the fields of gravity and electromagnetism the Unified Field theory suggested the existence of another higher order or general field structure in the Universe, of which the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field were both special cases. Our measure of mass, even mass associated with electromagnetic fields, cause what has been called curving or distortion in Space/Time. Einstein proposed with his Unified Field theory, the masses themselves may be only concentrations of fields in Space/Time. In this context, mass is not something in Space/Time which curves Space/Time, but much more fundamentally mass itself IS the curvature of Space/Time and this curvature is defined by the fields acting in that Space/Time.
By reasoning this way, we find our concepts of solidity, particles and mass itself become changed, we find mass and electromagnetism are both properties of the Unified field, the Unified Field being a distortion of Space/Time itself. According to Einstein, even the charges and masses themselves might be considered as simple harmonics of fields. Einstein always dismissed quantum mechanics, because he was certain it could be defined by less rigorous mathematics. He felt the Unified Field Theory suggested the idea of a "harmonic mechanical field" which would collapse the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics.
But for Einstein, the empirical success of non-relativistic quantum mechanics did not demand that the unified description of the fundamental fields itself should be a quantized one. Rather the foundational unified conceptualization should somehow provide a conceptual justification for the stochastic aspects of quantum theory and for its violations of classical determinism. - P7 Einstein’s Unified Field Theory Program
In Einstein's book, "The meaning of Relativity"-The Third Addition he added an appendix in the fourth edition, which discussed the Unified Field Theory, called "Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field". In the sixth edition of this book he chose to refer to this as his "Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric field. We even find in this work, further reference to the vanishing of the Magnetic Current Density as part of the solution to Unification. From different reference frames, we can eliminate the magnetic field and express the magnetic forces as purely electric or gravitational in nature. It is interesting to note that the concept of magnetism does not really appear in later versions of the Unified Field theory, and the theories are named theories of unification between "gravitation and electricity" only, not unification's of "gravity and electromagnetism".
Einstein discusses at length the requirement for a different geometry or metric within which the Unified Field theory existed. For his Unified Field to work, both Euclidean and Riemmannian Spaces needed to co-exist. Euclidean metrics can exist within another manifold, duplicated even, like how cells make up the body. These Euclidean spaces may exist within a broader Riemmannian space, so both distant parallelism and local curvature can exist. Distant Teleparallelism was key to Einstein's Unified Field Theory and is discussed in the paper and the Riemmanian Metric even appears in the titles of some of the Unified Field theory papers.
"Indeed, the new theory succeeds in uniting the fundamental laws of relativity mechanics and the fundamental laws of electricity into a single formula. As per this formula, there is only one substance, the ‘field,’ and only one law of the universe; the field is composed of electrical and gravitational components, and all these components are united under a single formula. Einstein was able to show that the previously known laws can be derived from this formula such that it signifies the subordination of the two formerly divided realms under a higher law. Yet, the new formula achieves still more; it represents the older theory of two systems as a special case and makes new assertions concerning the relation between gravitation and electricity in relatively complicated fields. Thus, the new theory is of more than merely formal significance because it asserts the existence of an effect of gravitation upon electrical events and vice versa. It is not yet possible to form a picture of how this connection will work out in detail from a physical standpoint. In particular, it remains an open question whether the new theory will enable scientists to solve the puzzle of quantum theory, which itself represents a peculiar combination of mechanics and electricity theory." (Reichenbach, 1929c; tr. 1978, 1:262; m.e.)
We find this description of quantum mechanics as being a "peculiar combination of mechanics and electricity" to be quite relevant to our continued discussion. We further find the idea of an effect of "gravitation upon electrical events and vice versa" to be quite telling as to the nature of the unification we are after. Reichenbach is quick to admit he does not understand exactly how this connection, physically "works" but only that his theory "asserts" such a connection between gravity and electricity exists.
There is significant evidence which confirms Einstein's confidence in solving his Unified Field Theory, despite modern accounts that it remained unsolved until Einstein's death. We find further evidence for the Unified Field theory being solved to Einstein's satisfaction in the New York Time articles referenced below and his comments to his son, Eduard. We do find the existence of the final unifying equation between gravity and electricity, yet none seem to give this any significance. We should most certainly consider this connection much more seriously and within this document we will examine in great detail the physical aspects of such a connection between gravity and electricity.
Einstein's Unifying Equation between Gravitational Field and Electrical Field
Guv-1/2Gguv = -k(Tuv+Tuo)
The Path to Completing Unification
A James E. Beichler has written an excellent paper discussing in great deal the paths and directions Unified Field theories have taken and the mostly likely direction for success. It is insightful and well writing and we will discuss it in brief here as it is relevant. We see here a history of Unification theory and the current state of the art, but again we find here some dismissal of the success of Einstein's original efforts. It is likely what Einstein did complete in his Unified Field Theory was complete and correct as far as it went. Yes, his theory did not go so far as to define the mechanism of particle creation, nor the connection or explanation for quantum mechanical effects, but it was complete and correct as far as it went and with further work it was highly likely it would have led to further solutions to these other problems. Thus I disagree with James perspective that Einsteins Unified Field theory would have been incapable of defining particle formation and feel this was an integral and important part of the theory which was omitted or not fully calculated.
Einstein Unified Field Theory Completed - by James E. Beichler
The most insightful point James Beichler makes in his paper is his clarification of the fundamental geometrical problem a Unification requires. He points out that relativity seems to be attempting Unification through a mathematical description of extensions or the metric of Space/Time, whereas Quantum Mechanics is attempting Unification through a mathematical description of discrete points or quantum. A theory of extensions will mathematically be unable to define points and a theory of points will be unable to describe extensions. We can think of extensions and fields as the scalar components of our Universe, the womb within which all exists, but the womb does not contain the seed nor can it grow a form. We can think of the points as the vectors of direction and form, as the seed, but the seed needs a womb in which to grow and exist. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Without really understanding what mathematically defines a particle and a mathematical description of the medium within which that particle must exist, we cannot hope to succeed in any Unification attempt, no matter how beautiful our original theory appears.
James Beichler describes how this failure goes far back to original development of the very geometries mathematics uses to form these complex theories. Euclidian geometry never really defined the exact proof for how a line is formed from an infinite number of infinitesimal( size approaching zero ) discrete points and we may even question what is the meaning of a discrete point at the infinitesimal level. Further Riemannian and similar geometries investigating what happens as the geometry approaches infinite also break down and we cannot define whether parallel lines will always be parallel, converge or diverge at infinite scales.
We can here speculate, it is really starting to appear like the uncertainty principles of quantum mechanics and our inability to perform accurate measurements of reality at the microscopic scales, we in reality apply as equally valid to the infinite scales and measurements at the largest and most distant times and scales of our Universe are uncertain as well. James wisely asks, "Are these indefinite uncertainties only a product of our mathematics or are they inherent in nature?" Our Universe is infinitely and infinitesimally immeasurable and only in the present moment do we have any true sense of what is real.
Indeed relativity, even Einstein's final versions left out mechanisms for the formation of matter and an explanation for quanta and quantum mechanics breaks down when describing the quatum field as a foam, or fuzzy particles or other such strange notions of a continuum. Bohr and Heisenberg's implementation of the Copenhagen Interpretation has stifled scientific exploration of a true Unified Field, but enforcing Quantum Mechanics as the only theory which is important and trying to find unification within its framework. Einstein and others struggled because neither does relativity have the true solution available with its framework. The ultimate solution lies as some combination of both, a theory of particles and extensions.
James Beichler's solution proposes a 4th spatial dimension and the existence of a non-symmetrical component to the gravitational field, an analog to the magnetic field of electromagnetism. ** Add further explanation of his solution **
He summarizes this as a Five Dimensional point/metric geometry with 'sheet' curvature in the fifth direction. Whatever that means??
There was mention even of Tetrode's attempts to apply the plank constant to molecular interactions, thereby finding a quantum effect in a more macroscopic situation. Even the atomic numbers of atoms themselves are very specific states, we do not have variation in proton mass, it is always the same. Gold always behaves like Gold and has the same properties throughout the Universe, forming veins, nuggets, being yellowish in color, malleable, inert. This concept is definitely on the right track, as we can see that the Universe does have macroscopic patterns, the very surface upon which we walk, clouds, rocks, rivers, oceans, asteroid, planets, stars and even plants and animals, possible consciousness itself appear to occupy distinct levels and specific and similar forms. Evolution may be governed not purely by random mutation and chance, but discrete quantum patterns. A concept discussed with Takakki Musha that there does seem to be a macroscopic quantum effect, wherein patterns do occupy specific states.
We can speculate further based on James Beichler's fundamental arguments. He insightfully declares, "Only rotation can define a point", but this point is only a concept and no solidity or center really exists. Further rotation requires something rotating relative to something else, within what or what itself is rotating? We can ask ourselves, what is the first motion, what was the first impulse and what form did it have? Was it rotation, a torsion in the void, a wave or bump, and increase in density? What is the simplest impulse upon nothing from which to make something? This is an important question for defining Unification.
According to other papers and theories of a 4th spacial dimension, this forth dimension of space would appear in our three dimensional reality as density. Density curving through 4-dimensional space/time can define a particle, a region of space which is negative to space, something made of space/time, which exists in space/time. For a pure metric cannot define solidity, cannot define a surface or a collision, how can waves collide with waves? They cannot they simply superimpose their energy upon the metric. In order for something to exist other than waves, some process exists by which waves can act as a solid, as a particle, which cannot superimpose.
There has to be some concentration of energy into a dimension which is independent from all others, energy can transform into this state, but they are clearly distinct rules for this state versus others. A 4-Dimensional sphere pushed through our 3-Dimensional reality appears like a 3-Dimensional sphere appearing and growing in size, its removal appears like it shrinks and disappears. This is how we perceive matter. Walter Russel's explanation of the non-symmetric imbalance between space and matter, the ant and the elephant is an important key here, and the ultimate unification solution should explain Titus-Bode's conjectures as well as implement a hard limit upon the indeterminate probabilities of quantum mechanics.
Evidence for the Completion of Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory
Evidence for the Completion of Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory
It is interesting that from about 1927 to 1931 the New York Times published stories of Albert Einstein's discoveries, often going into far more technical and mathematical detail than most of its readers would even understand. Of specific interest is the wording and descriptions of The Unified Field theory, often straight from Albert Einstein himself. We see in Einstein's own words, not words of failure, speculation or incompleteness, but one of utter confidence in his theories successful completion and the implications thereof.
This is a duplicate of an article written by Albert Einstein for the New York Times, titled "Einstein Discusses his new Theory of the Universe". This article was released a few years after the release of Einstein's theory of relativity. You will see for yourself, after reading the article, that Albert Einstein felt his unification was successful, not incomplete. The article's wording is one of excitement and considers the remarkable implications this new Unified Field theory may bring to humanity. Mr. Einstein discusses in great detail how his theory "Unifies" the forces of gravity and electromagnetism and how he has discovered the "Unifying" fundamental nature of our universe. He does not speak of having to continue to work at developing a solution, or that it is incomplete. He expresses confidence and satisfaction in the completion of the unification.
We find in Alberta Einstein's own words to his son, Eduard Einstein ( Tetel ), not words of a struggle, failure or of his continued effort to solve the problem, but words of happiness, achievement and triumph in his completion of the problem of unifying gravity and electricity. These words are in strike contrast to the established narrative of Einsteins efforts being unsuccessful. We would consider these quotes direct evidence there is more to Albert Einstein's unification between gravity and electricity, then modern scientists appear to grasp.
"I am now very happy because I finally solved to my total satisfaction, after immeasurable intensive work, my gravitation-electricity problem."-Albert Einstein in a letter to his son Eduard Einstein ( Tetel ) - 1929
"This in a way concludes my life's work - the remainder is simply bonus material."-Albert Einstein in a letter to his son Eduard Einstein ( Tetel ) - 1929
"Physicists consider me an old fool but I am convinced that the future development of physics will depart from the present road."-Albert Einstein commenting on Quantum Mechanics
This theory( Relativity ) having brought together the metric and gravitation would have been completely satisfactory if the world had only gravitational fields and no electro-magnetic fields. Now it is true that the latter can be included within the general theory of relativity by taking over and appropriately modifying Maxwell's equations of the electro-magnetic field, but they do not then appear like the gravitational fields as structural properties of the space-time continuum, but as logically independent constructions. The two types of field are causally linked in this theory, but still not fused to an identity. It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric.
The new unitary field theory removes this fault by displaying both types of field as manifestations of one comprehensive type of spatial structure in the space-time continuum. The stimulus to the new theory arose from the discovery that there exists a structure between the Riemannian space structure and the Euclidean, which is richer in formal relationships than the former, but poorer than the latter. Consider a two-dimension Riemannian space in the form of the surface of a hen's egg. Since this surface is embedded in our ( accurately enough ) Euclidean space, it possesses a Riemannian metric. In fact, it has a perfectly definite meaning to speak of the distance of two neighboring points P, Q on the surface. Similarly it has, of course, a meaning to say of two such pairs of points (PQ) (P'Q'), at separate parts of the surface of the egg, that the distance PQ is equal to the distance (P'Q'). On the other hand, it is impossible now to compare the direction PQ with the direction P'Q'. In particular it is meaningless to demand that P'Q' shall be chosen parallel to PQ. In the corresponding Euclidean geometry of two dimensions, the Euclidean geometry of the plane, directions can be compared and the relationship of parallelism can exist between lines in regions of the plane at any distance from one another ( distant parallelism). To this extent the Euclidean continuum is richer in relationships than the Riemannian. - Albert Einstein From "Expanding the Theory" article in the New York Times

The new unitary field theory is based on the following mathematical discovery: There are continua with a Riemannian metric and distant parallelism which nevertheless are not Euclidean. It is easy to show, for instance, in the case of a three-dimensional space, how such a continuum differs from a Euclidean. First of all, in such a continuum there are lines whose elements are parallel to one another. We shall call those "straight lines." It also has a definite meaning to speak of two parallel straight lines as in the Euclidean case. Now choose two such parallels E1L1 and E2L2 and mark on each a point P1, P2. On E1L1 choose in addition a point Q1. If we now draw through Q1 a straight line Q1-R parallel to the straight line P1, P2, then in Euclidean geometry this will cut the straight line E2L2: in the geometry now used the line Q1-R and the line E2L2 do not in general cut one another. To this extent the geometry now used is not only a specialization of the Riemannian but also a generalization of the Euclidean geometry. My opinion is that our space-time continuum has a structure of the kind here outlined. The mathematical problem whose solution, in my view, leads to the correct field laws is to be formulated thus. Which are the simplest and most natural conditions to which a continuum of this kind can be subjected? The answer to this question which I have attempted to give in a new paper yields unitary field laws for gravitation and electro-magnetism. - Albert Einstein From "A Mathematical Discovery" article in the New York Times

Einstein is discussing how the Unified Field Theory utilizes a geometry where the line Q1- R, does not cut line E2L2. How puzzling.
We can only speculate on what the physical form of such a structure which is between the Riemannian space structure and the Euclidean actually looks like. We could speculate the only geometry which could possibly yield this, is some sort of spiralling, helical or 'open' geometry, which does not even truly define a volume. This would by necessity need to be some sort of infinite, curving space with no end in certain directions. We would like to see represented this geometry, but unfortunately do not posses the mathematical and geometric knowledge to diagram such a geometry. Again, our point here is Albert Einstein had resolved the problem, by applying this unique geometry and states without any doubt, his paper has yielded unitary field laws for gravitation and electro-magnetism. He is not saying he is still working on the problem, he clearly states he figured it out.
The following quote is very significant to understanding the Unified Field Theory as Einstein understood it.The force Albert Einstein is talking about in this quote, is NOT gravity!
"Now, but only now, we know that the force which moves electrons in their ellipses about the nuclei of atoms is the same force which moves our Earth in its annual course about the sun and is the same force which brings to us the rays of light and heat which make life possible on this planet" - Albert Einstein
We discuss this quote in more detail elsewhere, but suffice it to say we do not currently consider "gravity" to be the force which moves electrons in their ellipses about the nuclei of atoms or which brings to us the rays of light and heat and yet we do consider gravity as the force responsible for moving our Earth in its annual course about the sun. Albert Einstein is mixing up different forces in this statement. The force he is describing cannot be "gravity". Thus in this quote, Albert Einstein is hinting at a different, currently unrecognized, unifying force.
We also find these additional articles published over the following years, some more mathematical than others, which elude to the existence of Albert Einstein's unitary, unifying field laws. Even these previous quotes discuss the achievement in a positive light, despite Einstein himself expressing some disapproval with the mathematical formulas being published in a newspaper, as so few would even have the means to grasp their implications.
We do not hear words of failure in these quotes and explanations. We do not hear words of continued effort and further work required to solve the problem. We hear the beaming excitement of success and personal achievement. We hear the delight and peace of mind of one who has achieved their goal. Thus despite what many physicists claim, we can conclude the Unification between Gravity and Electricity was completed by Albert Einstein.
When we say Albert Einstein's Unified Field theory was complete, we mean it was correct and verifiable to the point it could predict means to prove the connection between gravity and electricity with experimentation and the development of devices utilizing this connection. Mathematically, the theory was far too complex and mathematically intensive to even hope of forming a complete version in which all variables and possibilities were worked out, but for specific cases, when the equations were set up with the right boundary conditions, it was entirely capable of predicting results.
Even today, although we use Relativity theory, it is exceedingly complex and no one can claim to have fully worked out every permutation. Similarly, the mathematical complexity of the Unified Field theory is so tremendous, any interpretation of its mathematical formula in a way which resolves differences between all the various divisions in physics, will remain for some time, utterly unknowable. However, what we find and point out here, is the Unified Field theory was completed and worked out to the point it was capable of providing solutions and practical applications. Albert Einstein felt he had solved the problem.
We find though in later investigations of his theory, despite the mathematical certainty of the equations containing both "gravitational and electrical terms in a way that defies separation" they express difficulty determining how the unified theory applied to quantum theory and which experimental facts would demonstrate the nature of this interaction of gravitation and electricity.
"At the Beginning of 1929, Einstein published his Unified Field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism, based on the concept of parallelism at a distance with respect to four orthogonal vectors of reference. Levi-Civita discards this concept and uses Ricci's coefficients of rotation. This is termed a simplified presentation of Einstein's theory, but it really differs from it in one important respect. It is perhaps more elegant than Einstein's work, and obtains Maxwell's electromagnetic equations and the gravitational equations of the older relativity theory exactly, whereas Einstein now obtains these only as first order approximations. The fact that Einstein's new equations, in their exact form, contain both gravitational and electrical terms in a way that defies separation, however inconvenient it may be mathematically, is yet the most attractive feature from the physical point of view, as it may possibly lead to the discovery of new experimental facts on the interaction of gravitation and electricity. Up to the present, in spite of improvements in the mathematical presentation of Einstein's work, little progress has been made on the physical side, and the problem of incorporating the quantum theory with relativity remains still unsolved." - H.T.H.P from A simplified Presentation of Einstein's Unified Field Equations. Nature, No. 3161, Vol 125. May 31, 1930.
At the time though, more forthcoming information and explanation was withheld and the deeper implications were not publicly discussed. The established science of the time, struck off down the convoluted road of quantum theory and Albert Einstein's Unified Field theory was quickly forgotten or considered irrelevant. On top of this, after seeing how his Energy mass Equivalence theorem quickly led to the production of a weapon of mass destruction, Albert Einstein had little confidence in mankind's ability to use his even greater theory of unification for good. Einstein knew the significance of his discovery, but had personal discipline and honor enough to withdraw his Unified theory and no published reason is given for this withdrawal, save that Einstein was "not satisfied" with it. This despite his previous expression of joy at his success and his certainty of the validity of the theory. Einstein himself is the one who withdrew the theory and said it was incomplete. He never said it was wrong.
There is a big difference between saying an idea is incomplete and saying it was wrong. We can say relativity theory is incomplete, as it does not explain quantum mechanics, but relativity is entirely correct and useful as far as it goes. The part of relativity which is complete, works just fine. The Unified Field theory may have been "incomplete" as well, but this does not in any way imply it did not work or solve, what it intended to solve. Only through sincere effort to re-investigate this theory and its direction can we hope to find what was lost. We should carefully revisit the ideas of including quantum theory within the context of the Unified Field theory as physics seems to have disregarded an important piece of the puzzle.
Beyond the Unified Field as a Theory
Beyond the Unified Field as a Theory
Having discussed Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Unified Field theory what can we say? First, we must say the average individual has no hope of understanding the complex mathematics divulged within either of these theories. Even for Relativity, utilizing the mathematics requires setting very specific boundaries and limitations upon the mathematical field equations for them to produce meaningful results, as to fully write out, let alone work out the entire field equations is a feat unto itself. The reality is, there are only a few extremely advanced mathematicians in the world who would have the skill, understanding, time or energy to delve completely into the mathematics of Einsteins Unified Field theory. Even fewer who would posses the additional knowledge to apply any practical experiments from those mathematics.
Thus the average individual or armchair physicist has little hope of solving the mathematics of the Unified Field theory. Yet, despite not being able to completely grasp the mathematics, the average individual is not incapable of some grasp of the Unified Field theory. For such a theory, despite the complex mathematics required to describe it, may be much more foundational and elementary then we have been led to believe. No one can be certain there is not a way to envision the Unified Field in an uncomplicated, practical manner. Nor are we certain there may not be ways to apply the precepts and concepts of the Unified Field theory towards practical experiments and understanding in our lives. Perhaps we can find a physical, experimental verification of the Unified Field theories mathematical connection between "gravity and electricity".
We can approach an understanding of the Unified Field theory entirely outside the mathematics, looking at the Unified Field from a much more basic perspective. Even if we just consider the name Albert Einstein chose for his theory, we can find useful insight into what the theory was and represents. A Unified Field is one field which unifies the concept of all fields. We can take this idea itself, of there being One Field or a Unification of Fields and consider this concept deeply and thoroughly.
We should realize, the unification of gravity and electricity, was completely successful within the Unified Field theory. Where problems arose, was when one attempted to explain quantum theory within Unified Field theory. This is not unlike the current problem with relativity and quantum theory, being incompatible. It is not that such a solution is not possible, only that no one could determine it.
We can ask broad general questions such as, "What nature would this one field or Unified Field have?", "What relationships would the Unified Field have to the other fields and forces we know?", "Would there be any other references, real world examples, natural processes, or simple demonstrations of the principles and properties of the Unified Field?", and most importantly "Can we devise experiments or even find existing experiments which demonstrate or point towards the reality of the Unified Field's existence?"
A Unified Field Theory is not just a mathematical physics theory but is a theory which should really explain and apply to everything. They call such theories, Theories of Everything or Grand Theories of Everything, because their implications are so vast and far reaching. Such a theory is not just a theory connecting the physical and mathematical ideas of Gravity and Electromagnetic fields, but it would have biological, religious, social, and even spiritual connotations as well. For all these concepts are within the Universe and thus touched by a theory which hopes to describe the function of the Universe. Within a Unified Field Theory, no fields of science are untouched. A true Unified Field Theory has galactic/molecular scope, in that it applies to all scales from the largest galaxies and clusters of galaxies to the smallest microscopic components of matter.
If such a Unified Field exists, we should find examples and indications of its existence everywhere in reality, in nature, in biology and throughout all fields of science. We should find inventions, papers, discussions and experiments demonstrating this connection between gravity and electricity, which already exist and were already discovered or applied. The scientists making these discoveries may not have even known what they found, but we can revisit such works looking for this evidence of a real, physical connection between electricity and gravity. For even though a theory may be mathematically complex, we may find basic demonstrations, feasible experiments and straightforward apparatus which shows us how to apply its precepts. Knowing the Unified Field exists, knowing a connection between gravity and electricity exists, is half the battle so to speak.
The purpose of this section was to demonstrate, Albert Einstein was certain the problem of unification between gravity and electricity was solved. Einstein was confident a unification between Gravity and Electricity existed. He successfully created, in his own words, unitary field laws for gravitation and electro-magnetism. Albert Einstein was confident the concept of a Unified Field worked to describe this unification, but there was little publicly disclosed effort to demonstrate the reality and physical application of this unification. Albert Einstein was confident he had worked out the fundamental mathematical complexities of the Unified Field theory, but we did not perform any experimental investigations to demonstrate how the unified theory could be applied. It is up to us now, to determine if the ordinary person can understand and apply the ideas of the Unified Field to physical reality, even when the mathematics is beyond them.
We should never forget mathematics and physics is only a model of reality, not the reality itself. Knowing Albert Einstein was confident in the existence of the Unified Field and was certain he mathematically modelled its operation, should be evidence enough of the reality such a Unification of Fields exists. What we need now, is physical evidence of this connection. Remarkably, when we accept the existence of the Unified Field theory, when we accept the existence of a connection between gravity and electricity, and start actually looking for physical, real evidence of this connection, we DO discover an astounding and overwhelming amount of collaborating evidence.
We can bring the Unified Field concept out of the realm of an obscure, complex, mathematical, theoretical model, into a relatable and understandable reality. When we simply accept unification exists, we start to find innumerable, practical examples of the principles of the Unified Field theory. We find we can grasp, understand and even engineer and utilize these unifying principles.
One should understand at the very heart of the idea of Unification, is the idea of simplifying our understanding of the Universe within which we exist. When Albert Einstein claims to have solved the concept of Unification, he is confirming such a simplification exists. Unification is simplification. We can understand the Universe.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. - Albert Einstein
A Unified "Field of Force"
A Unified "Field of Force"
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives" - Leo Tolstoy
As stated previously, mathematics and theories are all only models of reality. They can be used to efficiently predict events and observations but care must be taken not to loose oneself entirely in the mathematics and begin taking the mathematics as the reality over reality itself. When the mathematics becomes overly complicated and abstract it fails, because the ability to visualize the concepts, devise practical applications and provide real demonstrations becomes lost. The reality the theories attempt to represent and model is lost in innumerable papers and theories, proposing this or theorizing that new perspective or new idea, so many that any hope to find the connections, the common elements, the grain of truth which runs through it all becomes buried and lost. Any of hope of simplification in such a vast conglomeration of information is lost. In order to ever hope of making any sense of it all, we must find this common thread, the recurring element, to construct unification and condense the knowledge.
It should always be remembered the goal of science is to understand our reality. If all we have is complex mathematics none but a few can comprehend, this does nothing for the broader dissemination of knowledge and understanding. Albert Einstein was attempting to give himself and others a simpler understanding of the world, not some incredibly abstract mathematical construction no-one but himself could understand. Other powerful minds, like Nikola Tesla, worked to improve the condition of humanity, and did so, without writing hundreds of papers and introducing convoluted mathematical formula. True science is not about personal wealth, serving some self centered goal of popularity and self promotion, but about childlike curiosity to know more about the world in which we live. Science is about discovering knowledge which can improve the state of humanity, to benefit the greater good, to improve all of civilization. This is the true purpose of science which seems lost on so many today.
Many today fail at understanding, because they are approaching the problem with the wrong goal in mind. For many, it is all about the promotion of MY great theory which will win ME the noble prize and guarantee I have a place in the history books. For many, it is not about the solutions or benefits that theory represents. Any unifying solution should bring humanity together, should help people understand what life is all about. No one seems to want to find a solution, simply for the sake of finding the solution and sharing it with the world.
Thus this document seeks to demonstrate the universal connection, seeks to find the simplest answer which solves the greatest number of problems, because the potential benefits to humankind are absolutely unfathomable. Our goal is unification rather than separation, condensation of knowledge rather than division, reduction of theory rather than introduction of new theory. We seek the common element, a thread which runs through everything, the most straightforward, far reaching solution which solves the greatest number of problems. Further we see the need to present this idea, not by utilizing pages of uncomprehensible mathematics but real world examples, clear visualizations, previous art, and experimental demonstration. Let those more advanced in mathematics develop the formulas and physical theories which model these concepts, while we ourselves stay grounded upon the idea of a simple, unification of the fields and forces of the Universe.
Can we sort through the immense pile of current knowledge and theory, and find a common element which ties everything together? Can we find the important piece of this puzzle which allows us to start connecting it all together? Can we entertain not only the idea of a unifying solution, but that it is actually a simple solution? Can we reach into the haystack and pull out the needle?
The Goal of the Unified Field Theory
The Goal of the Unified Field Theory
The theories of Albert Einstein and confirmations of other scientists lay down a framework within which we can understand the Unified Field theory and its implications. There exists direct, observable, real world applications and examples of a unified nature to our Universe. Although many physicists currently disagree, there exists considerable evidence to support the fact that Albert Einstein did indeed produce a completed form of his "Unified Field Theory For Gravitation and Electricity." as discussed in the Unified Field Theory section of this document. Perhaps the exact mathematical proof was not entirely worked out ( or we would say, not published ), but it was worked out to the point where Einstein himself considered it successful, it predicted observations and further it suggested practical experiments and real world application. That is, Albert Einstein's Unified Field theory, although today considered incomplete, was complete enough to suggest the possibility of a mechanism for mankind to control gravity using electromagnetic fields.
It has been ascertained one of the motivating factors for Albert Einstein's work on the Unified Field Theory was for his desire to develop some framework within which an advanced space propulsion system could be realized, especially a system which could overcome gravity or allow some means of exploring over vast interstellar distances. Thus Einstein was interested in the possibility of using electromagnetic fields to counter the force of gravity. The Unified Theory would lay down the mechanism and means by which such gravity control and ultimately new forms of space propulsion could be developed. A discover which would have set mankind on an entirely different space exploration path than the one we follow today.
At the time Einstein was working on these theories, we had yet to develop any means to explore space at all, rockets did not exist as a viable space technology when Relativity theory was released. It was not until after Relativity and Einsteins early work on the Unified Field Theory that the Germans began developed the V-2 rocket as the predecessor to modern space flight. The very first space satellite, Sputnik1, was not launched into orbit until 1957, many decades after the release of Relativity and Einstein's work on unification. Thus Einstein had early motivations to develop a better understanding of gravity so that we could master and control it, in order for mankind to begin exploring outer space. He legitimately felt there may be a way to use electromagnetic forces to either eliminate, overcome, produce or reduce the effects of the gravitational field.
One of Einstein's famous thought experiments questioned how exactly an electron can traverse immense distances both within and between atoms at such incredible velocities. In an electrical current, electrons were thought to move along the wire and with the discovery of quantum jumps of energy within atoms, electrons were thought to jump from one energy level to another almost instantaneously. Einstein's though experiment considered this motion on a macroscopic scale, which would be akin to our Earth traversing the distance to another solar system or jumping almost instantaneously to a new orbit around the Sun. Indeed within relativity it is impossible for any amount of electric forces to accelerate even the small mass of the electron to velocities near the speed of light.
We must also remember, at this time scientists were aware of only three fundamental fields of force in the Universe, the electric force, the magnetic force and the gravitational force. We could argue even today, these remain the primary or most fundamental forces defining our reality. At the time Einstein was developing the Unified Field theory, we were mastering the application of electromagnetic fields using the newly formulated relationship between the electric field and the magnetic field as unified in Maxwell's equations. It was entirely logical to consider there may be a similar relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic field, as there was between electricity and magnetism. This was the foundational precept for the pursuit of the Unified Field Theory.
We knew at the time, we could use a changing electric field to cause a magnetic field and the reverse was true. We could also use a changing magnetic field to produce an electric field. This was essentially a unification of the forces of electricity and magnetism, into one broader, simpler understanding. It was thus not a great leap to consider the possibility of some similar relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. Where maybe a changing electromagnetic field could produce a gravitational field, or a changing gravitational field could produce an electromagnetic field. Thus the gravitational field could be considered to be the third side of a triangular relationship where the electric field and the magnetic field were the other two sides. If such a relationship existed, its potential application could provide the means to control gravity.

To simplify, it is readily apparent to anyone, they can wrap some iron in a coil of wire, pass an electric current through that wire, and get a magnetic field. This magnetic field is in turn capable of attracting small bits of metal to it or redirecting the orientation of other magnets like a magnetic compass. We too can create a static electric charge and attract bits of material to it, like attracting bits of paper with a balloon which was rubbed upon ones head. Thus, we see direct evidence of the electric and magnetic forces in our reality, we can experience them, produce them at will and control them.
However, although we have direct experience with the force of gravity, when we trip and fall or throw object into the air, we do not have any ready means at our disposal to produce or control gravity at will. Is there some combination of electric and magnetic effects, which would allow us to also produce and control gravity at will? This is the real, physical realization which the Unified Field theory represents. The Unified Field theory can give us a simple practical explanation as to how to use the electromagnetic field, to control gravity.
We were at the time Einstein was considering these ideas, still in the midst of developing our electric grid, installing new electric motors, building huge electric generating plants and power distribution system and creating numerous applications and uses for the electromagnetic field. We were becoming very familiar with practical ways to physically engineer and develop real world apparatus and machinery using electromagnetic field physics, including radio and even radar was developed during this time. It was and still is, logical to consider there would be a connection by which we could utilize electromagnetic fields to also alter gravitational fields in some manner. Being that we have the technical expertise to manipulate electromagnetic fields this was the only method which provides any real world framework within which gravitational manipulation could even be accomplished.
If gravity can truly be over come, the only practical, engineerable method to do so is going to have to involve electromagnetic means regardless. What other forces could we to work with? We surely cannot build a purely mechanical or steam powered gravitational drive and it is highly improbable we will ever develop any means to use 'quantum mechanics" or the strong or weak forces, for gravity manipulation. Gravity manipulation or control would have to utilize electric and/or magnetic fields in some way. There is really no other forces we can control for this purpose.
Even today modern theories of gravity or Space/Time manipulation propose ridiculous concepts like the generation of negative energy, giant rotating masses or suggest methods of gravity propulsion without even defining some practical method to actually engineer these fantasies of imagination. Any proposed method to manipulate gravity must be accompanied by some real practical method to engineer it and for this the only real tool we have for achieving this, is our ability to control electromagnetism. Thus somewhere within electromagnetic theory is a connection with gravity, the problem is just to determine the form this connection takes.
Einstein's Path to Unification from Relativity Theory
Einstein's Path to Unification from Relativity Theory
Now that we understand more about the problems physics faces, why unification is so difficult and important, let us get back to understanding Albert Einstein's path to the Unification of Gravity and Electricity.
According to his recollections, Einstein (1949a, 73-75) had always considered his 1915 field theory of gravitation, the general theory of relativity, as nothing but a stepping stone toward a ‘unified field theory’, which would somehow integrate both gravitational and electromagnetic fields into a single field structure. - Marco Giovanelli
With his Theory of Relativity, Einstein put in place the keys required to solve his long standing puzzle of connecting electromagnetism to gravity. Knowing the concepts proposed by Relativity theory were true, is what allowed further progress towards unification and this was why Einstein spent so much effort to rigorously define and prove the concepts of Relativity theory. They were the required foundation upon which unification of gravity and electromagnetism needed to be built. If any of these precepts had been proven to be false, then Unification was not possible as he had originally envisioned. The critical components required to link electromagnetism and gravitational field were:
- The constant, absolute speed of light
- The principle of invariance of inertial frames of reference
- Energy/Mass Equivalence E=mc^2
- Inertial and Gravitational mass Equivalence
We must consider carefully, how these concepts apply to the idea of a unification of fields. Each precept leads one deeper down the path to understanding how a unification of fields could exist. It may not be immediately obvious why each concept is important. Thus we will detail, the connection and importance of each precept as it relates to potential unification, before presenting the final remarkable mechanism for unification itself.
Why the Speed of Light Important to Field Unification
One must think very deeply to understand what is really meant by an absolute limit to the speed of electromagnetic radiation to our Universe. We now know and accept the speed of light limit exists, but can we truly say why such a speed limit exists? The modern, egotistical physicist will spout off some abstract nonsense like "The speed of light exists because this is what causes length contraction and time dilation" or parrots previous explanations they heard, without ever truly understanding the real 'why' and significance of the Speed of Light. Why is the speed of light invariant to the motion of an observer? Truly grasping the reason for this notion, is absolutely critical to understanding the mechanisms of motion, mass, and gravitational field and how these concepts can be related to electromagnetism.
The difficult notion to grasp regarding the speed of light, is normally if one were to say fire a cannon from a moving train, in the direction of motion of the train, we would find the speed of the cannon would have additional speed due to the motion of the train. The speeds would add together. If we fired the cannon off the back of the train, we would have to subtract the speed of the train. However, it became obvious that such conclusions depended upon where one was observing and measuring such speeds. From the train, the cannon fires at its normal speed. From outside the train, the cannon would fire with the speed of the train added to its own speed.
However, with electromagnetic waves like light, this is not true. Light emitted from a moving body always has the speed of light. It doesn't matter whether it is emitted from the front or back of a moving train, it always leaves the train with the same exact speed. This notion, is important to understand what the electromagnetic field represents, to really understand what electric and magnetic fields are, and how they play a significant role in the transfer of energy and information in the Universe.
The Speed of Light, is the propagation speed of all electromagnetic waves in empty space. We find this speed limit, is fixed due to specific properties of space itself. These properties of space are the magnetic permeability of space and the electric permittivity of space. These properties are the degrees by which empty space can change due to a magnetic field or electric field. These constants of permeability and permittivity are properties of space and time themselves, which control the rate at which electromagnetic fields in space can interact with each other. This limits the rate of change which can occur in space due to electric or magnetic fields. Since energy and information is primarily conveyed through electromagnetic field, this limit effects all things. Thus we find in the invariance of the speed of light, a deeper notion as to some underlying, all pervasive properties or structure in the Universe, what Einstein called the "metric of Space/Time" and a rule which governs how fast the exchange of energy can occur within that structure.
Why is the principle of Invariance of Inertial Frames of Reference Important to Unification
The relativity of inertial reference frame is very important, primarily because we can dispense with the idea of any absolute reference frame in the Universe. This essentially says the Universe does not exist within some absolute all pervasive space or medium, like Newton and Maxwell thought. It has been proven there is no absolute ether or physical medium which we can measure motion against. We can only make observations and measurements in regards to something else which also exists within the Universe, our measurements are always relative to something else. Although the concept of an all pervasive Universal substance like the Ether seems to make the Universe easier to understand, no model of a physical ether has ever been developed which can explain the properties of the Universe successfully.
We like to consider a mass or particle, like a ball or object moving through space, as if space is some kind of place in which all the balls, objects and particles act, as if they are separate from each other and acting across some grand stage, but this is not the reality. Every volume and mass is its own reference frame and there is not one reference frame which supersedes or contains all others. Measurements are entirely dependant on from where we are observing or making our measurements and in regard to what we are measuring against.
The idea of an inertial frame of reference, comes from the idea of a frame of motion or rest, which is not experiencing any acceleration or change in its motion. This idea of inertial frames of reference being tied to the concept of acceleration is very important to understanding relativity and the Unified Field.
Consider someone dropping a ball onto a table on a moving train. To the person on the train, the ball falls straight down onto the table and once the ball stops bouncing on the table, the person on the train could say the train, the table, the ball and themselves are all at rest relative to each other. However to a person outside the train, watching the ball drop through a window, they see the train moving past, the person on the train moving, the table moving and the ball appears to fall in an arc as it is falling as it is moving horizontally with the train. An object which appears at rest in one reference frame, can be in motion from another reference frame.
What the invariance of inertial frames of references states, is the laws of physics are the same within every inertial reference frame. No inertial references frame can be considered more important or preferred over another. This is proven by the concept of the speed of light being invariant to the motion of the observer. No matter what inertial frame of reference you are in, you will always measure the same speed of light. This leads to the invariance of the physical laws of the Universe. A physical laws which holds true in one inertial reference frame, holds true in all inertial reference frames. Both observers can apply the laws of physics to calculate the path of the ball, and get valid and correct results, even though the way they calculate those results depends entirely on how they themselves are viewing the situation.
We can chose to make measurement from any reference frame we wish, and although the same laws of physics will apply to all those reference frames equally, the results of our measurements may change depending upon the position and motion from which we are making our measurements. The laws apply equally throughout the Universe, but the results and application of those laws may appear differently depending on how we are looking at it. The person on the train calculates the ball falls straight down to rest on the table. The person outside the train sees the ball follow an arcing path to end up on the table as it passes. They are in different inertial reference frames, yet they can both use the same physical laws of motion to predict the path of the ball correctly.
Thus we see how our vantage point, determines very much what we will observe and measure, despite the underlying laws and rules being the same everywhere. This concept and proof of the universality of physical laws, is what we would consider the most profound and deepest discovery in all of physics. Albert Einstein's ability to prove this notion, utilizing the constancy of the speed of light, shows his true genius. We see how all motion, is entirely dependent on its inertial frame of reference. We find the physical laws governing inertia and motion itself, are universal. Thus a Unified Field can apply to everything in the Universe.
The Importance of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy
The equivalence of energy and mass, points very strongly at a deep fundamental relationship between our ideas of motion, energy and mass itself. Despite not directly relating mass to electromagnetism, we see our concept of mass is measured using a relationship involving the speed of light. What we think of as physical mass or "solid" objects, can be considered to just be a concentration of energy. Here Einstein's demonstrates the idea that mass, matter or solid objects may not be what they appear to be.
We see that mass, is equivalent to energy, but what kind of energy is it? Energy of itself, is measured in Joules and need not be of a specific type, but is commonly converted into other forms, such as kinetic energy, potential energy, thermal energy or electromagnetic energy. When physicists speak of matter as energy, they do not really say matter is kinetic energy or electromagnetic energy, but the energy of matter is directly convertible into these forms. Thus we can even increase or reduce mass, by adding or subtracting these other forms of energy. A mass accelerating will have more mass than a similar mass not accelerating, due to the energy added from the acceleration. A hot object has more mass than a similar cold object. What Einstein found, was that accelerating an object to the speed of light was impossible, as the increase in the mass due to this added energy would become infinitely large. The speed of light, limited the speed of all objects, because the mass of objects was intimately tied to their energy.
Within the precepts of the Unified Field theory, Einstein considered the matter itself, or by equivalence the energy making up that matter, may merely be a field itself. This is a very important founding principle of the Unified Field theory, which proposes that matter is in reality only fields in Space/Time. Matter is not something which which moves through fields, carries fields or produces fields. Matter itself becomes a special form or combination of the fields themselves in Space/Time. The energy comprising matter, is mediated, contained or defined by the fields carrying that energy. Remember, what we think of as matter is mostly composed of empty space, so what really is matter?
The Importance of Equivalence of Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass
What we find next is the definition of inertial mass and gravitational mass as equivalent. Understanding the significance of this and why it is important is simple.
The significance of this concept is it changes gravitational field from a fundamental force, to just an acceleration like all other accelerations. The inertial mass, gravitational mass equivalence serves to take the gravitational field out of the equation so to speak, as we no longer need to consider gravitational field as a fundamental field of its own, but we can define gravitational field as merely an accelerating force due to some more general characteristics of Space/Time itself.
As we have discussed, the concept of inertia and inertial frames of reference is very important within relativity theory. Inertia is the resistance of mass to an acceleration, it is the resistance to any change in motion of mass. The more mass, the more inertia, the greater the resistance to a change in motion. The measure of this resistance to acceleration is the same whether it is forces of acceleration from a rocket motor or forces of acceleration due to gravitational field. Thus we find a critical connection between the idea of mass, the concept of gravity and the resistance to acceleration.
We could readily say, the more resistant a volume of energy is to a change in its motion, the more mass there is in that volume of energy. We start to see that matter, energy, inertia and gravity all seem to be connected at some fundamental level.
To better explain, consider the famous example of this is; "if you are say in a box accelerating at one g in space, and in a box resting on the surface of the Earth experience 1g of gravitational force, there is absolutely no way you can determine if your box is the one on Earth or the one accelerating in space". It is the inertial reference frame and acceleration which causes the force we experience as gravity. Within this concept, we can consider the force of gravity we experience on the surface of the Earth, almost as if the surface of Earth is accelerating upward. Thus there is may not really be a 'gravitational force' as we like to think of it but the appearance of gravity or something like gravity can happen whenever there is acceleration or a change in the motion of an object.
What we need to take from this when considering the Unified Field theory, is inertial and gravitational mass equivalence clearly define the very concepts of inertia and acceleration themselves. These are concepts fundamentally important to understanding the nature of gravity. Only by understanding acceleration and how it is conveyed, can we hope to understand gravity. Inertia as the resistance to acceleration, is intimately related to our concept of the force of gravity.
The Fundamental Characteristics of Force and Inertia
The Fundamental Characteristics of Force and Inertia
Consider this illuminating quote from Albert Einstein in discussing his Unified Field solution:
"Now, but only now, we know that the force which moves electrons in their ellipses about the nuclei of atoms is the same force which moves our Earth in its annual course about the sun and is the same force which brings to us the rays of light and heat which make life possible on this planet." - Albert Einstein
At first glance we might think Einstein is just talking about the force of gravity here, but on closer inspection we should realize he cannot be talking only about gravity. Gravity is not the force which moves electrons in ellipses around atoms, nor is gravity the force which brings us the rays of light and heat from the Sun. These are electromagnetic forces which are not related to gravity. Yet Einstein then mentions this same force as being responsible for the the motion of the Earth around the Sun, which we do attribute to gravity. When reading this quote, we should realize Einstein is talking about a force which combines the natures of the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force, he is describing one force which does all these things. What force is he describing here?
If we have two identical solid balls of matter, but one is in motion and one is at what we would consider at rest, what is the difference between those two objects? Relativity says if you are on either of those objects, you have no way to determine which one is in motion and which one is not, unless you use some additional external reference frame. Yet there is some inherent difference between these two masses, as they can be considered different inertial reference frames and they must possess different energies. The primary difference being the difference in their motion relative to one another. If there is no difference between them, than how can one be in motion and one not as this is clearly a difference?
For gravity to exist between these two objects, there seems to be some additional, inherent property of Space/Time which defines the inertial mass of these two objects and what it really means for one mass to be in motion relative to another mass. If we consider them at rest relative to one another, as a whole they may both be within some greater inertial reference frame which is in motion. Further when at rest relative to one another, they experience this mysterious force of gravitational attraction between them, causing them to accelerate towards each other, even when we consider them to be at rest. Gravity is like some 'force' which seeks to minimize the separation of inertial frames of reference themselves, as if it is some force which seeks to minimize any separation of energy itself.
We see how there are much deeper questions about the mediation of inertia, momentum and gravity which can be asked. Perhaps by exploring the foundations of these concepts, we can discover some simpler understanding or connection between them.
Having knowledge of the fundamental concepts Einstein introduced in Relativity theory, we see the remarkable insights regarding the speed of light, inertial frames of reference, acceleration, mass, energy and the universality of physical laws. We find the concepts of inertia and acceleration are very important within relativity and thus worthy of further exploration in the hopes of better grasping what the Unified Field theory represents. Lets now backtrack significantly, to examine in detail the fundamental physical laws of motion and acceleration as defined in physics.
Issues with the Unified Field Theory
Issues with the Unified Field Theory
Today established physics has all but given up entirely on Einstein's Unified Field theory, instead pursuing the path of Quantum Mechanics and the necessity for a theory of "Quantum Gravity". Again, the primary arguments against the possibility of a Unified Field theory, are the discoveries, or should we say introductions of two new 'pseudo' forces, the Strong and Weak nuclear forces. Further as pointed out in the following article, within General Relativity, Space-Time is considered a continuous, smooth field and yet within Quantum mechanics we find this inherent dependency on quantized, discrete values. These two concepts are entirely inconsistent with each other.
Thus established physics seeks to put Relativity and thus Gravity into Quantum mechanics, thus "Quantizing" gravity. This brings in all the inherent problems with this approach, having to include the Strong and Weak forces, problems with Renormalization and the introduction of absurd concepts such as multiple dimensions and and an ever increasing soup of 'elementary' particles. The answer is always just around the corner, if we only could build even more powerful, even more expensive super-super-duper colliders to keep probing deeper and deeper for the 'missing link' which just magically brings it all together again. Theory upon theory is added, which only adds more pieces to the final puzzle, or more accurately adds more puzzles to be assembled.
Key Issues with Einstein’s Unified Field Theory and Relevance to the Space Economy - from NewSpaceEcomomy.ca
Einstein, never agreed with this "Quantum Mechanical" approach to a final solution, nor with many of the theories and mathematical constructs of Quantum Mechanics. With further reading and investigation into the mechanisms and properties of the Unified Field, we will shortly understand better why this was the case. Einstein's approach was to define the appearance of discrete, quantized values, using the properties of the Unified Field, thus putting General Relativity into a broader even more general framework which included and explained the properties of quantum mechanics. Einstein was already certain he had resolved the Unification of gravity and electricity, and knowing this, Einstein knew quantum mechanics was a useful but ultimately impractical approach to a grand solution. Thus, rather than put gravity into quantum mechanics, or even to put quantum mechanics into gravity, Einsteins Unified Field theory sought to put Quantum mechanics and Gravity into an an entirely more general, unified framework.
"Physicists consider me an old fool but I am convinced that the future development of physics will depart from the present road."-Albert Einstein commenting on Quantum Mechanics
Although we can see today physics has most definitely not departed from their chosen road, we can see that this road has not been in any way successful at a simplification or unification of physics, instead serving only to further divide and complicate our understanding. Indeed, physics has so much momentum down this path of quantum mechanics, they are like a freight train barrelling down a hill with no breaks, towards the end of the line. Could modern physics even depart from the present road if they wanted too? Could modern physics even entertain the slightest, remote possibility that a better road exists, that a better, simpler solution than quantum mechanics even exists? Could anyone even turn established physics around if they wanted too?
Back to the Foundation: Mass, Force and Acceleration
Back to the Foundation: Mass, Force and Acceleration
At the heart of the problem, is the understanding of mass, forces and acceleration, as first investigated most thoroughly by Sir Isaac Newton. Through Newton's investigations, humanity was given a set of simple laws and formulas from which we could predict and explain the motion of objects and bodies around us. We found the foundation of the concepts of using physics and mathematics to understand the laws and rules which govern our reality.
Nearly all of physics can be described by only five basic equation. The first of these equations, is that which describes the idea of a Force itself, Newton's law which describes force as a mass times an acceleration. We then have a formula to describe gravity as the attractive force between two masses which decreases with the square of the distance between those masses. We have a very similar formula for electric charge, which determines the force between electric charges depending upon the square of the distances between those charges. The fourth formula is an equation describing the interactions between electric fields, electric currents and magnetic fields. The fifth formula is the wave equation. Utilizing these equations nearly all the forces and actions we are aware of in everyday reality can be described in physics. Of primary interest in this discussion, is this very concept of Force itself.
99% of physics explained in 5 equations Ali the Dazzling - Channel on YouTube
Can we revisit these ideas of force, inertia, action at a distance, Ether, fields, Space/Time and find perhaps some easier way to understand these ideas? Is there an Ether? Can we consider "force as a substance" as Faraday did? Again, can we find some common thread which helps us simplify and connect these different concepts together?
Newton's Laws of Motion
Newton's Laws of Motion
The important characteristics of Newton's theory is the fundamental concept of "force". Newton proposed that mass remained in its current state, either in motion or at rest, unless acted upon by a force. A force was required to change the state of motion of a mass. Any change in motion, was a change in velocity defined as acceleration. Acceleration is simply a change in velocity. Thus a Force is the acceleration upon a mass to change its velocity or motion. Thus Newton defined the original concepts of mass, motion, force and acceleration in order to define the motion of everything he observed around him.
Velocity
In Physics, motion or velocity is the distance a mass moves over a period of time, ( d/t ). How much distance an object travels over a certain amount of time. For example, we say the speed of a car is so many kilometers per hour, how much distance in kilometers a car would travel in one hour of time. If an object takes less time to travel a certain distance, its velocity must be greater. If it takes longer, its velocity must be less. Normally, when we speak of speed, we are speaking of what is known in physics as the average velocity over a certain period of time. You can use calculus to determine the exact velocity for a mass at any specific point in time, delta d/delta t.
.
Acceleration
In Physics, acceleration is the distance over the square of time, or delta d/delta t squared ( d/t² ). It may appear confusing to see the square of time, but what this describes is how much the velocity changes over time. Since velocity is a changing distance over time, acceleration is how much a changing distance over time, changes over time. Thus in acceleration we have time x time or time squared.
Force
In physics, a Force is defined as a mass times an acceleration.
F = ma
Force is the energy required to change an objects state of motion. When we change the velocity of an object, we must apply an acceleration. How much that velocity changes, depends on the mass of the object and the amount of acceleration applied, which is the force applied. Any change in the state of motion, always requires a force, thus all forces causing a change in motion are tied to this concept of mass and acceleration.
Newton's Laws of Motion
Sir Issac Newton's amazing contribution to science, was to define this relationship of mass, acceleration and force from which he developed three laws or rules of motion.
- A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.
- At any instant of time, the net force on a body is equal to the body's acceleration multiplied by its mass or, equivalently, the rate at which the body's momentum is changing with time.
- If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.
Inertia
Inertia
Closely tied to these ideas, we may even say at the heart of these ideas, is the concept of inertia. Inertia is defined by Newton's first law. An object may have a velocity, but so long as that velocity is not changing, there is no acceleration and thus no force being applied. It is only when we want to change an objects state of motion, that we encounter its inertia or resistance to that change of motion. This resistance to the change of motion is what requires a force of acceleration to overcome.
What we find though, is this concept of an object being at rest, is purely relative to the reference point we are observing it from. This is where Einsteins theory of Relativity expands in far more detail on these definitions of at rest and in motion. Do not be overwhelmed by the mention of Einstein and Relativity, what we are discussing here is quite straightforward and easy to understand.
When you think of an object at rest, lets say an apple on a table you are sitting at. We can say you and the table and the apple on the table are at rest relative to one another. This seems perfectly logical, the apple is not moving away from you or the table. Everything is sitting still at first glance, but is it really?
You and the apple on the table could be on a moving train and the train is on ground which is itself very slowly moving as tectonic motion, but also the entire surface of the Earth rotates every 24 hours. This rotation of the Earth means the surface of the Earth is moving at some 1600 km/hour. Not only this, but the Earth revolves around the Sun at some 108,000 km/hour, the Sun is travelling through space around the Galaxy at over 790,000 km/hour and the Galaxy is moving through space as well.
Clearly what appears to be something still and at rest in the Universe, is from a different perspective in complex motion. We could very easily completely eliminate this idea of anything being at rest, it is much more accurate to just say objects in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by some force.
Since the apple, the table and you are all moving with the same motion, it appears as if these things are at rest, but this is an illusion because you are moving with them in the same motion. This is an important concept to understand about motion, nothing is really at rest. This is the fundamental concept at the heart of Einstein's Relativity theory. We only see things at rest when they are compared to other things moving at the same speed.
You could even pass from one moving car to another as they raced down the road, so long as they were both travelling at exactly the same speed and thus at rest compared to one another. Stunt Between Two Moving Vehicles
We may now thus ask, why do objects want to stay in motion, why do they not slow down or just change motion of their own accord. Here, we find how the genius of Sir Isaac Newton defined the idea of a "force". To change the state of motion of any mass or object, requires a "Force" applied as an acceleration to the mass of that object. This force is a measure of the energy required to change the motion of an object or mass, against the force of resistance against that motion, its inertia.
If you want to pick up the apple, you need to expend energy to move your arm and lift the apple. A single apple is light, but if we were to lift a whole basket of apples, we would have to expend more energy from our bodies. We need to exert forces on these objects mass to move them from their current positions. This change in an objects motion, requires acceleration which is a change in velocity. Remember, acceleration is how much velocity, changes over time. How much the velocity changes, depends on how much mass we need to change the velocity of. Force is very simply how much energy is required for a mass to change its velocity. Thus a force is defined as an amount of mass times the amount it is accelerated.
The point here being, mass is very much related to this concept of acceleration and force. We tend to think of mass as how heavy something is, or how much of something there is, but it is important to consider it more as this measure which resists change, specifically a change of motion.
Gravity and Action at a Distance
Gravity and Action at a Distance
Sir Issac Newton brilliantly proposed an apple falls to the Earth, which is a change in its motion requiring a force, because the mass of the Earth is exerting a force on the Apple, the force of gravity. Newton then went on to develop a formula for the force of attraction between all masses. Thus even the apple exerted a force back upon the Earth, but because they were so different in mass, the force of the Earth was much greater. Thus even the Sun could exert a force upon the Earth, keeping the Earth in rotation around the Sun. It was the force of gravity which connected all mass in the Universe.
However, some questions still remained. A big question being, Why do objects with mass want to remain in their specific motion? Why do we need a force to change the velocity of a mass? This is a very deep question and even today physicists still struggle with a complete answer. Thus although we can successfully calculate the motion and forces on objects, physicist are still not in complete agreement as to the why, as to why forces are required to change velocity of mass.
The simplest answer seems to come from a fellow named, Ernest Mach who, in very brief terms, suggested the idea that the motion of mass is determined by its interaction with all the other mass in the Universe. Thus according to Mach, all mass experiences a resistance to a change in motion because it is somehow connected with all the other mass in the Universe. This makes sense, as clearly the apple, a table, the air and you are all touching the surface of the Earth, and the entire surface of the Earth is connected together into a globe. The object all move together and it makes sense it would take effort or force to break away from that connection.
Of course the real physics of Mach's proposal goes much deeper than this, but this idea does provide a rudimentary answer to why forces are required to change motion. It is because, everything around you wants to keep you moving along with it.
Except this explanation brings up another big question and points out a slight problem with these ideas, our Earth is separated from the Sun by a great distance through empty space. We can also consider, for an instant when you drop an apple, it is just falling through the air and not connected to anything. Thus in these situations we would not be in the wrong to ask, "What is connecting them together?" How can we understand how the surrounding mass is all connected together, which requires force to change the motion, when they might be separate by great distances in empty space? What is connecting the Earth and the Sun through space, so that they can influence each others motion? The problem became know as the problem of "action at a distance". Sir Isaac Newton puzzled over this very idea.
That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. - Sir Issac Newton
At the time, the belief was that empty space was not truly empty. Everything was considered to exist within a vast Universal substance. This substance was known as the "Ether" or "Aether". Newton was certain it was the Ether which connected everything together, conveying or mediating the force of gravity through empty space. Space was not empty, there was always the ether and everything moved within, through and because of the Ether. The force of gravity was conveyed from the Earth to the Sun, by the Ether. It was soon postulated, even light itself was conveyed by this Ether.
We will discuss the Ether is much more detail shortly.
Fields
Fields
Along side these ideas of forces between masses, other forces were being investigated. There were forces associated with magnets and electric charge, which were not dependent on mass, but on other very different properties. These electric and magnetic forces so too appeared to act over a distance between the objects so imbued with their power, so that a magnet could attract iron near it and a static electrically charged rod, could attract bits of paper or hair to it. Thus an explanation for "action at a distance" was required for not only gravity, but electric and magnetic forces as well.
Thus over time, scientists begin to describe the region of forces around an object as a "field", where a field was a measure of the forces at a point in space around an object. Faraday was the first to use this idea of a "Magnetic Field" to describe the forces in space around a magnet. It was thusly that the rudimentary idea of a "field" began to take shape.
The history of the field concept helps to understand what it means today. Here is a reference to Nancy J. Nersessian's paper "Faraday's Field Concept" where she says:
"The specific features of Faraday's field concept, in its 'favourite' and most complete form, are that force is a substance, that it is the only substance and that all forces are interconvertible through various motions of the lines of force." - Nancy J. Nersessian
So for Faraday and Maxwell, the field was seen as a substance responsible for transmitting the effects of force and so doing away with action at a distance. Thus we began to talk about all forces as being due to "fields" in space. There was an "electric field" which conveyed electric forces, a "magnetic field" which conveyed magnetic forces and a "gravitational field" which conveyed the force of gravity. Most scientists of the time thought of these "fields" as being physical properties of the underlying Ether and that the fields represented some condition of the Ether. Thus the fields were real physical properties of a substance which existed in empty space.
"We have therefore some reason to believe, from the phenomena of light and heat, that there is an aethereal medium filling space and permeating bodies, capable of being set in motion and of transmitting that motion from one part to another, and of communicating that motion to gross matter so as to heat it and affect it in various ways." - James Clerk Maxwell
Later, evidence began to mount that such a physical ether was not possible. This concept of a physical ether or ether as a medium was later discarded by Einstein and science due the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment among other evidence against it. Scientists began to talk about the gravitational field as a distortion or curve of Space/Time itself. Further it has been proposed, electromagnetic radiation requires no medium whatsoever to propagate, its fields in space entirely responsible for radiations ability to travel through empty space. Rather than speak of an "Ether" is space, science now speaks of the Universe as being composed of Space/Time, which is a definition of the fundamental mechanisms which operate in the universe. Space/Time is not a substance within which things act, but a definition of the actions themselves as being the reason for substance.
However, many scientist remain dissatisfied with the current state of physics and these explanations of fields and forces. There is still to this day, no satisfactory or all encompassing explanation or unification which thoroughly explains all the features of force propagation in the Universe. We find today different theories for the forces within atoms and the forces between cosmic bodies. The proposals of Quantum Fields which behave in completely unexpected and non-classical ways.
Can we revisit these ideas of force, inertia, action at a distance, Ether, fields, Space/Time and find perhaps some easier way to understand these ideas? Is there an Ether? Can we consider "force as a substance" as Faraday did? Again, can we find some common thread which helps us simplify and connect these different concepts together?
The Ether
The Ether
There is still today significant debate surrounding the existence of the Ether. Let us discuss in depth what the ether was, why the concept was dropped from science and what replaced it.
We know from personal experience, waves require a medium within which to move. The wave itself transfers energy, but the underlying medium does not move along with the wave. Consider for example people doing the wave is a sports stadium. The people do not run around the stadium to create the wave. Each person just stands up and sits down as they see the person beside them stand up and sit down. From the bigger view, we see a wave moving around the stadium, when the medium( the people themselves ) are just standing up and down in place. We get a similar effect when we have a row of lights, which turn on and off in sequence. It looks as though the light is moving down the row, when in fact nothing is really moving, we just have single lights turning on and off. Even with water waves, the actual atoms of the water are merely undergoing a circular motion, which causes a wave to travel across the surface of a body of water.
Thus from our experience, it is not unfounded to question, "When light travels through empty space, what is waving, what is propagating the wave?" Modern physics proposes the electromagnetic wave propagates itself, the electric field collapses creating a magnetic field, which in turn collapses creating an electric field, so light is said to propagate without a medium due to the generation and collapse of its own fields. This explanation is blatant and utter nonsense for numerous reasons, however the concept of an all pervasive substance within which everything acts is equally nonesense. Reality is much stranger than presumed.
This idea of waves without a medium has led to innumerable new theories as too how the ether should make a reappearance and endless discussions as to its properties, creation and how returning to the concept of an ether, will 'save' physics. Let's go very seriously and deeply into the ideas of an ether, and why the concept was abandoned.
Light is a transverse wave( light can be polarized is the experimental evidence confirming this ). It is proven in physics a transverse wave can only propagate through a solid medium. However, vacuum or empty space is what we would say and by all definition the complete opposite of solid. How can empty space carry a transverse wave? Thus early scientists were certain there must be some medium with various characteristics of a solid, throughout all space, the ether.
However, to propose a solid medium throughout the Universe, which is capable of propagating transverse waves can also be shown to be utter nonsense for numerous reasons. Why would such a medium not hinder the passage of matter, especially planets, stars and Black holes. Why can we not detect such an absolute, solid medium? Proponents for the Ether often cite the Michelson-Morley experiment as the primary evidence disproving the existence of the ether and how due to this or that difference in their approach they can demonstrate why this experiment failed to detect the ether.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is only the most well known experiment discussed to disprove the notion of the ether, but it is not the sole and only evidence against the idea of an ether. We can consider the numerous others who speculated upon and proposed solutions to the problem of the ether, before we can truly understand the difficulty of having an ether, and why the Michelson-Morley experiment is not the only reason to reject the ideas of an ether.
For we herein fully agree there is no ether throughout all space, yet we disagree with the notion of waves propagating without a medium. How puzzling. There is a solution which elegantly solves both of these contradictions, of which this entire work is based. Let us further define the problem and current state of the Ether.
We can find an excellent discussion and elaboration on the problems of the ether from Max Born.
Below from "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Max Born 1965 Dover Publications, revised and expanded from original English translation in 1924. Original was in 1920 in German.
It was obvious, and still is today, that "The Ether was necessarily a kind of elastic solid, for it is only in such a substance that mechanical transverse waves can occur ( p 108 )" Thus the possible constitution of the ether was considered in great detail. We had known equations for propagation of waves through solid mediums, which can be related to the forces on mass( pf ) related to their density( pb ). All laws of contiguous action in theoretical physics are of this type, even gravitational theory.
Thus it was discussed what constitution is required for the ether to behave in the way we require for light to propagate within it. "If we allow pb to approach zero or drop it entirely, so that the density of mass is extremely small, then displacements occur immediately between adjacent particles. Thus we really have the transmission of a force with infinite velocity, a true action at a distance. Nevertheless, the law of pf=0 appears in the form of a differential equation as a contiguous action. (p 113 )" and further "the concept of b is the relation of elastic rigidity over inertial resistance and determines the velocity of a wave in such a medium. (p114 )" We can further limit our considerations due to the known velocity of light so that "...it follow that c^2 = elastic rigidity / inertial resistance or c = square root of elastic rigidity / inertial resistance ( p115 )"
As we have previously mentioned, "in liquids and gases there is no elastic resistance to the lateral displacement of the particles, but only to the change of volume, e.e., compressions and rarefactions. Hence only longitudinal waves can propagate themselves in such substances( p115 )" and thus we must ask ourselves "Now what properties are to be ascribed to this elastic ether?....either that the elastic rigidity be very great or that the density of the mass be very small, or that both conditions hold simultaneously.... experiment cannot decide whether the vibrations of polarized light are parallel or perpendicular to the plane of polarization....( p 116 )"
We immediately run into some issues which are not easy to resolve as is explained further, "One obvious objection to the hypothesis of an elastic ether arises from the necessity of ascribing to it the great rigidity it must have to account for the high velocity of waves. Such a substance would necessarily offer resistance to the motion of heavenly bodies, particularly to that of the planets. ( p116 )" Many have considered this very problem, and have often come up with a very similar solution, so this is not new nor remarkable and has been considered at length. "Stokes ( 1845 ) tried to dispose of this objection by remarking that the concept of solidity of a body is in some way relative.( p 117) like pitch, a non-Newtonian solid." and thus as has been considered "Therefore the ether may function for light as an elastic solid and yet give way completely to the motion of the planets." but this supposed solution is not as clean an answer as we would like and under closer mathematical examination many failings are encountered, primarily as stated "( this leads to issues with velocities and wave types when waves refract at the boundary between two media )( p117 )" So the problem with the ether as a type of non-Newtonian solid is not viable.
Further, mathematical and speculative treatments were considered. "MacCullagh 1839 proposed an ether possessed of the property of opposing rotational motions of the neighbors around the central particle.. which was the ... forerunner of the electromagnetic theory of light.( p117 )" and this was discussed and considered at great length. "although the concept of displacement of electric charge are rendered certain for matter and molecules, the idea of a displacement in a free ether is purely hypothetical. there was considerable effort to find the mechanical model for the constitution of the ether.( p190 )"
Even radical departure from this concept of a solid, non-Newtonian material, although giving improved solutions did not solve the problems, "The rotational character of the relationship between electric currents and magnetic fields, and its reciprocal character, suggests that we regard the electric state of the ether as a linear displacement, the magnetic state as a rotation about an axis, or conversely. (p190 )" and it was considered not as transverse displacements but rotational torsions "In this way we arrive at ideas that are related to MacCullagh's ether theory. According to this the ether was not to generate elastic resistances against distortions in the ordinary sense, but resistances against the absolute rotation of its elements of volume." We find here the little clue as to the true solution, where a rotational resistance and considering the fields as characteristics of the ether, begins to appear.
Eventually, despite huge effort to make it work, no solution to the constitution of the ether giving the results required could be attained. It was not the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment which ended the idea of an ether, but this inability to mathematically describe the properties of the ether to explain the observations. Thus the concept of a mechanical ether was dropped, "..the utter failure and even the impossibility of resolving a mechanical explanation for the ether and thus the concept was dropped entirely in order for physics to proceed. (p191 )"
From this point on, physics dispensed with use of the ether as the medium for the propagation of light. The physicists concluded, "The state of the ether may be described by two directed magnitudes, which bear the names electric and magnetic strength of field, E and H, and whose changes in space and time are connected by Maxwell's equations. Under certain circumstances such an ether phenomenon produces mechanical, thermal, and chemical actions in matter that are capable of being observed. Everything that goes beyond these assertions is superfluous hypothesis and fancy."!!! ( p192 )" Except we would question here whether it is "superfluous and fancy" to point out "the state of the ether" is three dimensional and it is impossible to describe a three dimensional state with only "two directed magnitudes".
Thus we find ourselves in the predicament we are today, in which we have a wave propagating without a medium. Physics has resorted to considering the fields themselves as their own medium, like a car creating the road upon which it travels in front of it and tearing it up as it goes behind.
There were still attempts to find some rational mechanism for this process which was more palatable to the human mind, "... J.J. Thomson to infer that the inertia of a body must be increased by an electric charge which is imparted to it ( p210 )" and that "Hence the idea occurs that the electron has, perhaps, no "ordinary" mass at all, but is nothing other than an "atom of electricity," and that its mass is entirely electromagnetic in origin.( p211)" and evidence was found to support this notion, ".. on proceeding to higher velocities, a decrease of charge/electron mass ratio was found. (p212 )" That is they found that mass somehow increased with velocity approaching c which supported this idea of electron's not having "ordinary" mass. Here we see the attempted introduction of additional relationships of the electromagnetic fields to mass and inertia, the introduction of additional characteristics to make the whole idea rational and palatable.
Thus it was proposed that, "mass as the measure of the inertial persistence would no longer be a primary phenomenon as it is in elementary mechanics, but as a secondary consequence of the structure of the ether. ( p213 )" and that "Newton's absolute space, which is defined only by the mechanical law of inertia, becomes superfluous; its part is taken over by the ether whose electromagnetic properties are well known ( p213 )". Then the very idea upon which they touched, gets lost and the ether becomes only electromagnetic properties.
Thus it became possible for the electromagnetic fields themselves to be fields within the ether, "it seemed at this time there was the real possibility of forming a uniform physical picture of the world, which would reduce all forms of energy, including mechanical inertia to the same root, to the electromagnetic field in the ether. Only one form of energy , gravitation, seemed still to remain outside the system; yet it could be hoped that that, too, would allow itself to be interpreted as an action of the ether." Here they realize they excluded gravity from this concept, a state which remains to this day, yet they loosely consider the ideas of gravity and inertia as being an action of their ether, but only as a relationship to the electromagnetic field properties.
And it was herein where came the infamous Michelson-Morley Experiment of which all ether proponents claim as the deciding experiment against the existence of an ether, but it was not the only nail in the coffin, as we saw from the previous inability to ascribe the true mechanical properties of the ether and that impossibility. We cannot discount the tremendous effort of many brilliant minds in their attempt to ascertain the properties of the magical ether, yet all failed.
Finally, we came to the following conclusions and final statements in the book regarding the existence of an ether. "From now on ether as a substance vanishes from theory. In its place we have the electromagnetic field as a mathematical device for conveniently describing processes in matter and their relationships.* ( p224 )" However, there is one important and extremely relevant footnote to this entire discussion of the ether, from Albert Einstein himself;
Einstein in later years proposed calling empty space equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields the "ether", whereby, however, this word is not to denote a substance with its traditional attributes. Thus in the "ether," there are to be no determinable points, and it is meaningless to speak of motion relative to the "ether." Such a use of the word "ether" is of course admissible, and when once it has been sanctioned by usage in this way, probably quite convenient.
It is upon this final, important concept of the Ether as "empty space equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields" this current work focuses most intention. We find it is indeed very convenient and even we might say, eye opening and mind clearing to think of the ether in this way, as due to the fields in empty space. The ether is not a substance through which the electromagnetic field propagates, but seems to be tied to the idea of fields themselves. In this concept, the fields are the Ether.
We know the electric charge and magnetism are fields, but logically for them to propagate as waves, we must expect some kind of medium or ether upon which these waves move for our sanity to be restored. We know empty space has properties, such as permeability and permittivity, which limit the velocity of the electromagnetic waves. It is obvious and apparent, these properties of permeability and permittivity which limit the velocity of the electromagnetic field propagation, cannot be inherent in the fields themselves. These properties must exist in something external to the fields, external to the waves. For how could a field limit itself thusly, there must be something relative to the field to thusly limit its effect, to cause it to rebound or oppose its energy. However, as explained above, we cannot think of the ether as an ocean or medium existing throughout all of space, through which things move relative to the ether or there are any determinable points. Thus the idea of some physical medium or ether does not represent reality either.
Thus there is a unique and strange situation here. We need something like an ether which can have properties which limit the velocity of the electromagnetic waves, but this something does not physically exist throughout all space. How puzzling.
As Einstein suggests, it is quite convenient to consider the ether as a kind of field in and of itself, which can propagate forces of fields. The difficulty in recognizing the solution to this puzzle, seems to come from considering the primary field propagating through the ether, as either gravitational or electromagnetic. Could there not be and is it not logical, to consider the possible existence of a more fundamental field, which is common to both the gravitational and electromagnetic fields? Within such a concept, there is no static or absolute "ether" upon which fields oscillate, but the "ether" only comes into existence, when we have some change in motion or energy in space.
We repeat this notion or concept of reducing all forms of energy, including mechanical inertia to the same root
This fundamental field could very well behave as the Ether, but being a field, it in itself would likely be immaterial, have wave properties and distinct characteristics. This fundamental field would exist 'a priori' to the gravitational, electric and magnetic fields, as the common origin of all fields and they would all by extension then be related.
This is exactly the very idea behind Einstein's Unified Field theory, a common, single or one field, from which the other fields owe their existence.
We refer again to the following quote from Michael Faraday, the originator of the very concept of a magnetic field.
I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin - Michael Faraday. Experimental Researches in Electricity Vol.3 1855
Nikola Tesla's Concept of the Ether
Nikola Tesla's Concept of the Ether
We find the genius of Nikola Tesla important to any solid understanding of the Universe in which we live. Tesla was one who did not work in theory, but in reality, so his opinion on the subject is of interest always. Nikola Tesla had this to say about the Ether;
"What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether's properties. The ether has always been presented as an aero - form environment (gaseous). That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that the more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aero - form (gaseous) but the material world is an aero - form to the ether!
A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named, universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomenon gravitation. We can also feel ether's reaction when sudden acceleration or braking (inertia). The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense.
It can be compared with formation of blebs (air bubbles) in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within the material world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs (air bubbles) filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb (air bubbles). With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back in to the ether." - Nikola Tesla
Although Nikola Tesla's concept of the "ether" may seem contradictory to the previous explanation by Max Born, we see Nikola Tesla deeply understood the nature of the problem. He directly addresses the issue of a dense or solid "ether" as being required to propagate light at such high speeds, but that this must in turn prevent mass from moving unimpeded. He solves this contradiction with a remarkable approach, by suggesting it is the "mass" which is dissolute and immaterial, not the "ether". A very interesting and practical approach.
He brilliantly proposes that gravity is not a force as we think, but that gravity should be named a universal compression and it arises not from within matter, but from without due to matter being less dense than space. He brilliantly proposes it is the action of electric charge, which obstructs or counters this pressure in space.
Of course, as previously mentioned, we cannot admit the idea of a 'material' ether, yet we could, as we will see shortly, very well consider an additional field. Such a field would need to have the characteristics of a physical material, in that it is capable of exhibiting properties of extreme density through which electromagnetic wave motion can occur with extreme rapidity, but could not be truly physical. Such a field may also posses the character for regions to form of greater or lesser density of field, like air pockets or bubbles in water, which we measure as increased energy and mass.
Thus Nikola Tesla's concept of the ether, in a sense, inverts the whole of energetic physics. So that what we think of solid dense matter, is in reality region of low density of field and the regions of empty space are high density of field. Such an inversion of physics, does not break physics, it mirrors or flips physics. All principles would hold the same, just in a reverse, mirrored sense. What we find though is this perspective may be more conducive to understanding the reality of the situation.
Nikola Tesla once again shows his tremendous intuitive ability to grasp the mechanism of the world around him.
Electromagnetic Propagation of Momentum
Electromagnetic Propagation of Momentum
We will here discuss in significant detail the relationship between electromagnetic fields and momentum.
Through experimentation, we know the transfer of momentum and thus physical forces takes time and appears to be limited to the speed of light just like the propagation of electromagnetic wave do. When two solid objects collide, or even multiple solid object collide, like in Newton's Cradle, it takes time for the transfer of momentum through each object to the next. Newton thought the transfer of gravitational field was instantaneous, but we now consider gravitational field to propagate at the speed of light as well. If the transfer of momentum and force lies under similar propagation constraints as electromagnetic fields, is it possible there are other similarities?

Newton’s Cradle Doesn’t Work the Way You Think - The Action Lab on YouTube
We would like to begin this complicated discussion by here referring back to an answer to the question in the established physics section, which asked, "Explain why Fb = qv x B?" or more specifically, "Why is the force on a moving charge perpendicular to the electric field and perpendicular to the magnetic field?" as discussed in the section on established physics. The answer to this question is important to understand the relationship of momentum to electromagnetic fields.
The answer to these questions as we recall is, It is the motion or change of motion of charged particles which create electromagnetic energy. The actual motion of the charges, creates electromagnetic fields which propagate perpendicular to that motion. The motion itself, is always perpendicular to the electromagnetic fields related to that motion. The charged particle may move back and forth in one direction, but this causes a change in electric field, which extends into space in a direction perpendicular to that motion. The magnetic field created by this motion and the electric field, will thus be perpendicular to both of these.
Thus we find the motion of bodies, especially charged bodies or we would even say the charges which make up bodies, to be significant to understanding electromagnetic fields of force. Let us investigate this property of electromagnetic fields of force and the energy they mediate in much greater detail. To do so we will reference the Richard Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume two, section 17.4, which discuss in great detail the concept of Electromagnetic Momentum.
Richard Feynman on Electromagnetic Momentum
Richard Feynman on Electromagnetic Momentum
We here discuss supporting evidence for the idea of the Poynting Vector not only being the measure of momentum of electromagnetic field, but we begin to lay down the foundation of an understanding in which the Poynting Vector plays a far more significant role in the nature of reality than previously considered.
We begin by introducing a well documented 'paradox' proposed by Richard Feynman, the solution of which will appear further below.
In Sect. 17.4 of "The Feynman Lectures on Physics, V2", Feynman presents a "paradox."
A superconducting solenoid is mounted on a plastic disc that is free to rotate on a frictionless axle. Around the periphery of the disc are embedded small, charged spheres. A constant current initially circulates in the solenoid. The disc is initially at rest. There is a magnetostatic field.
As the solenoid temperature rises toward room temperature, the coil loses its superconductivity. At some temperature the current begins to drop toward zero. dB/dt is nonzero as the current drops, and a circulating E field is induced. Each charged ball experiences a tangential electric force. There is a nonzero torque, and the disc begins to rotate.
According to Feynman, here is the paradox: the initial angular momentum is supposedly zero, and hence the final angular momentum should also be zero.
The article on the electromagnetic mass of a solenoid reveals the source of the confusion. The initial solenoidal current has a nonzero moment of inertia. Hence the initial angular momentum is not zero! The final angular momentum of the entire apparatus is partly due to the torque exerted by the solenoid on the disc as its current drops, and partly due to the induced emf on the peripheral charges.
We can simplify Feynman's apparatus by dispensing with the charged balls. Again we suppose that the solenoid is initially superconducting and has a constant current per unit length (or constant, nonzero I enclosed). Approximating the electromagnetic mass per unit length with that of an infinitely long solenoid, we can estimate the initial angular momentum. When the superconductivity is lost and the current begins to drop, the disc will begin to rotate.
Maxwell was aware of the inertia-like character of electric currents. In Article 547 of "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" he quotes Faraday: "...the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire." - Faraday
An important aspect of the induction phenomenon pertains to the "self" (or reactive) force/torque experienced when the momentum of an electric current changes in time. In the variation on Feynman's apparatus suggested above it is the "self" torque, experienced by the dropping solenoidal current in its own, (angular) acceleration-induced electric field, that physically accounts for the torque passed on to the plastic disc. Lenz's law is, in one respect, a more general consequence of reactive forces and torques.
It is noteworthy that the angular momentum of a solenoid is not simply the sum of the angular momenta of the individual, circulating charges (or, as we now know, conduction electrons). For when I enclosed is varied in time, the electrons experience interactive forces from the other electrons, in addition to their own "self" forces. The relative magnitude of these interactive forces depends upon the circuit's geometry. A solenoid consisting of a kilometer of wire has significantly greater electromagnetic kinetic energy than does the same wire stretched out in a straight line.
The interactive forces are most dramatic when N charges, each with electromagnetic mass m(ElecMag), are superimposed. In this extreme (and idealized) case, the apparent electromagnetic mass of the collection is not simply Nm(ElecMag). For each charge experiences not only its own, acceleration-induced electric field; it experiences the acceleration-induced electric fields of all the other charges as well. The apparent electromagnetic mass of any one charge is not simply m(ElecMag); it is Nm(ElecMag). And the apparent electromagnetic mass of all N charges is N times this amount, or N2m(ElecMag)!
Maxwell appears not to have appreciated the role of interactive forces in a current's momentum, perhaps because the particulate nature of electricity hadn't yet been discovered. In his mind, 'momentum' is an intrinsic property of a physical entity, independent of other entities in the environment. Thus he believed that the total momentum of a system is the sum of the momenta of its constituent parts. In Article 549 of his Treatise he states, "...if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form..." " - From: Feynman's "Paradox" and Electromagnetic Moments of Inertia
From the Feynman Lectures 27 Field Energy and Field Momentum;
The Poytning Vector can be considered as a local law of energy conservation of electromagnetic fields. Energy Density/Rate of change = Change in Energy Flux through a unit area perpendicular to the flow. However, electromagnetic fields can act over a volume and also with mass, so this becomes:
- ( Energy Density/Rate of Change) = Change in Energy Flux + E x j
This can be further converted until we arrive at Poynting's vector
u = (e0/2)E x E + ((e0 x c^2) / 2)B x B
S = e0 x c^2 x E x B
Where S is the Poynting Vector.
Feynman states, ( emphasis added )
"There are, in fact, an infinite number of different possibilities for u and S, and so far no one has thought of an experimental way to tell which one is right! People have guessed that the simplest one is probably the correct one, but we must say that we do not know for certain what is the actual location in space of the electromagnetic field energy." - Richard Feynman
and he further elaborates on this:
"It is interesting that there seems to be no unique way to resolve the indefiniteness in the location of the field energy. It is sometimes claimed that this problem can be resolved by using the theory of gravitation in the following argument. In the theory of gravity, all energy is the source of gravitational attraction. Therefore the energy density of electricity must be located properly if we are to know in which direction the gravity force acts. As yet, however, no one has done such a delicate experiment that the precise location of the gravitational influence of electromagnetic fields could be determined. That electromagnetic fields alone can be the source of gravitational force is an idea it is hard to do without. It has, in fact, been observed that light is deflected as it passes near the sun—we could say that the sun pulls the light down toward it. Do you not want to allow that the light pulls equally on the sun? Anyway, everyone always accepts the simple expressions we have found for the location of electromagnetic energy and its flow. And although sometimes the results obtained from using them seem strange, nobody has ever found anything wrong with them—that is, no disagreement with experiment. So we will follow the rest of the world—besides, we believe that it is probably perfectly right." - Richard Feynman
This is exactly the problem we are considering and discussing here. We see in Feynman's comment this hint of the desire to somehow connect the theory of gravitational attraction, to the energy of light. That there is such an effect of gravity upon electromagnetic field, is well established. The question, as Feynman points out is not whether it exists, but where the gravitational effect upon the light resides? Feynman asks, "What specific part of the electromagnetic field of light, is attracted by gravity?" For if we could ascertain this, we would have a very important clue to the connection between gravity and electromagnetism. This is exactly what we seek.

Path of light from a star, curved by the gravity of the Sun
Feynman clarifies this problem further by considering the action of gravity on light, in a classical sense. There is no question, the path of the electromagnetic wave or photon is curved. Established physics currently states this is entirely due to the Space/Time itself at that location being curved, but we should still be able to determine some classical notion of forces between the Sun and the electromagnetic wave or photon. As Feynman states, Do you not want to allow that the light pulls equally on the sun? Thus there must still be a way to interpret classical forces between the two.
If we consider the Space/Time around the Sun curved due to gravity and that this is solely responsible for light's path past the Sun, it seems we are ignoring Newton's law of motion here, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Can we say that the Sun is attracting or curving the electromagnetic wave or photon, but the reverse is not true? Such an idea is puzzling and contradictory to our understanding of physics.
If light's path is bent in passing through the gravitational field of the Sun, then from the classical perspective, we would expect some opposite force from the electromagnetic waves or photon on the Sun( which of course would be exceedingly weak). This ability of light, to not only be effected by a gravitational field, but to itself posses a gravitational field, is not currently considered. This classical interpretation is not the normal approach, as Feynman points out.
What scientists say today, is the Space/Time itself is curved by gravity and light just follows this curved path. However, within the relativistic theory explanation, we should still require that the classical ideas of an equal and opposite force, that gravity is a force between two masses, cannot just be disregarded. The classical interpretation of this interaction between the Sun and the Light must still hold true. Of course, it is this classical interpretation of the gravity of an electromagnetic field, which would be most interesting to us as it could provide a simpler way to understand or apply such a relationship in reality.
Scientists consider this classical idea of the gravity of light to be disagreeable, because a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is not known. Electromagnetism is not considered to have or be related to a gravitational field. If we could just say electromagnetic field has gravitational field, then this whole unification conundrum would have been solved easily long ago. There is something missing from our understanding of the gravitational action upon light. Perhaps, we should ask, "If the gravitational force of Sun on light and light on Sun is not electromagnetic, than what property of electromagnetism mediates the gravitational force upon electromagnetic field?
Indeed, we find Feynman hints at this exact question when he states, As yet, however, no one has done such a delicate experiment that the precise location of the gravitational influence of electromagnetic fields could be determined. - Richard Feynman
Light is Heavy - M.B. van der Mark and G.W. ’t Hooft. Van A tot Q, NNV, November, 2000
At this point, it is not a great leap to propose the mediation of the gravitational force from an electromagnetic wave or photon, is something separate from the electromagnetic fields themselves. Indeed, this situation is required to maintain the current separation between electromagnetism and gravity. What we are finding in Feynman's lecture, are subtle hints there is more to the momentum and energy of electromagnetic energy than at first appears. What we find on further investigation, is we can find even deeper and greater significance to this notion of the momentum of electromagnetic field.
The Direction of Energy Flow of Electromagnetic Fields
The Direction of Energy Flow of Electromagnetic Fields
Let us examine even further, the nature of the momentum and energy of electromagnetic fields to see if there is deeper significance to this idea.
Another interesting point Feynman makes within this lecture is the following, when he is discussing the energy flow into a charging capacitor:
"But it tells us a peculiar thing: that when we are charging a capacitor, the energy is not coming down the wires; it is coming in through the edges of the gap. That’s what this theory says!"
We see in Figure 27-3 the direction indicated by the Poynting vector S, is inward into the charging capacitor, from the sides, not in any direction of the electric or magnetic field. Thus it appears like the dimension occupied by S, the Poynting Vector, is the real dimension through which energy transfer occurs. It is not in the direction of the electric field or the magnetic field, but in a direction perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic field.
We can further see evidence of this as the energy flow from a power source is outward into the space, and from space into the load and wires of a circuit. The Poynting vectors of a battery are outward, but the Poynting vectors are inward into a light bulb or wires of the circuit. This is very contrary to how many think of electromagnetic energy transfer, but true nonetheless.

Figure 27–3 Near a charging capacitor, the Poynting vector S points inward toward the axis.
We see in Figure 27-5 the energy flowing in a wire, is not coming from the flow of charge in the wire, but again through the direction Poynting vector S which is inward into the wire. The direction of energy flow in a wire carrying electricity, is perpendicular to both the electric field and the magnetic field.

Figure 27–5 The Poynting vector S near a wire carrying a current.
Lets explore additional examples of the Poynting Vector and the transfer of momentum by electromagnetic field from Feynman's lecture.
There is another case of a static charge near a static magnetic field, which is discussed by Feynman.
"Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Figure 27–6. Everything is at rest, so the energy is not changing with time. Also, E
and B are quite static. But the Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because there is an E×B that is not zero. If you look at the energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere—everything which flows into one volume flows out again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets! - Richard Feynman

Figure 27–6 A charge and a magnet produce a Poynting vector that circulates in closed loops.
Feynman continues his explanation of this case:
"Perhaps it isn’t so terribly puzzling, though, when you remember that what we called a “static” magnet is really a circulating permanent current. In a permanent magnet the electrons are spinning permanently inside. So maybe a circulation of the energy outside isn’t so queer after all." - Richard Feynman
Thus Feynman points out here, the "static" case of a static magnetic field, is in reality a permanent current within the magnet. A current being a flow or dynamic case of electric charge.
Feynman further goes on to say:
"You don’t need to feel that you will be in great trouble if you forget once in a while that the energy in a wire is flowing into the wire from the outside, rather than along the wire. It seems to be only rarely of value, when using the idea of energy conservation, to notice in detail what path the energy is taking. The circulation of energy around a magnet and a charge seems, in most circumstances, to be quite unimportant. It is not a vital detail, but it is clear that our ordinary intuitions are quite wrong." - Richard Feynman
However, we would point out it is this exact dismissal of this so called "unimportant" detail, which is in fact very important to understanding the relationship of electromagnetic field to momentum and thus to gravitational field. If we are not thinking about the flow of electromagnetic energy correctly, then how can we possibly hope to understand the relationship of that electromagnetic energy to anything else, like gravity? This is akin to saying, airplanes don't use aerodynamics to fly, they fly by magic, so don't trouble yourself wondering about aerodynamics. How ridiculous of a professional physicists to say such a thing. That is unless he was dropping another subtle hint as to what is truly important here. If our intuitions are quite wrong, as Feynman states, then perhaps we should reconsider our intuitions and determine the proper understanding.
We should here provide another excellent example, of this strange notion of energy flow of the electromagnetic field not being in the direction we think it is, as the concept is definitely confusing.
If this were true, that the energy of electromagnetic field travels through a entirely separate direction than the electromagnetic fields themselves, we would expect an unusual situation. If we had a light bulb and a battery, only some half meter apart, but the wires connecting the battery to the light bulb, were some kilometers long in either direction, how fast would the light turn on when the circuit is completed? Would it take the time for the electric charge to flow the distance in the wires, some kilometers of length or would it take only the half meter distance between the light and battery. The remarkable reality is, it takes the time required for the energy to travel the half meter between the light and battery, not the time it would take for the energy to travel the kilometers of distance through the wire. This is extremely counter-intuitive, but this is the reality we detect with experiment.
This exact idea is what is being discussed in Veritasium's video "The Big Misconception About Electricity" where he demonstrates that electrical energy does not flow in wires. Veritasium even references the same Faraday Lecture we are referencing here. This video has caused a great deal of uproar online due to it being so contradictory to our understanding of energy flow in wires. However, this experimental demonstration proves the reality of this situation, despite our confusion.

The Big Misconception About Electricity - Veritasium on YouTube
Due to the controversy and confusion surrounding his first video Veritasium, they released a follow up video showing actual measurements of this result. This proved without any doubt the reality of the energy transfer, not occurring down the path of the wires.
How Electricity Actually Works - Veritasium on Youtube. Follow up to video "The Big Misconception about Electricity.
Some interpretations of this effect, suggest the transfer through space is still due to charge transfer between the wires but this is exactly what we are pointing out. The direction of energy transfer in electrical systems, is not in the directions we would think it is. The real direction of energy transfer in electrical circuits is perpendicular to the direction of current flow. The "force" is happening perpendicular to the direction we thought it was. This is the misconception which leads to a better understanding of the real mechanism of all forces having a common origin.
Let us clarify and simplify what we are demonstrating and discussing here.
We are seeing in this discussion and these examples, a three dimensional arrangement of the properties of electromagnetism. The electric field acts through one direction of space, lets us say the electric field acts along the X axis. The magnetic field acts through another direction of space, perpendicular to the electric field, lets say the magnetic field acts along the Y axis. However, the energy flow of the electromagnetic field is acting in a different direction again, along an axis which is perpendicular to both the electric field and magnetic field. We can say the field of electromagnetic energy, represented by the Poynting vector, is acting on the Z axis of space.
The energy of electromagnetic fields, is carried along an entirely different direction than the electric and magnetic forces of the electromagnetic fields themselves! Thus the real force of electromagnetic field interactions, is always perpendicular to the directions of the electric and magnetic fields causing that force.
Electromagnetic Fields Have Momentum
Electromagnetic Fields Have Momentum
Finally, we find an important calculation from Faraday's Lecture where he shows how to calculate the momentum of the electromagnetic field. This is the remarkable relationship we are looking for, a relationship between the Poynting vector of electromagnetic fields and the momentum of the fields themselves. This is important to understanding the Unified Field theory because a change in momentum is an acceleration and thus we find that electromagnetic fields, can convey not only momentum, but by extension, forces of acceleration.
"There is an important theorem in mechanics which is this: whenever there is a flow of energy in any circumstance at all (field energy or any other kind of energy), the energy flowing through a unit area per unit time, when multiplied by 1/c2 , is equal to the momentum per unit volume in the space. In the special case of electrodynamics, this theorem gives the result that
g is 1/c2 times the Poynting vector:
g = (1/c^2) x S
So the Poynting vector gives not only energy flow but, if you divide by c2 , also the momentum density. " - Richard Feynman
And therein in Sect. 27_6 of "The Feynman Lectures on Physics, V2", we find Feynman's "grande finale" answer to his original 'Paradox' proposed at the beginning of the lecture;
"Do you remember the paradox we described in Section 17–4 about a solenoid and some charges mounted on a disc? It seemed that when the current turned off, the whole disc should start to turn. The puzzle was: Where did the angular momentum come from? The answer is that if you have a magnetic field and some charges, there will be some angular momentum in the field. It must have been put there when the field was built up. When the field is turned off, the angular momentum is given back. So the disc in the paradox would start rotating. This mystic circulating flow of energy, which at first seemed so ridiculous, is absolutely necessary. There is really a momentum flow. It is needed to maintain the conservation of angular momentum in the whole world." - Richard Feynman
The paradox serves to demonstrate that electromagnetic field's alone, can impart acceleration and thus momentum upon physical mass. There is no physical force causing the disc in the paradox to rotate. The force is applied purely from the momentum of the electromagnetic field. Further this force, is in a direction which is perpendicular to the direction of the electric field and also perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field.
We find this concept of a "momentum flow" to be extremely interesting. The calculation of a momentum density of fields in space and that this energy acts along an entirely different direction of space than the electromagnetic fields themselves, is immensely interesting and especially significant. Through it we can understand momentum and the mediation of force in an entirely unique and different way.
What we need to take from this is:
Electromagnetic Fields have momentum.
Examples of Electromagnetic Propagation of Momentum
Examples of Electromagnetic Propagation of Momentum
We previously discussed the transfer of momentum from electromagnetic energy. To further our understanding and to establish the deep significance of this concept, we will here provide numerous examples of this concept which occur in reality. We can demonstrate such a concept in reality, other than through simple diagrams showing the direction of energy transfer for simple electromagnetic circuits.
If there is further doubt of a relationship between momentum of electromagnetic fields and the Poynting Vector, we need only refer to back to this quote.
"There is an important theorem in mechanics which is this: whenever there is a flow of energy in any circumstance at all (field energy or any other kind of energy), the energy flowing through a unit area per unit time, when multiplied by 1/c2 , is equal to the momentum per unit volume in the space. In the special case of electrodynamics, this theorem gives the result that
g is 1/c2 times the Poynting vector:
g = (1/c^2) x S
So the Poynting vector gives not only energy flow but, if you divide by c2 , also the momentum density. " - Richard Feynman. The Fenyman lectures 27-6;
If electromagnetic fields can propagate momentum we should be able to demonstrate this. Of course such demonstrations exist and are well known. We have well established knowledge for creating and manipulating electric and magnetic fields, utilizing the Lorentz equation, as electric motors and electric generators. We convert electromagnetic fields to motion in electric motors and we convert motion into electromagnetic fields with generators. It is logical to consider constructing some apparatus which demonstrates the ability of alternating electromagnetic fields, as we see in electromagnetic waves like light, to produce accelerating forces upon some medium. We would see in such a device a macroscopic real representation of the ability of electromagnetic fields to directly convey momentum.
There is a great deal of additional evidence for the momentum which is carried with electromagnetic fields and the ability of this electromagnetic momentum to "physically" act upon matter. These concepts although possibly unfamiliar to the reader, are well established in physics. We will demonstrate additional cases of the real practical application of electromagnetic momentum.
This quote discusses the truly remarkable power of the momentum of electromagnetic fields, as it is applied in the operation of a nuclear weapon.
"In January of 1951, all design problems were solved by the single unexpected innovation of radiation implosion. Rarely in the history of technology has such a seemingly daunting problem turned out to have such a nifty solution. Stanislav Ulam’s idea of imploding the entire secondary, plus Teller’s idea to do the job with radiation, changed everything. Fusion didn’t need to propagate; it could be forced. To use x-rays from an exploding nuclear bomb to envelop and highly compress another more powerful nuclear bomb was immensely clever, and for nearly three decades completely unknown to the general public. It was not, however unknown to bomb designers in Russia, Britain, France, and China, who built H-bombs during this period.
The notion that x-rays could move solid objects with the force of thousands of tons of dynamite was beyond the grasp of the science fiction writers of the time.
It was quite satisfying to the privileged few who knew about it, especially to “cleared” politicians who were members of this new nuclear priesthood. Radiation implosion became the cornerstone of the Cold War temple of secrecy, and the secret password to its inner sanctum. In engineering terms, this weird and wonderful secret allowed for the exploitation of several known features of nuclear bomb materials which heretofore had eluded practical application. " - Born Secret - Federation of American Scientists by H Morland, 2005. CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, VOL 26, NO 4, MARCH 2005, PP. 1401-8. 1401. BORN SECRET.
Further reference to the reality of electromagnetic momentum. Radiation Implosion - Wikipedia
We find additional evidence for this mechanism to be true, in the field of space propulsion, in the development of Solar Sails. A solar sail or light sail would be a satellite or space probe which unfurls a large area of foil or material to act as a sail to catch the "light" from the sun and thus use the momentum of this light to propel itself. Although this thrust is very low, for a very small and light spacecraft exposed to this thrust over a long period of time, its resultant velocity could become quite high.
For a LightSail spacecraft with a sail of total area of 32 m^2 and a total mass of 5.0 kg. Near the Earth if it was exposed to light from the Sun for 1 year, it could reach a velocity of nearly 6600 km/h. Utilizing only the forces of light shining on it from the Sun, a LightSail can reach very high velocities.

The Lightsail 2
This concept of light being able to apply pressure is well known and had been studied at length, even for the purposes of building a Photon Rocket. It is interesting the physicists chose to call this effect, "Radiation Pressure" as this is exactly what we are implying it is. The electromagnetic field is related to the concept of pressure more fundamentally than the scientists realize as we will discuss shortly.
Radiation Pressure - from Wikipedia
We find even more additional evidence demonstrating the reality of electromagnetic fields carrying momentum and being able to impart that momentum to physical matter, in the "photoelectric" effect. This is the case where light impinging on metal, can cause electrons to be ejected. The force of momentum acting upon the electrons of the atoms, imparted them with additional kinetic energy sufficient for them to escape or break their attraction to the atom of which they were apart. The light is transferring a physical force to the mass of the electron.
Photoelectric Effect - Byjus.com
The Photomolecular Effect - The PoytningVector.substack.com. It has been discovered, light can even cause the evaporation of a water molecule directly through an effect similar to the photoelectric effect. The light was determined to not be heating the water causing it to be evaporated, but it was giving the molecule sufficient energy directly for it to break the molecular bonds with its neighbors and be ejected.
One may at this point question, why is this discussion so interested in the momentum of electromagnetic fields, when we are after a unification between gravity and electromagnetism. Surely, Albert Einstein was not aware of this concept of electromagnetic momentum, the Poynting Vector and the Lorentz force connection. However, what we find is not only was Einstein aware of this connection, but that he was intimately aware of it. Remarkably, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard themselves built just a device, called the magnetohydrodynamic "Alternating Current Conduction Pump", which very effectively demonstrates that alternating electromagnetic fields can produce linear motion in a medium.
Figure 1
Alternating Electromagnetic Field
Figure 2
Plot of Lorentz Force of an Alternating Electromagnetic Field
Figure 3
Rotating Electromagnetic Field and Resulting Momentum Force
A very counter-intuitive point we must understand regarding electromagnetic fields and their associated momentum is the following:
When the Vector E( Electric ) field reverses, the vector B( Magnetic ) field does too, and the force is again in the same direction. - From: Momentum and Radiation Pressure - Phys.Libretexts.org.
See Figure 1 which shows a simple animation of this important point. We would tend to think, because the electric field and magnetic fields are oscillating or alternating, the resulting momentum or Lorentz force would also be alternating, but this is not the case.
In reality, the electric and magnetic fields can both flip or reverse, but the Lorentz force stays in the same direction. The animation in Figure 1 shows this visually, that due to the orientation of these three forces in space, two can alternate back and forth or oscillate, while the third just remains in the same direction. We can show this relationship on three axis, as in Figure 2. We should also note, that this alternation or oscillation, is just another way of describing rotation, thus the example in Figure 3 is an identical situation. Rotation plotted on an axis, traces a sinusoidal path, as in Figure 4, which is the same as our alternating fields we get from alternating current. Thus all three of these diagrams, Figure 1, 2 and 3 are equivalent.
Figure 4
Circular Motion Traced to A Sinusoidal Wave
We can even consider the case where the electromagnetic fields rotate, as this is entirely similar to the case where the electromagnetic fields alternate. We know an alternating wave, traces a sinusoidal path. We also know a point on a rotating body, can trace a similar sinusoidal path. The two motions are related and equivalent. We see in the following diagram, how the Lorentz force produced from a rotating electromagnetic field, is always in the same direction. Although the electromagnetic fields vibrate, alternate or rotate, the direction of the Lorentz force is unchanged.
Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard knew this relationship intimately. They utilized it to design and construct their "Alternating Current Conduction Pump". Although the pump is powered with alternating electric power, it produces a unidirectional force upon the liquid it is pumping. This is without any rectification or change of the alternating power to make it direct current. It works simply by understanding the concept that alternating electromagnetic fields, can produce linear forces or momentum.

Figure 5
Alternating Current Conduction Pump
Original image credit,"The Handbook of Electromagnetic Pump Technology",by Richard S. Baker and Manuel J. Tessier.Elsevier.
As shown by the magnetohydrodynamic alternating current conduction pump, Figure 5, even though an electromagnetic field is an alternating oscillation, it can produce unidirectional, pulsing forces of acceleration. Although this force pulses, the pulses are in the same direction. One can readily demonstrate this to themselves using the right hand rule for electromagnetic fields. If the direction of both the magnetic and electric fields are switched, the resultant force will be in the same direction. Counter intuitive but true nonetheless. We can see a simple demonstration of this concept, in Figure 1 and Figure 3, although the fields are alternating or rotating, the resulting Lorentz force remains in the same direction. Although the electromagnetic fields in this pump are alternating, the resulting Lorentz force is always in the same direction.
An article about Leo Szilard who worked with Albert Einstein to develop the Alternating Current electromagnetic pump. Leo Szilard the Inventor
An article discussing the Refrigerator designed to utilize this electromagnetic pump. The Einstein-Szilard Refrigerator - Invention Stories by the Smithsonian
The Einstein-Szilard Refrigeration Patent The Einstein-Szilard Refrigerator - Invention Stories by the Smithsonian
When we more closely examine the electromagnetic fields occurring in this unique pump, we find it produces the same exact relationship of electromagnetic fields to momentum as we see in propagating electromagnetic waves. The alternating current conduction pump creates electromagnetic fields which vibrate or alternate at right angles to each other but also at right angles to the direction of the resulting motion or momentum. This is word for word the description of the propagation of electromagnetic waves.
"A light wave consists of energy in the form of electric and magnetic fields. The fields vibrate at right angles to the direction of movement of the wave, and at right angles to each other."
Light - from HowStuffWorks.com
Thus we see an important correlation and connection here, between the macroscopic electromagnetic fields of the alternating current conduction pump causing forces of momentum, and the microscopic electromagnetic fields of light which have momentum. However, we see the momentum of both is calculated and considered in different ways. The momentum is calculated as the Lorentz force in the pump and in the case of light it is calculated using what we call the Poynting Vector. We find the Lorentz force of electromagnetic fields is intimately tied to the Poynting Vector of electromagnetic fields. There is an implication here, of the possibility of a more general case, for the calculation of momentum from electromagnetic fields.
It is very interesting to note the mathematical equation at the foundation of electric motors and generators, the equation utilized to calculate the forces of Magnetohydrodynamics and electrodynamics is essentially the same mathematical equation as what is used for the Poynting Vector of electromagnetic waves. You can see the the Lorentz Equation and the Poynting Vector in great detail here:
Poynting Vector - Wikipedia
Lorentz Force - Wikipedia
The situation implies there is a deeper connection here between momentum and electromagnetic fields, in a more general sense. The only significant difference between the two equations is, in the Lorentz equation is related to the charge on moving electrons or an electric current, whereas the Poynting vector is not. The Poynting Vector is applied to electromagnetic fields in free space, whereas the Lorentz equation is applied to the movement of the charge of electrons as an electric current. We can say the Poynting Vector is a more generalized or fundamental form of the Lorentz equation. If we generalize the Lorentz Equation, so that it does not depend on electron charge, but on an electric field, it becomes the Poynting Equation.
Understanding the connection between these two formula's allows us to generalize the concept of momentum from electromagnetic fields. We find we can use electromagnetic fields to produce mechanical forces and to convert mechanical forces into electromagnetic fields, at all scales. We would not be incorrect to state, that every electric or magnetic field, always has an associated component of momentum. This occurs in deep space through which electromagnetic fields propagate, in matter composed of charged particles and at the macroscopic scale of planets and machines.
When we arrange electromagnetic fields which vibrate, oscillate, co-rotate or alternate at right angles to each other, we always create a force or momentum. This situation is exactly that situation which happens with the electromagnetic fields of light. The situation is exactly the same as it happens in the Alternating Current Conduction Pump. The electromagnetic fields of both these cases, are functionality the same. The result is motion of a medium in the case of the pump and motion through the medium in the case of the electromagnetic waves. Thus here we find Albert Einstein had a very fundamental understanding of the momentum of electromagnetic waves. Thus we can see the momentum of electromagnetic radiation and light, operates in a specific manner, as demonstrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6
Relationship of Electromagnetic Fields to Momentum and Velocity of Light
We will again mention an important point, although the resulting force produced in the alternating conduction pump is unidirectional, it is not a constant or continuous force, but pulses in one direction, at the same frequency as the alternating fields. There is a point when the fields flip, there is no force, then as the fields increase, the force increases again. The "magnetohydrodynamic alternating current conduction pump" did not gain widespread application because of the vibration this pulse causes. Since the resulting force pulsated, it vibrated at double the cycle of the applied alternating current. This caused it to make a loud buzzing noise when in operation. Because this pump was so noisy, it was impractical as a pump for household use. However, it is this noisy buzzing sound which results in this pump, which provides an important clue to our fundamental problem, which we will expand upon soon.
What we need to get from all this is,
Albert Einstein's alternating current conduction pump, demonstrates in real life and proves without any doubt alternating electromagnetic fields can induce a unidirectional force or momentum on a medium.
The idea of electromagnetic fields carrying momentum is not new, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard knew about it, as did Richard Feynman and many others. We see in these examples, electromagnetism, momentum and accelerating forces are deeply connected, the connection is real, has been documented extensively, can be practically applied and this concept was of interest and known to Albert Einstein. What we suggest here, is this concept of electromagnetic momentum is more general than we have previously considered and very important to the Unification of gravity and electromagnetism. We have demonstrated the Poynting Vector can be considered a general case of the Lorentz force, and the momentum of electromagnetic fields exists at all scales.
We will now utilize our understanding of Forces, Acceleration, Momentum, Fields the Ether and Relativity to form a path to a simpler understanding of Gravity.
Arc Flash in High Direct Current Switching
Arc Flash in High Direct Current Switching
We add this reference to the phenomenon of Arc Flash, specifically in early direct current switching systems. We find the correlation and discussion of the electric current acting as if it had physical momentum to be an excellent example of the momentum of electromagnetic fields.
"Due to the resistance offered by long transmission lines, Edison had to produce very high DC voltages from his generators in order to deliver enough voltage and current to its final destination. He also had to provide additional ‘pumping’ stations along the way to boost the sagging voltage which dwindled from line losses. A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. In addition, a stinging, ray-like shocking sensation was felt by those who stood near the transmission lines. In some cases, when very large DC voltages surged from the generators, the “stinging” sensation was so great that occasionally a blue spike jumped from the line and grounded itself through a workman, killing him in the process."
This is a story about the High Amperage DC Arc-Flash phenomenon which was a severe safety hazard in early electrical distribution systems. It was determined to be difficult and exceedingly dangerous to break or disconnect a high DC current such as that used in very early DC distribution systems. Quote often the connection or disconnection of such current would produce a powerful arc flash, due to the electric current flowing almost like momentum in the circuit. In that even though disconnected, the power would just continue to try to flow through the circuit, arcing through the air producing a power plasma discharge.
You can think of this as similar to trying to stop a powerful flow of water in an instant. When connected, it was if there was an immense counter force to the initial flow of current. When first energized, the circuit offered a powerful resistance to the flow of current, and power seemed to spill out around the lines for an instant, before the current actually began to flow.
If you had a large pipe of some feet in diameter with a significant amount of water flowing through it and tried to just suddenly stop that water, by very rapidly closing a gate to block its flow, the sheer momentum of all the water behind that gate, would likely just destroy the gate, causing the water to just burst forth with tremendous force. Even modern home water distribution employs the use of special air filled pockets to prevent what is called "water hammer" in which quickly shutting off a tap can cause an mechanical oscillation in the pipe, dislodging them from their mounts causing a hammering or banging sound. The air filled pocket serves to cushion this kickback and prevent he mechanical forces from causing damage.
It is interesting to note, this effect cannot entirely be explained as a purely electric effect, as it seems to have different characteristics then a purely electrical phenomenon. It was not always a normal electrical arc, as people described feeling this stinging ray like sensation, which normal electrical discharge would not produce. Further, the effect occurred at the instant the current was connected, before any electrical current even begins to flow.
"There seemed to be a “bunching” or “choking” effect at play, but only briefly. Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure?"
Nikola Tesla discusses a similar phenomenon in his paper, "On the Dissipation of Electric Energy of the Hertz Resonator", where he mentions an unusual energy released when closing high power DC current circuits. We also find it interesting to consider the modern understanding, that electrical energy does not really flow in wires like we think and that circuits true mechanism of energy transfer is in a direction perpendicular to the wire, the Poynting Vector. Nikola Tesla also describes and effect from certain types of discharges of electrical energy which produce a "Stinging" effect which cannot be shielded by metal or insulating material, and is thus not electromagnetic in character. Nikola Tesla could only explain the effect as if there were small particles of mass, ejected at great velocity from his apparatus. We should see the idea of a stream or flow of momentum through space, is also a good explanation for this results, especially if the flow of momentum possessed physical particle like properties.
We know even through the phenomenon of "inductive kickback", electromagnetic energy flowing through wires has this tendency to want to "keep going", which is exactly in nature to that of Newton's first law of motion, which states
A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.
Except in this case we are not talking about a body, but electromagnetic energy and fields. This concept is clear evidence of the "effective inertia" of energy we have discussed elsewhere and demonstrates in physical reality a character of electricity which is not unlike the character of mass.
There has been only cursory formal investigation into the true underlying mechanism of this "electric inertia" and although we are aware of its existence, have even utilized its effect, we have not yet considered it as an important clue and evidence for a unifying connection between gravity and electricity, nor of its demonstration of a possible "Field of force" in the Universe, which carries this effective inertial momentum in electromagnetic fields.

Fig. 27–5.The Poynting vector S near a wire carrying a current.
On the Dissipation of the Electrical Energy of the Hertz Resonator - by Nikola Tesla

The Big Misconception About Electricity
In the following article concerning some experiments with an induction coil, we see the report of very unusual results which cannot be readily explained through normal electromagnetic theory. These results only make sense when we consider the momentum aspect of the electromagnetic radiation and its potential effect on nearby material when that momentum aspect is maximized, not just the electromagnetic components.
ON A NEW CONNECTION FOR THE INDUCTION COIL.
By Prof. Edwin J. Honeton, in the Journal of the Franklin Institute.
The following experiments were made at the Central High School of Philadelphia, with a view of increasing the quantity of the spark of the induction coil with out greatly diminishing its length. The instrument used Was made by Ritchie, of Boston, and will throw the spark six inches in free air. One of the poles or ends of the secondary wire was connected with the earth by a copper wire, attached to a gas pipe. The other pole was connected with a wire, which rested on a large lecture table holding the coil. On turning the break piece, the electricity. instead of being lost by passing along the wires to the earth, jumped from the pole connected with the table to that connected with the earth. The thickness of the spark was greatly increased, its length diminished, and its color changed to a silvery white, as when a Leyden jar is placed in the path of the discharge. While the electricity is flowing between the points, long sparks may be drawn from any part of the table, or from any metallic article within eight or nine feet of the coil. On one occasion, the gas was lighted by a spark drawn from the finger of a person standing on the floor. The gas pipe being in almost perfect connection with the earth, the spark must have been given to it from the body of the person.
On another occasion, one wire was attached to the gas pipe, as before, and the other to a stove, whose pipe connects with that of another stove in an adjoining room. The thickness of the spark was greatly increased. Sparks were drawn from the distant stove, and even from a small steam engine, which latter was fully thirty feet from the coil. In all the experiments it was found necessary to insulate the handle of the break piece, as a slight shock was experienced at every break. The poles being kept at a distance from each other less than the insulating power of the coil, six inches, no danger of injuring the instrument was apprehended. In one instance sparks were drawn, in a room underneath the adjoining room, from a wire which connected with the table on which the coil rested.
These facts showing great loss of the electricity, but indicating the need for a large conductor, probably to allow the rapid discharge of the secondary wire, a large insulated conductor was extemporized, by placing some old tin stills and percolators on large glass jars. On connecting one of the poles with this conductor, and the other with the gas pipe, the quantity of the spark was increased, though there was reason to believe that, with a larger conductor, better results would have been obtained. The conductor was then divided into two, of about equal size, which were connected with the poles. The quantity of the spark was increased, with, however, great diminution in the length. By successively diminishing the size of one of the conductors, and increasing that of the other, the length of the spark was increased, without any sensible diminution in its quantity, until, when one of the conductors was less than one square foot in surface, a fine quantity spark of about five inches was obtained. It will be noticed that this connection is somewhat similar to that used in the common cylinder or plate machine, in which one of the conductors, generally the negative, is connected with the earth, and the quantity of the electricity thereby increased.
In all the experiments in which One pole was in partial connection with the earth, as when it rested on the table, the loss of electricity must have- been very great! for several gas and water pipes were in connection with the table. If, then, the table merely serves as an imperfectly insulated conductor, which allows the rapid induction of electricity in the secondary wire by its rapid discharge, and thereby, notWithstanding the loss, gives so great an increase in the quantity of the spark, it would seem that if, instead of the table, an insulated conductor of very large surface were used, a much greater increase in quantity would be obtained. It would seem from the above experiments, that the maximum increase will be obtained when one of the poles is connected with an insulated conductor, say several hundred square feet in surface, and the other with the earth.
A Field Carrying Physical Force
A Field Carrying Physical Force
Thus far we have discussed how electromagnetic fields carry momentum. We will now extrapolate from this knowledge and consider this concept in an entirely unique way. We will show that by doing so, we get an insight into the nature of reality which has thus far remained invisible. Let us present this step by step in a manner which should be easy to grasp.
Space is Three Dimensional
Space is Three Dimensional
In order to build our bridge to its fullest capacity, we must take a slight detour here, to build up the pillars which make up our bridges foundation. We should know electromagnetic fields, act within and upon Space and Time themselves. We too know gravity is described in this way as well, as a disturbance or curvature in Space and Time. We should know and clearly define, what Space is and what we mean when we are talking about Space. In order to understand the connection between electromagnetism and gravity, we need to know more about the stage of Space upon which they act.
This may seem obvious, but Space is three dimensional. That is, in order to describe a point or place in space, you need to specify three quantities. To say where something is relative to another thing in space, you must define three different distances and directions. We can utilize Euclidean geometry to do this, where we define a three dimensional volume or point in that volume by three axis, these three axis are three directions or three dimensions in space. These terms are fairly interchangeable. Normally we use the X axis, for the horizontal position or direction, the Y axis for the vertical position or direction, and the Z axis for the forward backward or in and out position or direction.
Each of these three directions or dimensions, is perpendicular to the other two. Thus the X axis is perpendicular to the Y and Z axis. The Y axis is perpendicular to the X and Z axis. The Z axis is perpendicular to the X and Y axis. Each of these axis, defines the space. We can use these three axis to define the position of a point in Space, as in Figure 7.

Figure 7
Defining a Point in Three Dimensional Space
These axis could be shifted around, so X is up and down, or Z is up an down, our assignment of names to them is not as critical as there relative arrangements to each other. The point is we need three directions or dimensions to define a volume of space. How much that volume extends in the X direction, how much that volume extends in the Y direction and how much the volume extends in the Z direction. If we only use two dimensions, then we have a flat surface, a plane.
If we want to also include motion or change, we add a fourth dimension of time, and arrive at Einstein's concept of Space/Time. Three dimensions of Space and one of Time. Time essentially defines the change which occurs upon the stage of Space. Without time, nothing moves. Without time there is no change to anything in Space. Adding a dimension of time, is like adding multiple dimensions of space. This sounds confusing, but it can be visualized simply as a repeat of a volume of space, in which things are different or changed from one region of space to another.
Time is, in a very real sense, a motion through "spaces" or multiple regions of space. If you draw a sphere, with a point inside, then draw a second sphere with the point at a different spot inside, this can quite accurately represent that point moving from the first position to the second position in space. To represent this movement of a point, we can thus use multiple spaces. This is the dimension of time. It is in a real sense like considering different spaces. We can consider time like snapshots of the condition of space as compared to another changed condition of space. This is not unlike, how we use still images shown rapidly together in sequence to play a movie or like in a flip book. Each image is a still snapshot, where things have changed slightly from image to image. When shown in succession, these multiple instances of Space, appear like the flow of time.
We just need to understand at this point, Space and Time are the stage upon which reality acts. Through an understanding of what exactly defines this stage, we can get a much better understanding of reality itself.
Fields Define Space
Fields Define Space
Up to this point, we have kept entirely within the realm of established physics. Within established physics, there is no link between gravity and electromagnetism, so at some point we were destined to leave our comfort zone. In order to complete our bridge between gravity and electromagnetism, we must therefore leave the realm of established physics and begin to tread into new territory. We will make every effort to keep this progression coherent and logical. We will continue to build our bridge between gravity and electromagnetism, across this foundation of Space itself. We will stretch out our string, like a bridge across the chasm and support it upon this pillar of Space.
We know Space in our Universe is three dimensional. We know when we are discussing energy flows of electromagnetic fields we must use three dimensions to describe the relationship. It is upon this notion, we will further elaborate and build.
In the discussion of the Poynting Vector and its relationship to the momentum carried by an electromagnetic field, there is a three dimensional arrangement of properties. The electric field acts along one direction or dimension of space, lets us say the electric field acts along the X axis. The magnetic field acts along another direction or dimension of space, perpendicular to the electric field direction, lets say the magnetic field acts along the Y axis. The Poynting Vector, the momentum, or the energy flow is acting along an axis, direction or dimension which is perpendicular to both the electric field and magnetic field. The energy field represented by the Poynting vector can be seen to act along the Z axis of space. Thus we have discussed and pointed out, the energy of the electromagnetic fields, is carried along an entirely different direction or dimension than the electromagnetic fields themselves! We can see this relationship in Figure 8.

Figure 8
Spatial Relationship of the Poynting Vector
We reiterate here, the transfer of energy of an electromagnetic field as described by the Poynting Vector, occurs along a different dimension of space than the electric and magnetic fields themselves.
This concept can be taken a step further. This transfer of energy as represented by the Poynting Vector, is not only occurring in a completely different dimension than the electromagnetic fields themselves, there is a far more meaningful interpretation of this fact.
What we seem to be overlooking is we only ever discuss two fields when we are describing fields in space. Yet, space as we have pointed out, is three dimensional. We consider the X axis as being the direction of the electric field, an electric "Field of Force" occupying the X dimension of space. We consider the Y axis as being the direction of the magnetic field, a magnetic "Field of Force" occupying the Y dimension of space. However, when it comes to the Z axis of space, we just say this is the energy flow of the fields, the Poynting Vector, or the momentum of the electromagnetic field. We appear to treat this third dimension of space as merely a mathematical convenience to represent the energy flow of electromagnetic field. We do not say that this third axis of space is also a "Field of Force". How puzzling.
Could we not make a simple leap in logic and say this third axis, the z axis, is also some "Field of Force"? Would it not be logical to say all three axis of space, are all three fields of force? Why are only two of the axis of space, considered to be occupied by fields of force? We say the X and Y axis of Space are occupied by the electric and magnetic fields, but we do not talk similarly about the third axis of space? What occupies the Z axis? Can we not by extension define the Z axis of space, as also being a "Field of Force"?
Since Space is three dimensional it should be readily apparent, we should very much consider this notion of applying another "Field of Force" to the third axis. Not only is this a logical extension, we should realize we absolutely require three forces or three fields to define a volume in Space. It is not only logical and required for this third dimension of space to also be defined by a field, it is extremely convenient to do so, both theoretically and mathematically. In the same exact manner we assign two fields to the other two dimensions of space, we can logically assign a third field to the third dimension. We then have a three dimensional arrangement of three fields. There is then not just two fields with some, abstract, mathematical, third component on the third axis. Not only is this logical, we should see that it is necessary and required.
When we put a point in Space, lets put an apple in Space as this point, we should see this requires these three axis to be defined by some real forces for the apple to remain where we put it. The apple must be held in place by forces which define its position. Consider we do this on a real stage, and want this apple to be at a certain position on the stage. We can put a table beneath it, and this table holds the apple where we want it. It holds the apple up at some position vertically, the z axis, and the table also serves to hold the apple at some specific x and y position on the stage. Thus the table exerts three forces upon the apple, to define its position. If the table was removed, the apple would fall. If the table was tilted, the apple would roll or move. The apple remains at rest, because this position is defined and enforced.
When we define the forces acting on a point in space, we must always define the forces acting along all three axis, to define the true position of this point. If we want to hold up a point in space, or even if we want to define a volume in Space, we need "something" in all three axis to actually define where this point is, or how this volume exists. Such a definition is necessary and required.
Through the assignment of three fields in Space, we get a real definition of Space. This gives us meaning behind the very existence of three dimensions of Space. It gives meaning to the mathematical relationships, linking the mathematical axis of three dimensional space, with real fields in space, defining the existence of those dimensions with characteristics inherent to the reality of space itself. The mathematics becomes more than just a model, we find actual substance to the concept of there being three dimensions in reality.
This simple leap in logic, gives much deeper meaning and reason behind why the electric and magnetic field are perpendicular to each other, and why the energy flow is perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic fields. We find a powerful unifying concept, of the existence of not only two, but three forces, three fields, one for each of the three dimensions of Space. The relationship between these three forces or fields, defines what and how energy interacts through any volume of Space and upon any point in Space. These three fields and forces ultimately define a volume of Space and they define why that volume of Space exists.
To us, it makes sense a volume in space, would need some sort of forces defining that volume, holding its shape, defining its character. In this understanding, space becomes not just a geometric framework used to plot coordinates, but this relationship between these three fields of force determines Space as composed of real physical properties which determine what that Space really is. We find fields are not just some abstract entities moving through space, they define and characterize the reality of Space.
We find in this concept a different understanding of space itself. We define space as no longer being an entity within which objects move and forces act, but instead we define space as due to the fields themselves. Space without fields defining the space, is meaningless and does not exist. Space is not a medium through which fields and forces act, the fields and forces are Space. Fields do not act upon the stage of Space as we have thought, but they define the stage of Space itself.
This concept implies there is no region of space, which could be said to be devoid of fields of force. If Space exist, fields defining and upholding that Space exist. This is not such an abstract concept as it seems. It is the reality we observe and experience. Could you not go to any point in space and still see the stars? Could you say there is a point in the Universe, where you could go and not see any stars? Thus everywhere in the Universe, the electromagnetic field of light exists. We see a simple representation of this idea of electromagnetic energy from distant objects all passing through a singular region of space, in Figure 9. The electromagnetic field exists throughout space, everywhere, always. Perhaps, some dust could obscure our view or we could think of going deep in a cave and see no stars, but these situations are then defining your location in the presence of matter, and matter too is composed of fields and forces. Matter emits radiation and interacts with Space.

Figure 9
Every point in Space has large amounts of electromagnetic energy passing through it at any point in time.
Any point in space, must have a tremendous amount of electromagnetic energy passing through it at any given time. Not only electromagnetic waves, but also the momentum carried by those electromagnetic waves. Thus there is no point in space, which does not have "momentum"! Thus space may be devoid of mass, but it is most certainly not devoid of momentum. If we consider space to be capable of propagating electromagnetic field and that at any point in space, we can detect those electromagnetic fields, than there is also a component of momentum in that point of space.
Richard Feynman talks about light - from sdfhsfh on YouTube
Again, we find in this brief talk from Richard Feynman, he discusses this notion of all this electromagnetic information and waves existing everywhere in space and as he emphasizes, it is all really there!. If you did not think the space around you contained information, he points out you could just take a wire, set it up as a radio circuit, and you are going to detect the radio waves. They were always there, the whole time, but you need a radio to detect them. Not only are the radio waves there, but the light your eyes see, the x-rays, ultraviolet rays, the entire electromagnetic spectrum is potentially passing through any region of space.
The point is, space is a sea of energy and there is no region of space, devoid of this energy. What we need to grasp, is this energy defines space. The energy is the space. They are equivalent.
There is no volume in the Universe in which there are not three fields of force at work.
A Field Carries Physical Forces
A Field Carries Physical Forces
It is quite clear, the momentum of electromagnetic fields is certainly real. It can be stated with strong conviction, there is a physical reality to the energy/momentum flow of an electromagnetic field. It has been proven this electromagnetic momentum can act upon matter with a very real force.
It is quite clear, this momentum characteristic of the electromagnetic energy, is not propagated by the electromagnetic fields themselves, as the momentum is not even propagated in the same direction as the electromagnetic fields themselves. This flow of momentum, occupies one of the axis or dimensions of space in relation to the electromagnetic fields. This momentum of electromagnetic fields is propagated by an entity represented by the Poynting Vector, which is always 90 degrees to both the electric field and the magnetic field. The energy of this momentum is itself occupying a third dimension or axis of space. The momentum energy of electromagnetic fields, occupies a dimension of space in and of itself, just like the electric field does and just like the magnetic field does.
If the electric field acts along a dimension of space, and the magnetic field acts along a dimension of space, can we not also say this energy of momentum is also acting along a dimension of space and thus is too a field in space?
It can be thus reasonably stated; The momentum energy component of electromagnetic fields, represents a field in and of itself.
What we think of as momentum, is not propagated by the electromagnetic field, it is propagated by its own field. It is a different field, a field intimately related to electromagnetic fields but is itself not electric nor magnetic. Momentum transfer, that is the physical force which momentum carries, is propagated by a unique field. There is substantial evidence for the existence of another "Field of Force", whose characteristics are that of momentum and the transfer of physical force.
A field carries physical force. There is a "Force Field".
This is the fundamental, unifying notion proposed as the heart of this entire document, that momentum flow, the transfer of physical force, can be considered to be another field. The momentum energy represents a field carrying physical force, as physically real as the electromagnetic fields. The momentum of electromagnetic energy, as defined by the Poynting Vector, represents a real field, capable of propagating momentum and mechanical force through Space. We could call this third field in the Universe, the "Field of Physical Force" or "Force Field". This "Field of Force" would be the mediator for the transfer of momentum, physical forces of acceleration and is responsible for all the physical forces we experience.
We recall, Michael Faraday chose to think of the very concept of a field, as a substance which carries force. We find here evidence for exactly this situation, in which all physical forces we experience, are carried by a field themselves. Thus the physical forces of static electric charge and the magnetic forces of static magnetic fields, may themselves even be due to a special case of distortion of this field carrying physical Force. The field carrying physical force, may even be the common origin for all forces we experience in the Universe.
"The specific features of Faraday's field concept, in its 'favourite' and most complete form, are that force is a substance, that it is the only substance and that all forces are interconvertible through various motions of the lines of force." - Nancy J. Nersessian
Of the greatest importance, this concept of a field carrying physical force, provides us the means to further build our bridge between gravity and electromagnetism. We find in this concept of a field carrying physical force, which is intimately connected with the electromagnetic field, the foundation for the idea of a Unified Field in the Universe. We see that we should not put the "gravitational field" as the third side of our triangle of fundamental forces, as many have considered, but that we should instead put "physical force" itself on that third side of the triangle. We find the relationship between the forces of nature, may be far more fundamental and elementary than we ever realized. We see our revised diagram of the interrelationship between the forces of nature in Figure 10.

Figure 10
The Three Spatial Fields
We would here point out, we have not changed any laws of physics with this explanation. We have not changed the mechanisms of electromagnetism or the propagation of force. All we have done, is to view the current explanations from a new perspective and given clarity to this additional character of the electromagnetic fields. We have simply called the momentum of electromagnetic field, for what this really represents, a field capable of carrying physical forces. We have not changed the math, have not changed the formulas, nor changed the theories, we have simply labelled them with a different perspective and propose a new way of thinking about their relationship.
We are not at all describing the existence of a new "Field" or new "Force" in the Universe, as the character of momentum in electromagnetic fields is already well established as well as all the relationships and features this implies. The only thing which is new, is to consider this already established character of electromagnetism as a field in its own right.
The only thing we must accept, is the reality of all physical forces being mediated or carried through a "Force Field". Such a concept, does not change the mathematics we have thus far used to explain these interrelationships between energy, momentum and electromagnetic field. What it does do though, is suggest other mathematical models may exist which can simplify and unify our understanding. The magnificent benefit we get from changing our perception is we gain the ability to visualize the very nature of reality in ways we did not previously consider.
We refer again to the following quote from Michael Faraday, the originator of the very concept of a magnetic field.
I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin - Michael Faraday. Experimental Researches in Electricity Vol.3 1855
This unifying notion of reducing all forms of energy, including mechanical inertia to the same root. Is not the concept of mechanical inertia related to these very ideas of momentum and the transfer of physical forces? Are we not describing this exact concept of reducing the forces and thus forms of energy, to a common root, where that root is the mediation of all force through a singular field which carries physical forces? This is exactly the very same idea behind Einstein's Unified Field theory, a common, single or one field, from which the other fields owe their existence.
Considering the existence of another field which mediates physical Force in the Universe, provides us tremendous insight to explain many previously difficult problems in physics. This concept, provides a much easier way to grasp the interrelationships between fields energy and matter in the Universe. This concept provides a means to unify and simplify many thus far divided and confusing concepts in the physics. We find a "common origin" to the very concepts of "forces" and "fields" themselves. Most importantly, we find the means to visualize what never could be visualized before.
Not All Momentum is Electromagnetic
Not All Momentum is Electromagnetic
When we are discussing the relationship between electromagnetism and the concept of a field carrying physical force we should point out a very important situation. Although the Poynting Vector is related to the electromagnetic fields, this field carrying physical force may also exist entirely independently of any electromagnetic field.
We tend to think acceleration of a charged particle is always associated with a change in electromagnetic field, but there is more to this concept. We too should consider whether all transfer of physical momentum, creates an electromagnetic field or can waves exist in the field carrying physical force without any associated electromagnetic waves?
We can talk about the transfer of motion and acceleration through space, in a completely different context, as longitudinal waves through another field carrying physical force in space. We can speculate not only can the motion or acceleration of charge be transferred through space in this manner but the motion and acceleration of neutral fields and even neutral mass could be transferred through space in this way as well. There is strong evidence to suggest this universal, field carrying physical force, is more fundamental than the electric and magnetic fields and not dependent upon them.
For example, referring once again to Richard Feynman in Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation" he says "we have inherited a prejudice that an accelerating charge should radiate", and then he goes on to argue that the usual formula giving the power radiated by an accelerating charge as proportional to the square of the acceleration "has led us astray" because it applies only to cyclic or bounded motions.
We can thus ask, "Can acceleration ever occur without a change in electromagnetic field?" From Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate? - http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm. What we find is this concept of all accelerating charge radiating has not been formally settled.
They point to the situation in which charges can exist, fixed and stationary relative to the surface of the Earth, but that such charges are in an accelerating gravitational reference frame. Thus to maintain their position they must be constantly accelerating and thus should constantly emit radiation. The same could be said of a space craft in orbit, experiencing zero-g. It is as we say, constantly falling and thus constantly accelerating, yet its forward velocity keeps it from falling any closer to Earth. Does such a space craft in orbit, constantly radiate electromagnetic energy due to this constant acceleration. Clearly, there are deeper considerations to our understanding of charges accelerating to cause electromagnetic radiation.
Thus we should consider that not all acceleration produces a resulting electromagnetic field. Thus forces of acceleration themselves could indeed be propagated or mediated by some other mechanism, another field of energy. Thus even in interactions of force and momentum transfer between neutral bodies, this field carrying physical force would still mediate the interaction, without any associated electromagnetic field or electromagnetic radiation. What we find, is every changing electromagnetic field must produce an associated change in this third "Field of Force", as a change in momentum. However, not all changes in momentum need produce an associated change in the electromagnetic field. Thus the "Field of Force" can transfer momentum through space, but not always with an associated electromagnetic field. This is a remarkable characteristic and extremely interesting.

Figure 3
Rotating Electromagnetic Field and Resulting Momentum Force
We can see in certain cases, the electromagnetic field can be in an alternating or rotating state, in which the electric field and magnetic field are in an oscillation. Such an oscillation, when occurring at a very high frequency relative to some slower frequency, gives the appearance of the electric field and magnetic field cancelling or being outwardly neutral. Thus very high frequency oscillations of electromagnetic field, do not interact as one or another poles of magnetism or one or another sources of charge, but average out to a mixture of both, with no one pole or charge predominating. As we have shown when discussing the forces from alternating or oscillating electromagnetic fields, they still produce a unidirectional momentum or force. Thus we have another mechanism by which volumes of space, can be apparently neutral, yet still capable of causing changes in momentum or accelerations.
There is a constant accelerating force being produced in this situation, yet there would be no radiation as the fields are in perfect oscillation, neither gaining nor losing energy. If we added energy, or this system radiated energy, only then would the acceleration no longer be constant. Thus we can have forces of motion, even constant accelerating forces of motion, without electromagnetic radiation, as demonstrated with this simple concept.
There is an additional situation in which the electromagnetic field can be in an alternation or oscillation, which is so low frequency, that for other interactions within it, it appears to be essentially only one pole and not in oscillation at all. If it took a million years for an electric field to oscillate, one or the other pole would dominate for an exceedingly long period of time when compared to any higher frequency oscillations. Thus there are special cases in which electromagnetic fields operate in an entirely different notion than expected. The resulting field carrying physical force oscillation in this case, would be very difficult to detect and would appear to be simply continuous, accelerating motion.
There is nothing preventing us from having changes in the "Field of Force", which are propagated or mediated, without any electromagnetic field whatsoever. The detection of these types of waves, which would be entirely non-electromagnetic, longitudinal waves through free space, would be exceedingly difficult. Normally, we are only ever be able to detect deviations in the field carrying physical force, through its relationship with electromagnetism and thus the resulting electromagnetic radiations or effects. We always detect the electromagnetic waves and have based all our physics measurements upon the detection of these electromagnetic waves. When there are variations in this "Field of Force", which do not produce electromagnetic changes or electromagnetic waves, we really have no current mechanism by which to measure them or awareness of them.
This is akin to detecting sound waves, but as a disturbance of pressure in Space itself, which could be occurring at much higher or lower frequencies than the current spectrum we associate with sound. Even to detect sound waves, we normally convert the mechanical, longitudinal, physical pressure forces, into some sort of electrical signal. Even our ears do this to provide sound information to the brain. All speakers and microphones use some sort of electromagnetic interaction to produce or detect sound.
Thus this third field carrying physical force represents a mechanism and field which could be for all intensive purposes, mostly invisible to us. It is only through its interrelationship with the electromagnetic field, can we even determine it is real. This is the primary reason such a field has evaded our awareness for so long. We never detect it directly and only indirectly are aware of it as physical transfer of momentum, physical collisions, the photoelectric effect and through other similar electromagnetodynamic interactions. Detection of such a non-electromagnetic field, is the field equivalent of detecting neutrinos.
We find this non-electromagneticcharacter of the field carrying physical force to be responsible for so many unexplained phenomenon in reality. It's existence opens up entirely new realms and fields of study, which have only thus far been dreamt of. We could even speculate, due to this 'non-electromagnetic' character, waves and energy in such a field may not be limited to the speed of light. The speed of light may be solely an electromagnetic limitation. The idea of a non-electromagnetic "Field of Force" would have very unusual characteristics which would demonstrate its existence in unexpected and counter-intuitive ways. We would see such an all pervasive force applied throughout the Universe, and would expect to find this concept greatly simplifies many cosmological problems. We would expect to see its application even within the biological realms and could finely sanely propose a scientific path to define many 'fringe' fields of science and even potentially consciousness and life itself. Implication of which we will discuss further elsewhere. Implications of the Unified Field
A Unified Relationship Between Electromagnetism and Physical Force
A Unified Relationship Between Electromagnetism and Physical Force
Since three dimensions are required to define any volume in space, and thus three axis are required to represent this ( X, Y, Z ), it is completely sane to propose there are three real fields which occupy and define each of those dimensions in any volume of real Space. The electric field is one dimension, the magnetic field is one dimension, and there is a third "Field of Force" which is one dimension. These three dimensions define the extent and properties of any three dimensional volume of space. Each dimension of space is 90 degrees out of phase with the other two dimensions of space. By out of phase, this simply means they follow this arrangement in space, each field is on one of the three axis of space.
Thus the momentum, direction of movement, and this third field carrying physical force component, occupies one of the axis, and the electric and magnetic fields occupy the other two. This spatial relationship of electromagentic fields is again referenced:
"A light wave consists of energy in the form of electric and magnetic fields. The fields vibrate at right angles to the direction of movement of the wave, and at right angles to each other."
Light - HowStuffWorks.com
These fields act and propagate as waves, and thus their energy is in motion, vibrates, oscillated, or alternated. Thus we need to consider how these three fields interact in time. How changes to one or two of the fields, causes changes in the third. Such a relationship is well known, and not difficult to define.
There is a straightforward, mathematical relationship between these three fields in Space, a relationship which underlies the transfer of all energy through Space/Time. This relationship is demonstrated by the simple animations in Figure 2 and Figure 6, copied below. These animations demonstrates the real time relationship of a changing electric field in blue, a changing magnetic field in red and the changing longitudinal, field carrying physical force component in green. We find that not only does light propagate through a relationship between its electric fields and magnetic fields, but we must also include its relationship with the third dimension of space, which denotes the electromagnetic fields momentum or energy transfer, the Poynting Vector. Which as we have discussed previously, represents a field carrying physical force in space.
Figure 2
Plot of Lorentz Force of an Alternating Electromagnetic Field
Figure 6
Relationship of Electromagnetic Fields to Momentum and Velocity of Light
This simple, triangular relationship, greatly simplifies many problems in physics. This interesting relationship demonstrates the mathematics of understanding this interdependent relationship, is far more straightforward than we have presumed. Indeed, we would even say this deep underlying simplicity is the reason why such a concept was overlooked. It seems too simple to be relevant, yet it is extremely and deeply relevant to so many things. This relationship is the fundamental, universal structure of Space. It is the structure of "Feldraum", or "Field Space".
This three dimensional relationship, can be reduced to simple concepts of trigonometry. Simple trigonometry can define the relationship between these three fields in space and how their wave motions interact together as a whole. Thus this concept of three spatial fields, greatly simplifies our ability to visualize and represent the interplay of forces through space. Rather then seeing the relationship as multiple formulas related to two components of space at a time, we see the full three dimensional relationship and can take into account all three components at the same time. We must consider the total sum of three fields at once, and this simple underlying interplay between them. Although simple in concept, its application and implementation can lead to the tremendous complexity in physics, when only two of the components are considered alone. Much of physics tends to miss or ignore this "third side of the triangle" and thus must resort to elaborate, contortionist mathematics to arrive at the correct result.
When we use trigonometry as a representation of the three dimensional relationship between these three fields, we find the resulting waveforms correspond to the physical behaviour of the wave energy. The first dimension is the sine, the second dimension is the cosine, and the third dimension is the tangent. Thus the tangent is perpendicular to both the sine and cosine. Each field component, represented by each waveform, is 90 degrees out of phase from the other two components. We can see this relationship on a single graph in Figure 11.

Graphs of the Three Primary Trigonometry Functions

Figure 11
Relationship between Physical, Electric and Magnetic fields


Formula for the magnitude and direction of the longitudinal waveform.
We can demonstrate this relationship with some animations. The transverse electric wave is the sine wave, the transverse magnetic wave is the cosine wave and the longitudinal, physical, momentum wave is related by the tangent. The boundary defined by the tangent, defines the limits of the transfer of momentum from the electromagnetic wave as one is converted into the other and back again. We see here defined in a simple manner, how the transverse electromagnetic waves are related to a third, non-electromagnetic physical wave which propagates longitudinally. Due to this longitudinal nature, the third physical field wave is capable of conveying momentum and physical forces.

Transverse Electrical Wave

Longitudinal Force Wave

Transverse Magnetic Wave
The primary difference between these two types of waves, is really how the wave itself propagates away from the particle motion. In both cases the particles underlying the wave motion, are simply oscillating back and forth, but how the wave propagates away from this oscillation changes. In the case of the transverse wave, the wave propagates away perpendicular to the direction of the particle oscillation. In the case of the longitudinal wave, the wave propagates away in the same direction as the particle oscillation. This is an important characteristic and shows that all particle oscillation is capable of producing both longitudinal and transverse waves, depending only upon what direction the final wave propagation occurs. Thus transverse and longitudinal waves are more interrelated than we may have presumed. Especially in the case of electromagnetic waves due to oscillating charged masses.
Terms like "transverse" and "longitudinal" are relative to the direction of propagation of the wave.
In stringed instruments, like a guitar, the string vibrates with a transverse standing wave. However, the movement of this wave causes longitudinal sound waves. Although a string can cause very little longitudinal motion of the air, by using a sound box and bridge upon which the string is attached, a guitar can amplify the transverse motion of the string into a longitudinal soundwave we can hear.
Consider from the animations above, the transverse wave animation can be rotated 90 degrees to the orientation of the longitudinal wave animation, and then the underlying particle motion will "match". We see if we were to draw a red line representing the motion of the particles in the transverse wave animation, similar to that which exists in the longitudinal animation, this line can be made to coincide with the line of the longitudinal wave if we rotate them appropriately.
Remarkably, we were not able to find a single animation online which shows this relationship properly. There are multitudes of videos showing transverse waves and also multitudes showing longitudinal waves, but none showing the direct connection between the two. So we made the animation below to demonstrate this relationship.
Even for electromagnetic waves, such as light, there is always a corresponding longitudinal component despite this rarely being discussed in established physics. The motion of an oscillating charge if viewed from the side, can be seen to create transverse waves as is often shown. However, that same exact motion when viewed from the top, face on, will have us see the charge come towards us and then move away from us, which is a longitudinal motion. Thus there are always two wave components to any oscillating electric charge. One propagates as a transverse electromagnetic wave and the other is more like a electrostatic longitudinal pressure wave. It is very interesting to consider how this situation applies to circular and spherical geometries, where the longitudinal wave is spherical compared to the circular transverse wave travelling upon that spheres surface. That this simple fact has been overlooked, is the cause for many confusing aspects of established physics today.
In physics, we speak of the physical forces resulting from certain electromagnetic fields, as the dynamic component. We have electromagnetodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic pumps of which we have mentioned at length. Thus the word "dynamic" is also appropriate to denote this third field carrying physical force character of the electromagnetic waves. It is more appropriate to say all energy is transferred as, in the context of our discussion here, an electro-magneto-field carrying physical force wave or simply as an electro-magneto-dynamic wave. By not including this third dynamic, physical, momentum, acceleration character of electromagnetic waves, we have been confused and unable to fully grasp the full nature of electromagnetic energy transfer.
We find a very interesting reference to just such an understanding of longitudinal forces being relevant in electromagnetism, which was later dropped. The original longitudinal concept shows itself in the deep ideas proposed by Andre-Marie Ampère when he defined a very important and experimentally proven law, which demonstrated how electric currents were carried by direct electric forces not fields through space. James Clerk Maxwell, the founder of modern electromagnetic theory stated clearly, this was an important and remarkable discovery not to be ignored. Yet in modern, established electromagnetic field theory the longitudinal forces between charges in an electric current situation are considered negligible or to not exist. Thus Ampère's important law, was ignored despite its significance. The current explanations of electromagnetic fields are entirely contrary too and ignores Ampère's critically important law. The concept was never disproven, and in fact modern replications of its experiments continue to prove its importance and validity. The concept was dropped in favour of a different explanation and approach, the approaches of Lorentz and Maxwell.
Thus we lost the real underlying physical interpretation of electromagnetic effects and instead today have Lorentz and Maxwell's formula's to describe these effects. This concept and its interpretation allow us to describe electromagnetic forces, not as an interplay between the two forces of electric fields and magnetic fields, but as the actions of a singular force, electrostatic effects. It is very remarkable, that Ampère's original interpretation and law is much more in agreement with Special Relativity and could even provide a better framework within which to unify electricity and gravity. What Ampère’s law implies, is electromagnetic fields are not self-propagated through empty space, but carried through an instantaneous contact action between charges. That is, everything is directly connected and there is no such thing as a truly empty space. This concept is entirely inline with everything being described within this discussion.
Although instantaneous, the intensity of the force felt by each distant element is reduced by the square of the distance, thus the effect of the initial impulse becomes very weak to the point it's instantaneous action is undetectable at large enough distance. As each successively closer charge experiences a greater and greater force, the resulting action or energy appears to take time to propagate, despite the underlying change being instantaneous at short distances. Only as the motion is transferred by successively closer and closer charges, does the resulting effect propagate. This causes a perceived delay, the speed of light. Thus herein we find a mechanism to connect fundamental ideas of the propagation of motion and force to the speed of light itself. This is a very important clue to unify electric effects and gravitational effects as it entirely removes the ideas of "action at a distance".
Within this discussion, we have attempted to bring back these critically important ideas of physical interpretations of physics, which does bring back Ampère's law, but we have chosen to describe these physical forces as being some combination of physical force occurring in a singular field. It is not lost upon us, within such an interpretation, the notion of a field is superfluous, as Ampère proposed. Whether we consider physical force as a real physical touch between material objects or a longitudinal wave through a singular field capable of conveying physical forces, is merely a simple choice of words. Anywhere we use the terminology "physical field of force" we could readily just say, "physical force" as well. We use the idea of a field of physical force as this allows a much more fundamental description for the transfer of energy, when matter itself does not exist.
What is even more astounding is Ampère's original paper has only recently been translated into English and made widely available. Thus this major oversight within established physics has gone largely unknown. Recent work by Peter Graneau and now by his son, Neal Graneau has begun to renew interest in this improperly discarded notion.
You can better understand the significance of Ampère's law by watching this video, which links to some researchers more deeply investigating these ideas. The Force That Physics Erased: Ampère’s Forgotten Law See the Pattern - Channel on YouTube
By not considering the full interrelationship of electromagnetodynamics in electromagnetic waves, we have not been able to unify our concepts of energy transfer. We find within advanced physics even a deep misunderstanding of what energy and force truly are. We have to this point considered electromagnetic energy transfer and the transfer of physical forces and momentum to be separate concepts, but have herein shown how these two concepts are deeply interrelated.
Space can convey both transverse and longitudinal waves and thus can convey all forces as wave energy. Space can convey both electromagnetic and physical forces through different types of wave motion. This very strongly suggests that Space has some singular property, or consists of a singular field, through which different types of waves may propagate. These different types of waves, are to us different types of energy, either electromagnetic or physical forces like momentum. Thus Space appears to be be some singular field, a Unified Field, capable of conveying all field forces through different types of wave motion.
"Although this result is to be expected by classical electromagnetism, it leads inexorably to the acceptance of the physical reality of the Poynting vector, even though E and H arise from independent sources. . . . permanent magnets and electrets can be used to build a flywheel of electromagnetic energy steadily flowing in circles in the vacuum gap of a capacitor as if Maxwell's medium were endowed with a property corresponding to superfluidity." - "Observation of Static Electromagnetic Angular Momentum in Vacuo". Graham and Lahoz, Nature V. 285, May 15, 1980, p.129;
"This raises the issue as to whether static (i.e., non-propagating) ExH fields also constitute momentum (as the mathematics would imply), and in particular whether changes in static fields could result in the transfer of momentum to an attached structure. As it turns out, the answer can be yes as illustrated in the example of the Feynman disk paradox. . . . Even though nothing is apparently in motion, if we take the ExH momentum concept seriously, it would appear that there is angular momentum "circulating" about the disk in the static fields. . . ." -
"Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight " H.E. Puthoff*, S.R. Little, and M. Ibison
"This derived Poynting equation uses two different formalisms, and surprisingly a Poynting field may also offer a new path for investigating physics and electrical engineering as well as create consequences for a new methodology to expand advanced propulsion systems."
A Poynting Vector/Field Conservation Equation and Gravity - The Murad-Brandenburg Equation
Another serious study on the ability of electromagnetic fields to manipulate inertia.
Propellantless Propulsion by Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation. Experiment and Study By Hector Hugo Brito
Possibly the most comprehensive evaluation of a link between electromagnetism and gravity in existence to date. This is a serious mathematical research funded by the United States Air Force to examine the possibity of creating a new form of propulsion using knowledge of a means to effect gravity through electromagnetism. Interestingly, this paper links to some of the other scientists and papers discussed here.
Electric Propulsion Study Prepared for Air Force Space Technology Center
The same concept appears to be described in Pharis Williams paper, using thermodynamic theory to unite different aspects of physics.
The Dynamic Theory by Pharis E. Williams is a successful rewrite of physics from a purely thermodynamic perspective. Again demonstrating a link between what we know of gravitational field and electromagnetic field. This paper has been successfully peer reviewed many times and yet remains largely unknown. The theory proposes the following equation.
"V x S+(0.5)o/dt(B^2+E^2)-E x (E-V x B ) = 0"
"This means that interesting energy and momentum flows are expected for E x E terms and E x V x B terms. In other words, where the electric fields are rapidly changing or where there is a curl (rotation) of the magnetic field reacting with electric fields. (The electric field should be perpendicular to the axis of rotation.) These areas have been exactly where anomalous experimental claims have occurred. The E x E term will be considered in the Biefeld-Brown discussion for charging capacitors. The curl term is curious. It may be an expression that may come to bear in rapidly rotating systems of magnets. Notice a rapidly rotating magnet reacts somewhat like a charge. The E x V x B term is a triple scalar product. It is the same as the divergence of the Poynting vector( S )." - Pharis E. Williams
The Dynamic Theory - A New View of Space-Time-Matter by Pharis E. Williams
Feynman Lectures 27 Field Energy and Field Momentum - Feynmanlectures.caltech.edu
Feynman Lectures 27 Field Energy and Field Momentum - Direct Download
Simple explanation of a well-known collision experiment - by F. Herrmann and P. Schmalzle. 1980
How does the ball-chain work? - by F. Herrmann and M. Seitz. 1982
Light is Heavy - M.B. van der Mark and G.W. ’t Hooft. Van A tot Q, NNV, November, 2000
Ampère's Electrodynamics Ampère's Electrodynamics: Analysis of the Meaning and Evolution of Ampère's Force between Current Elements, together with a Complete Translation of His Masterpiece, Theory of Electrodynamic Phenomena, Uniquely Deduced from Experience - A. K. T. Assis and J. P. M. C. Chaib
First indication of ampere tension in solid electric conductors - by Graneau, P. (1983).
Ampère–Neumann Electrodynamics of Metals - Graneau, P. (1985). Hadronic Press.
Newtonian Electrodynamics - Graneau, P., & Graneau, N. (1996). World Scientific.
In the Grip of the Distant Universe: The Science of Inertia - Graneau, N., & Graneau, P. (2006). World Scientific.
Kirchoff on the Motion of Electricity in Conductors - Assis, A. K. T., & Graneau, P. (1994).
Fundamental longitudinal electromagnetic (EM) force investigation using DC current - Graneau, N. (2025).
Longitudinal Waves in Space
Longitudinal Waves in Space
We can refer back to our earlier question, which asked "If the transfer of momentum and force lies under similar propagation constraints as electromagnetic fields, in that it takes time to propagate, is it possible there are other similarities?" In the discussion of this idea, we linked the following video, which shows an very interesting characteristic of the transfer of momentum through matter, which we link here again.

Newton’s Cradle Doesn’t Work the Way You Think - The Action Lab on YouTube
We see in this video, how we can arrive at the correct solution for calculating the momentum transfer in Newton's cradle, if we think of it not in terms of the physical collisions of the solid balls with each other, but if we instead think of it in terms of the transfer of a mechanical wave which travels through the system of masses. It is only through this notion of the momentum transfer as a wave, can we explain the situation where two balls separated and dropped at one end, will cause two balls to separate and rise at the opposite end. The momentum travels as a wave.
Thus this idea, that the physical forces between solid bodies is carried by a "Field of Force", is not so far from reality as some might have presumed. Of course, if it is considered the transfer of momentum occurs through a third spatial field, a field carrying physical force, it is only natural to presume such a field also propagates this energy as a wave. It is logical to consider, the momentum of the electromagnetic field, is also a wave function just like the electromagnetic field waves to which it is related. What is found on such further consideration of this concept, of physical force propagation as a wave in a third spatial field of physical force, is this third field does not propagate transversely, but longitudinally.
This is not even a large leap in logic, as scientists are already well aware of the ability of longitudinal sound waves to convey mechanical forces and conversely how mechanical oscillation will cause the production of longitudinal sound waves. We see in the Newton's cradle video above, the transfer of momentum must be treated as a longitudinal wave, almost in character to a sound wave, for the results of the Newton's cradle to be explained. We can readily grasp how the concept of a physical impact, represents a compression or increase in density, which travels through the material as a wave of force.
There is further evidence for this character, in the description of the notion that x-rays could move solid objects with the force of thousands of tons of dynamite and are utilized to physically compress matter in modern weapons. Born Secret - Federation of American Scientists by H Morland, 2005. CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, VOL 26, NO 4, MARCH 2005, PP. 1401-8. 1401. BORN SECRET.
We see further evidence for this, from our previous real world examples of the electromagnetic transfer of momentum. We see the resulting force from Einstein's Alternating Current Conduction Pump, the resulting force was a pulsating force, which caused a great deal of noise and sound energy as a result. This pressure pulsation in the fluid being pumped, has every character of a longitudinal force upon the water or liquid medium being pumped. Even the energy/momentum represented by the Poynting Vector, must act as a unidirectional, pulsing wave, that is it is longitudinal in nature. We see how this "momentum wave" or wave in the "Field of Force" must propagate longitudinally, as a pressure wave through the materials in which it exists.
Alternating, transverse electromagnetic waves, can create a longitudinal, unidirectional momentum wave or wave in the "Field of Force". This implies the underlying mechanism for the propagation of momentum from electromagnetic waves, is tied to this longitudinal wave component of the wave energy. We find it is the relationship of the electromagnetic field waves to the waves in this "Field of Force", which define the properties of any region of Space. The concept appears to provide an even deeper clarity to the very idea of wave propagation through Space The field carrying physical force, is in a very real sense, can be considered to be the medium upon which all energy is exchanged.
Again, we have not altered any existing physical laws and are merely extending and clarifying the viewpoint and unique notion of the transfer of momentum, in a much more universal and fundamental way. We are demonstrating how all physical forces, are propagated or conveyed as longitudinal waves through a field carrying physical force, not only within matter, but even through 'Empty' space and at all scales.
The Pressure of Space
The Pressure of Space
The most immediate and obvious problem one might point out with such a concept, as a field carrying physical force propagating as longitudinal waves through space, is the propagation of a longitudinal wave through empty space would appear to require some sort of medium or particles which can propagate such a pressure wave. When we speak of a longitudinal wave, the first thing which comes to mind is that of a "sound wave" and we are well aware a "sound wave" cannot travel through the vacuum of empty space. Thus how can such a longitudinal wave propagate through space, what carries it? What is required for this, is some property of space which can propagate longitudinal waves. We would need some property of space akin to a 'space pressure'
The first and most disagreeable solution to this problem of longitudinal propagation through free space, is to point out the lack of a medium for propagation does not seem to pose any problem to the established idea of transverse electromagnetic waves being propagated through free space without a medium. The current explanation for electromagnetic wave propagation through free space being, the electric field generates a magnetic field and vice versa, thus the fields serve to propagate themselves. Physics currently sees no issues with transverse waves propagating through space without any medium, why would such a stance change just because we are now talking about longitudinal waves rather than transverse waves? If we need a medium for longitudinal waves than we should surely need a medium for transverse waves.
Thus, we could utilize this exact same line of reasoning, as the propagation of electromagnetic waves is reasoned to traverse empty space. We could simply add to the established concept and propose an entirely similar mechanism, that in which the electromagnetic fields generate this third field carrying physical force as they collapse, and this third "Field of Force" generates the electromagnetic fields as it collapses. Thus exactly like electric field produces magnetic field and magnetic field produces electric field as the current explanation for propagation of electromagnetic waves, we could simply say the electromagnetic field produces this third field and the third field produces the electromagnetic field, thus propagating through empty space in the exact same manner. Thus we could readily propose longitudinal propagation of energy using a similar method as that which explains electromagnetic propagation.
However, we find this explanation wholly unpalatable and find there may be a deeper and more satisfactory explanation. Indeed, the established physics notion of electromagnetic waves propagating without a medium is wholly unpalatable and we would say the peak of detachment from reality in modern physics. Let us consider an alternative.
When we think of fields in space, we must have some dipole, potential or difference in energy for such a field to exist and for it to propagate. A potential alone, is not a field, we need also the derivative of the potential to have a field. This is essentially, the reason for the long time belief in an absolute ether. If we have waves, something must be waving. The reality is for there to be a wave, there must be some contrary action to oppose the wave energy, which causes its energy to oscillate, and this constraint cannot be inherent in the wave itself. There is some 'elastic' like character, which counters the force of the wave motion, causing its oscillation or the energy to seek the mid point about which the wave oscillates. For energy to oscillate, something must resist the force of that energy, causing it to reverse or reduce. For light, this is represented by the permittivity and permeability, which we see turn up in the speed of light constant.

Speed of Light Related to the Permeability and Permittivity of Free Space According to Maxwell's Formula
If we try to maintain, that light truly travels as an oscillation due to only the electric field creating magnetic field, and magnetic field in turn creating electric field, without any medium, as established physics states, then we have a problem. For this seems to imply the permittivity of space is due to the magnetic field, and the permeability of space is due to the electric field. For if these properties of permeability and permittivity, do not reside in the space itself, then they must reside in the opposing field, for them to thus influence and limit each others field energy to wave motion. That is, if the permittivity is what causes the energy of the electric field to oscillate in a wave motion, the permittivity cannot reside in the electric field itself. If scientists chose to say it is only the fields in empty space, then we would have no choice but to say permittivity is caused by the magnetic field, for where else could it lay. Likewise, we would have a similar situation for the magnetic field and permeability. How puzzling.
We see this as a major problem to that explanation, an utterly circular and confusing argument. We see, for our own sanity and to maintain logic, the limiting factor or mechanism which causes the oscillation of the electric field waves and magnetic field waves, cannot reside in the opposing field character or within those fields themselves. It is akin to saying water waves are creating the gravity which is contrary to their motion, or that a springs oscillating motion is creating the elasticity of the metal of which it is composed. Such concepts are ludicrous and entirely contrary to the scientific method. We question how anyone can accept such nonsense.
Thus we find, even from the founder of electromagnetic theory itself, even Maxwell himself just assumed these elastic properties of Space to resist and oppose the fields, resided in the Ether. However, we have already pointed out, no such physical ether can be explained. The Ether The characteristics required by such an ether, themselves defy all logic. What we can propose is, this characteristic of Space, need not be the Ether, but can exist as a relationship between fields as proposed. However, we need a third field to do this which is contrary and limiting to both the electric field and magnetic field. With a three dimensional relationship is Space, and the concept of a third field carrying physical force we can solve the problem of requiring an Ether for the propagation of waves in empty space. This fits quite well as we have determined it resides along an axis of operation, perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic field and thus could readily provide the required opposition.
To propagate such a field carrying physical force, Space must simply have a characteristic similar to pressure. This in no way implies we need an Ether or any such untenable background substance through which things move absolutely or which is composed of some substance capable of carrying this pressure. The "Field of Force", is this measure of the pressure of Space. We simple state that all space, even what we consider the empty vacuum of space, has a scalar pressure value. This pressure value, mediates the field carrying physical force. Such a pressure value, can be a stress in space, which does not require particles to convey it. Since something in space, occupies volume in the Universe and it thusly must have some associated physical value associated with its energy in the Universe. Within this concept, things do not move relative to space, or relative to any ether, but space can change in pressure and energy and can have other properties, such as permeability and permittivity.
If space has pressure, then we can replace all concepts of an ether, with the concept of a "Field of Force". The "Field of Force", would be mediated by spatial pressure. This pressure value, is in a sense fundamental is absent where there is nothing in space. We cannot talk about discernible points in such a space, only regions of higher or lower spatial pressure relative to some other region in space or to space as a whole. Nor can we talk about something moving through space relative to this "Field of Force" or pressure of space. This is not the concept of Space as a physical medium through which objects move, nor can an object be in motion relative to this property of space. The idea is far more fundamental, in that movement, motion, acceleration and inertia itself are properties of this "Field of Force" and these concepts only exist because of this property of space.
We would predict the existence of another constant, a constant of spatial pressure in the Universe, which would be a property of vacuum not unlike permeability and permittivity. Thus the properties of free space which limit the propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves, permeability and permittivity, would be associated with a third value, which limits the ability of space to carry pressure or carry a longitudinal distortion. Since this third property of space, is related to a more fundamental, longitudinal, pressure like constant, we would suggest the term, Impettivity of space to denote it. The measure of the ability of space to carry an "impulse".
We see Nikola Tesla and even Townsend Brown discussing very similar ideas as this. Nikola Tesla speaks of some sort of longitudinal, sound like energy which has non-electromagnetic characteristics. Townsend Brown discussing the propagation of some other type of wave like energy, which he proposed seemed to be connected to the permittivity of space itself, as if we could have waves or changes to the permittivity of space capable of propagating energy. Both men had remarkably similar concepts which are not at all unlike what we are describing here.
We refer back to our explanation, of space itself being defined and existing solely due to the fields within it. Space, being three dimensional, is supported or defined by three fields, three fields of force, and each of these fields defines the properties and interactions of the space they define. The fields are equivalent to space, not existing within it.
In this sense, we cannot truly talk or speak of empty space having any potential or pressure, when there is nothing in that region of space. We can only talk about space pressure, as a field, where we have two poles or two entities in balance or oscillation, like a region of higher and lower pressure, which if combined, revert back to nothing. A region of high pressure only exists due to a corresponding region of lower pressure, there must be some other relative region of pressure with which to assign the measure of pressure itself.
Due to the Universe containing innumerable masses and volumes, in reality, there is no point in the Universe we could say, has no pressure value. We just should know, that as a whole, if entirely combined, the entire pressure of space in the Universe, would be zero. If all motion in the Universe ceased, the Universe itself would cease to exist.
As the Universe as a whole expands, the total pressure value of all space must decrease. We would find differences in this spatial pressure around mass as compared to regions far from mass. We would consider space devoid of matter, to be entirely uncompressible and thus incapable of propagating any waves, but in the presence of matter the pressure of space changes. This change in pressure is capable of conveying physical force in the sense that changes in pressure can propagate and move through such regions of space. The electrical field and magnetic field are intimately tied to and related to this spatial pressure. We could further speculate it is this pressure component of space, which lays down the foundation for a mediation of the gravitational force and connects the concept of a "Field of Force", to the gravitational field.
What is most interesting about this concept, is the maximum speed of these pressure waves in space may not be the speed of light. The speed of such pressure waves, or longitudinal waves depends upon the density of the underlying medium. It can be speculated that in regions of space far from any matter, the speed of these longitudinal waves approaches infinity. That is, for example, at the furthest regions of deep space far outside the visible universe the underlying structure of space/time is so dense as to make time meaningless. However, in the presence of matter we get a reduction in the velocity of these waves. There is some deep interplay between the speed of electromagnetic waves, the speed of light, and the speed of these longitudinal waves in the "Field of Force". There appears to be some mechanism by which there is an underlying, faster mode of energy transfer which when observing the visible Universe, appears to us as a Speed of Light limit. We would even guess the relationship between these two wave velocity limits, comes out to some fraction around 0.7, so that for all intensive purposes if we were to travel at 1.3 times the speed of light, it would be indistinguishable from instant, or in no time at all.
Somehow the instantaneous, interconnected, extremely dense nature of the Universe, becomes separated according to this fraction. Matter exists, because this pressure wave is limited by the local speed of light. Pressure waves alone, in an infinitely dense medium, cannot exist. Thus since we observer such waves, that pressure has been somehow reduced according to certain electric or magnetic properties of Space/Time, which introduces different limitations to the propagation velocities.
An Expanded Spectrum
An Expanded Spectrum
In fact, based upon this idea of another "Field of Force" in the Universe, it is quite logically and sane to propose,
"There is another complete spectrum of longitudinal, mechanical vibrations, momentum waves, "phonon like waves" or field carrying physical force waves. This other spectrum exists in complete correlation with and related to the electromagnetic spectrum".
We can think of this field carrying physical force as longitudinal waves permeating all Space in the Universe just as the electromagnetic field permeates all Space. Just like we can have electromagnetic waves, we can have waves in this "Field of Force". Through these "Field of Force" waves, forces of particle motion and momentum are carried, just as the electric field carries forces of electric charge and the magnetic field carries magnetic forces. The main difference between electromagnetic waves and this third type of wave, is the waves in the "Field of Force" are longitudinal waves similar to pressure waves, unlike the transverse electromagnetic waves.
This concept of a longitudinal spectrum in Space/Time does not contradict any known physics theories but does introduce a novel, simple way of visualizing the transfer of mechanical, momentum, and accelerating forces and as we will discuss later, even gravitational energy throughout Space/Time. We can define a relationship between all forces of acceleration, through a field carrying physical force capable of transferring momentum and its relationship to electromagnetism. The existence of an entire spectrum of energy of which we have been quite unaware opens up entire new fields of science and study.
We find the potential here, to greatly simplify our entire understanding of all fields and forces in the Universe. We find a mechanism for describing the exchange of momentum and mechanical forces utilizing a fundamental relationship between the primary fields of force in the universe. We find a mechanism to understand these relationships, in simpler ways than we currently understand. We find mechanisms and potential to apply this concept directly to engineering and improving the understanding of concepts of force and energy transfer. All this is what we would expect from a grand unifying concept.
Quantum sound waves stick together.
By Kielpinski, D. Nature 527, 45–46 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/527045a
A sensitive cold-ion experiment probes sound at the level of phonons, the fundamental quantum units of vibration. It shows that phonons mix in such a way that they can be classified as 'bosonic' particles, like photons.
We can consider the Sonic Spectrum, which is a spectrum of mechanical vibration in matter,
The Sonic Spectrum, but we can further consider a spectrum of physical, mechanical, momentum or acceleration type of waves in space itself. This would be very much related to the sonic spectrum in character and certain features and frequencies, but is not "sound". We could use the word "sound" to refer to this, as they are both longitudinal vibrations, but should be careful to clarify the important distinctions between the two. Normally, sound refers to the mechanical vibrations we can hear with our ears, or that animals and other biological creatures can hear. Further, sound requires matter to propagate, either air, solids or liquids which are capable of conveying pressure variations. We currently state, with certainty, that sound cannot travel through the empty vacuum of space, and this is true. However, it is not so certain that some form of longitudinal energy transfer may travel through such empty vacuum of space.
Electromagnetism and Matter
Electromagnetism and Matter
If we put aside the notions of additional forces in the nucleus of atoms, we are left with two primary forces at work in the Universe, electromagnetism and gravity. We can think of this simply as the actions of two things in the Universe, Light and Matter. Although these notions have been studied for centuries, we still have no unified relationship between light and matter. Let us examine this in greater detail and see if we can unite these ideas of light and matter.
In order to connect electromagnetism to gravity, we have first proposed the concept of a field capable of carrying physical forces. A Field Carrying Physical Force We can utilize this concept of a "Force Field" as a bridge between electromagnetism and gravity. We will elaborate further on the nature of this bridge, but first it is critical to address the concept of mass and matter itself. Without a concept of matter or mass and what it is, without explicitly defining how matter, mass and electromagnetic fields interact, we cannot hope to explain any relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. Gravity has been defined as an attractive force between all mass, thus we should explicitly define mass prior to any attempt to explain gravity.
Explaining Matter
Explaining Matter
Reconciling the ideas of gravity, electromagnetism, particles and quantum mechanics has proven elusive. Despite our advanced theories, we still to this day do not have a clear, concise and simply explanation as to why matter exists nor how it is formed. Within established physics today, there are field equations for gravity, field equations for electromagnetism and quantum mechanics and the standard model which all approach the explanation of mass from different perspectives. Yet there is no connection between all these various ideas. However, Einstein remained confident until his death that a connection could be established utilizing his Unified Field theory.
Matter and forces are today primarily defined under the Standard Model, which defines various particles and types as matter as well as the forces which control the energy interactions between these particles. Despite the Standard Model being well established, it is known to be incomplete. Despite defining particles and matter any explanation as to why this matter causes a gravitational field or how the gravitational field plays a role in the Standard Model has remained elusive. This problem has grown to be such a thorn in the side of established physics, they have reluctantly chosen to remove gravity entirely from the Standard model, claiming it is too weak of a force to be of significance anyway. This exclusion of the force between matter, from the very theory we use to describe matter, shows a major flaw in our understanding of matter and the fundamental forces in the Universe. Any model of matter, which cannot explain why that matter experiences a gravitational force, is fundamentally flawed at some deep level. Despite the success of the Standard Model to make predictions, there is clearly a major concept missing from it.
The Standard Model - CERN
The research of CERN works to discover the mechanism of particle formation. The do this by colliding particles into each other, to break them apart to determine their underlying make up and structure. They hope by looking inside the particles to find clues as to why those particles formed. They have made remarkable discoveries of even smaller particles within those we previously thought to be indivisible and continue to refine and add to their Standard Model. However, what has been forgotten, is the mechanism for the formation of mass, exists at the atomic level, as much as it exists at the sub-atomic or even smaller levels. There is really no reason we cannot understand the formation of matter, by simply understanding the formation of atoms. The mechanism is most probably similar for the sub-atomic particles as well as the smaller particles. Thus we need not destroy matter, to understand matter. We can look deeper and deeper within matter, but the real mechanism exists throughout and is available to grasp at any point.
There is also no adequate or clear explanation for mass within Einstein's Relativity theory. Despite Relativity theory laying down a detailed explanation for the mechanism of the gravitational field, it did not contribute much in the way of an explanation as to how the mass itself formed or what particles of mass actually were. Thus after the publication of Relativity theory, Einstein went further with his research, attempting to describe particles and mass using his new theory.
He developed a possible method by which gravitational fields could be involved in the creation of particles while working with Rosen and Podolsky and considered the possibility of singularities or bridges connected through Space/Time as possibly being the mechanism for the formation of particles. These Einstein-Rosen bridges, formed the basis for our modern concept of a "wormhole" or tunnels through Space/Time.
The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity - A. Einstein and N. Rosen, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. 1935
Thus we see, Einstein and Rosen pursued this odd concept of a vortex or a bridge between different regions of space, as responsible for the existence of mass. Their concept suggests a unique structure in Space/Time, a sort of whirlpool or in this case a "wormhole" between two different regions of Space/Time as a possible explanation for the solidity and character of particles. This paper was an attempt by Einstein to consider the possibility of gravitational field playing a role in forming this unique character of mass, but it did not prove successful.
Nor did Einsten's Unified Field theory, as it was first developed, solve directly the equations of motions for particles, nor did the Unified Field theory lay down any equations which defined the formation of such particles of matter.
I was able to show that the field equations yield equations, in first-order approximation, that correspond to the Newton-Poisson theory of gravitation and to Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field. Nevertheless I’m still far away from claiming the physical validity of the equations I derived. The reason for that is, that I did not succeed in deriving equations of motion for particles yet. - Albert Einstein
It is for this reason alone that established physics today has disregarded Einstein's Unified Field attempt and claim it to be incomplete or even incorrect. However, Einstein was so confident in the simplistic beauty of his Unification he was confident such physical validity of the theory existed and was certain such equations of motion could be derived.
Einstein's efforts at unification of gravity and electricity require understanding a very unusual idea, Einstein's Unified Field theory proposed:
All matter is composed of fields of energy.
We have seen so far, how we can think of space as being equivalent to and defined by fields. That is space or any volume in the Universe exists due to the energy of the fields which exist in that volume of space. We should see, how if we now consider objects or masses, we could consider those fields of space might also define those objects and masses. That is mass may become just a concentration or arrangement of fields. That is mass, may be itself composed of space and space is composed of fields. Thus mass is some special arrangement or conditions of the fields of space. Thus we see how this concept is "unifying" and an attempt to simplify the structure of the Universe.
Albert Einstein's 1919 paper "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?", speculated on how gravity could play an important role in the formation of particles from fundamental fields. This paper was written quite early in Einstein's attempts to unify electromagnetism and gravity, but it shows his efforts to approach fields as the explanation for mass. This is the path which leads to his Unified Field theory.
There are reasons for thinking that the elementary formations which go to make up the atom are held together by gravitational forces . ... The above reflections show the possibility of a theoretical construction of matter out of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field alone - Albert Einstein
Einstein suggested that atoms were actually, fields of force, and what we detected as solidity was only an interaction with the motion, intensity or character of the fields. That is, what we considered to be solid particles, were in reality simply regions of intense concentration of field energy. However, at the time he wrote the paper with Rosen, he was considering those fields to be only the electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Thus the bridge they proposed, could not work. We have discussed and shown previously, we cannot directly link the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field, and thus any attempt to "show the possibility of a theoretical construction of matter out of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field alone" is doomed to failure.
Although these papers did provide a possibly mechanism for the formation of particles, the mathematical results did not work. The paper proposes a connection or bridge between two regions or sheets of Space/Time and that these connections are what constituted particles. As Sabine Hossenfelder points out the math predicted these fundamental particles to be smaller than our uncertainty measurements. Further, the "wormholes" were highly unstable and short lived, and thus would close or disappear far quicker than would be required for them to explain particles, which we see are very stable and long lived. Thus this paper was not considered a valid explanation for the formation of particles based on fields in Space/Time alone.
What this paper shows is the direction Einstein was pursuing. We see how Einstein was deeply considering that structures, properties or motions of the fields of Space/Time itself, could explain particles and mass. This idea of two different regions of Space, contributing to the formation of particles is an idea which should not so quickly have been dismissed.
Sabine Hossenfelder describes how Einstein's Unified Field theory attempts to describe matter as a property of the fields themselves, rather then as something which distorts Space/Time. Sabine points out the primary problems with Einstein's Unified Field theory was it did not explain quantum mechanics, it did not explain the weak and strong nuclear forces and it could not explain why matter is quantum spin 1/2 according to Dirac's theories.
Thus modern physics no longer considers Einstein's Unified Field theory to be valid, because it did not seem to accommodate the formation and equations of particles and failed to account for new discoveries made after the theory was proposed. Sabine points out the original approach is logical and could still have merit, if approached with an effort to explain these features for which the original theory was dismissed. These are problems we hope to address and resolve in this explanation of the Unified Field approach to matter.
Einstein’s Other Theory of Everything - Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube
However, thus far, science does not truly understand the mechanism for the formation of matter. We cannot explain why there is electrons, protons and neutrons at the heart of the matter which makes up our reality. We have defined matter as being equivalent to energy, but we do not even at a very superficial level, understand how that energy forms matter and what the fundamental process is for energy to become matter. We cannot just 'form a proton' from energy, yet this is what must have occurred at some point in the Universe, many, many times. Thus far, we can only use existing matter to cause the creation of other matter.
We can understand how Einstein thought there must be a field explanation for matter. The solid objects, which define the macroscopic world of our reality, are composed of atoms and molecular combinations of these atoms, the molecules. These atoms which seem so solid, what we call particles, are in reality composed of subatomic particles, the electrons, protons and neutrons. If the proton composing a hydrogen atom were the size of the period at the end of this sentence, ( 1 mm ), then the electron would be over 32 meters away. If we use these values to calculate the percentage of the atom which is not within these subatomic particles, we get the value that an atom is 99.999999999999% empty space.
We should keep this in mind as it is very important to grasping the idea of mass as a field, that according to established physics;
what we think of as solid and real objects are 99.999999999999% empty space.
Obviously there is something wrong with our interpretation of particles as being something solid, like a ball, if these particles are in reality, mostly empty space. There must be a better and deeper understanding to be discovered.
Inside your body, you aren't mostly empty space. You're mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe. - You are not mostly empty space. - Forbes
Thus established physics has described the solidity of matter, as being due to the energy of electron "clouds"
However, this explanation falls short as a cloud is still mostly empty space. One electron cannot and does not ever occupy an entire cloud at once. One particle, or even the 100 particles which can be in an atom, cannot really be a "cloud", since so few physical particles cannot occupy all these locations at once. The volume of an electron is so small, compared to the volume of an atom, it simply cannot completely occupy the volume of this supposed cloud, no matter how fast it travels. To get around this strange idea of a cloud of one particle, they resort to saying an electron cloud is a quantum wave of probability, which is unpredictable and does not exist in any one place until it is measured. Quantum mechanics again demonstrates that mathematics can become completely distinct from reality. Clearly, the idea of a single particle creating a cloud, requires further consideration and is not the best solution.
There is another concept, which considers the energy of the fields to be what defines the atom. Such a Unified Field concept gives us a much better way to visualize the properties of an atom. What the Unified Field concept says of the atom is, and atom is most certainly mostly space, but this space is also most certainly not empty. Space is a teaming sea of energy of the fields which define that space. Thus the correct way to describe the matter of which we are composed is, We are mostly space, but this space is mostly certainly not empty, it is defined by tremendous fields of energy. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence to state, there is only energy and no real physical particles even exist at all. All particles are simply energy in "field space".
We refer back to previously stated quotes regarding these notions of matter and fields by J.J. Thomson when he stated "... the idea occurs that the electron has, perhaps, no "ordinary" mass at all, but is nothing other than an "atom of electricity," and that its mass is entirely electromagnetic in origin.( p211)" and evidence was found to support this notion, ".. on proceeding to higher velocities, a decrease of charge/electron mass ratio was found. (p212 )" That is they found that mass somehow increased with velocity approaching c which supported this idea of electron's not having "ordinary" mass. Here we see the attempted introduction of additional relationships of the electromagnetic fields to mass and inertia, the introduction of additional characteristics of fields defining matter.
Einstein and others, felt there was some deeper process of fields and forces which naturally led to the formation of atoms and matter. Matter was not formed by the brute force of sheer energetic collision of heat and pressure, but by a simple constructive natural process of field resonance and feedback, leading to growth and increased density of energy, whose character became matter. These are the two methodologies available, yet science today has entirely focused upon the former and delegated the latter to the realm of pseudoscience. We here will explore the ideas of creation of matter from fields and forces further.
What we seek though, is a clear visualization of this process and how energy and waves of a Unified Field, can become solid, material particles. In order to really grasp the physical significance of the Unified Field theory we should deeply examine the possibly process by which fields can become matter and fields can explain the equations of motion.
The Problem with Matter as Electromagnetic Fields
The Problem with Matter as Electromagnetic Fields
The primary and fundamental problem we have with the Unified Field for defining gravity and matter, is waves cannot collide. We know, any small region of space has innumerable electromagnetic waves all passing through and occupying that space at any given time, Figure 9, without preventing the passage of each other. Wave energy can simply superimpose upon other wave energy, a region of space becoming a mixture or average of all the waves passing through that region at any given time. Indeed x-rays and gamma rays can even pass quite easily through matter. When the beams of two lasers are crossed, they quite successfully shine upon their end points, merely interfering and coming out completely unscathed.

Figure 9
Every point in Space has large amounts of electromagnetic energy passing through it at any point in time.
Our experience with particles, is quite different. We can have collisions. Thus in order for fields to form matter, the root of the problem is to define how fields in space, whether transverse or longitudinal, can become or form a situation in which those oscillation can no longer pass through one another. How could a wave of water, collide or reflect off of another wave of water?
We could envision a situation, where waves happen to superimpose to such a high degree, the total energy in that point becomes immense, and yet still we would have no mechanism for such a region to reflect or collide with additional waves which are directed at that location, they would only serve to amplify or decrease the amount of that energy. Giant waves in a great ocean storm, do not prevent waves from traversing the ocean, no matter how large those waves become. Thus far there has been no mechanism defined, by which waves could 'bounce' or collide off a region of field energy, no matter how intense that energy becomes. Thus, there seems to be required, some additional character or nature to the Universe, which separates wave from particle, even beyond the solutions offered by a third "Field of Force". For thus far our third field carrying physical force, although capable of carrying physical force and momentum, is still just a wave. Although a wave capable of conveying force and momentum, we have to real understanding of how such a longitudinal wave can collide and transfer that momentum. It must be defined how a wave of momentum, can become a particle of matter.
What we needed is some mechanism for a "firmament", solidity, physicality, or material nature in the field of wave energy.
We should realize, just an intense concentration of field energy, does not equate to the properties and characteristics of matter. Intensity of the wave energy, does not in any way equate with a character of solidity or reflection of that wave energy. Matter, although equivalent to energy, has different properties than energy. We should say energy radiates and has a tendency to dissipate, whereas matter appears to be energy contained or energy confined in some stable form. No matter how intense a wave energy becomes within a certain region, we can still add more energy and extract energy out from this region, its energy content being fully dynamic. Further, energy may freely pass through such a region of intense energy, completely unimpeded. We could consider, a region containing extremely energetic and intense x-rays, through which light and radio waves still pass unimpeded. Wave energy does not reflect wave energy. No matter how large or powerful a wave becomes on the surface of the ocean, its wave character does not change.
A characteristic of a particle, is the notion of a surface or boundary with some fixed radius or dimension. Wave energy is not considered to be confined to a specific volume, but particles have a definite volume and a definite mass or amount of energy. There would need to be some sort of restricting boundary condition in which a wave cannot extend past a certain distance, can collide with other wave energy or is reflected back upon itself by another wave. For fields to define matter, some other character of field energy is required, which is not inherent to wave motion.
Creating Matter from Electromagnetic Fields
Creating Matter from Fields
It is apparent, from our discussion thus far and from what is next presented, a solution to this problem of matter from electromagnetic fields exists in reality and is not speculative. The creation of matter from electromagnetic fields has been done and is not contrary to established physics. What is not known, is the real underlying mechanism of this process. By what process do waves in fields, become what we call particles of mass?
From the energy/mass equivalence principle we see there is not only means to release or convert mass into energy, as utilized in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons, but we have therein the foundation of a mechanism for the creation of matter as well. We can, in theory, form matter from energy and have demonstrated this in various ways. The creation of matter has been accomplished to various degree in high energy experiments and super colliders, but often these experiments use matter to create matter. Thus our methods show we still do not fully comprehend the underlying process of matter creation.
From Wikipedia:
Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons.
The first published calculations of the rate of e+–e− pair production in photon-photon collisions were done by Lev Landau in 1934. It was predicted that the process of e+–e− pair creation (via collisions of photons) dominates in collision of ultra-relativistic charged particles, because those photons are radiated in narrow cones along the direction of motion of the original particle, greatly increasing photon flux.
There is also the production of electron e-, and positron e+ production when a photon interacts with a neutron. Which is a similar case of matter converting directly to energy, but through the mediation of other matter.
As shown above, to produce ordinary baryonic matter out of a photon gas, this gas must not only have a very high photon density, but also be very hot – the energy (temperature) of photons must obviously exceed the rest mass energy of the given matter particle pair. The threshold temperature for production of electrons is about 10^10 K, 10^13 K for protons and neutrons, etc. - From Wikipedia - Matter Creation
We see from this article, we can indeed "create" matter from "light", in that two photons, which are electromagnetic waves, can be combined to create two particles. The photons or electromagnetic radiation exists in such a high temperature, high energy environment, some of this radiation is forced to interact and become what we would call particulate matter.
We can also combine electromagnetic fields with existing matter, to create more matter than we had originally. We could say mass is a property of energy, and the "classical" view of mass is in reality just energy bundled together into a bound, stable state. As we will discuss later, matter is energy contained. This is not a unique or new idea and many people have proposed this idea of "matter being condensed or contained light" or "matter being frozen light", but the reality is much more complex than this.
The physics that gets in the way is certain conservation laws. We all know that mass/energy must be conserved, and momentum must be conserved, but also we must conserve electric charge. You cannot create net new electric charges, but you can create a positive and negative charges which cancel each other out. Physics has added other qualities that must be conserved, for the other fundamental forces, the strong and weak forces, which too must be conserved in this manner.
Thus, they have determined it is possible to form stable objects from raw energy, so long as all of these forces are conserved. In order to appease all these conservation laws, in order to create matter as we understand it today, actually requires the creation of anti-matter at the same time, to keep everything in check. We have successfully turned raw energy into matter/antimatter pairs. Physicists have even gone so far as to create Anti-hydrogen for short periods of time.
Creation of Anti-Hydrogen - Wikipedia
We see here that in order to create matter of any substantial, physical amount, you need very high energies and temperatures, so most matter is considered to be formed in Stars and the early conditions of the Universe. At present, it is highly unlikely we could construct a simple machine, like Star Trek's replicator, in which energy is formed into a solid object one could pick up. The energy requirements and control required for such a device are enormous. You can think of it like having a machine which could create a reverse nuclear explosion. For a replicator like technology, we would need a machine capable of very precise and fine control over extremely large amounts of energy.
However, we can speculate and discuss, the possibilities of some unknown, less energetic, matter creation mechanism. This is not to say any less total energy is required, as the resultant matter must still contain the total energy we calculate, but we are suggesting the possibility of a method for inputting or containing that energy which does not need extremely high temperatures and pressures, need not be explosive, due to collision, or immediate. There may be mechanisms whereby, in carefully controlled situations, energy is built up over time and constructively, coalesced into matter, rather then the brute force methods we currently utilize. Rather than producing matter through brute force, high pressure, high temperature, high energy conditions we cannot be certain there is not more fundamental and dare we say, harmonic means to form matter.
With these concepts we can consider the possibility to produce a device similar to the science fiction idea of a Star Trek Replicator, where one simply creates matter from energy in any form. However, with our current technology today, to even manufacture a single molecule would take a very long time and would require an enormous amount of energy.
What we do see though, is the potential for explaining matter as some sort of construction or containment of energy, due to the matter and energy equivalence. We can consider energy as being the state of the fields defining space and can speculate those field in space may also be responsible under certain special cases, for the character of the particle or solid nature of matter.
If we can collide or interact two high energy photons, to get from this "collision" an electron and positron, which carry mass, what changed? We have very similar energies in both cases, however in the first case only photons with no rest mass and yet after the "collision" we have mass or physical particles. What does the "collision" or interaction do to the energy to cause the formation of mass? What has happened so that in the first case we only had electromagnetic waves and their associated momentum, but in the second case we have two particles of mass? Clearly there is some process by which, waves can collide, or waves can form into a solid mass, but what is this mechanism exactly? This is stated as the energy being bound into a specific configuration, but it is interesting to consider what exactly is the arrangement or mechanism of this binding of energy to form mass. Can we replicate this binding process on a macroscopic scale somehow, so as to say bind a large amount of electromagnetic energy into a specific volume of space?
We here consider the following two papers, which are an unlikely source to reference in a discussion of Unified Field Physics and the formation of particles, but these two papers strongly suggest there is more to the formation of dense regions of energy in space, then established physics currently recognizes. Could these practical methods be related to the formation of matter from fields? Could we approach the formation of particles from fields from an experimental approach using electromagnetic fields in a lab and thus develop the Unification formula from experiment, rather then determine experiment from theory?
The Bagel Game by Bob Greenyer
Electromagnetic Fields Of Current Structures-V02 by N.E. Nevessky
Curiously, shock waves (sound waves in effect) can travel in excess of 0.5C in the intergalactic medium of space. the medium can be modelled as an extremely dilute gas, with rare collisions between particles (H1, H2, protons, electrons, dust etc. the leading edge of shock waves can reach temperatures of millions of degrees and can ignite compressed dust to fusion temperatures. This is how stars are born. Thus we see that waves of pressure and structure in deep space, too contribute to the natural processes which form matter.
Matter from Fields
Matter from Fields
The problem to this point has been, we certainly cannot describe matter solely on the basis of only electric and magnetic fields, nor does adding the gravitational field provide us the mechanism we need. Thus established physics finds themselves in the current conundrum. They cannot reconcile their various theories with each other, each accurately describing its associated part, but not able to explain any interconnection to the other parts.
With the introduction of a third field, the "Force Field", we find a broader more general concept within which we may approach the problem of defining matter solely with fields. As we have suggested, we find space itself definable by these three fields and can thus propose some mechanism for such a field space to become what we experience as mass and solid particles. We cannot speak solely of creating matter from electromagnetic fields, but from this broader concept of another field related to the electromagnetic fields, we can propose a means to create matter from fields. Matter can be created from fields, when those fields are not just the electromagnetic field but involve components of physical force and momentum.
We can consider the momentum of mass and we can consider the momentum of electromagnetic field. It is through the momentum that a relationship can be established between the two. We know momentum is related to inertia and we can even consider inertial resistance as the measure of mass. We know from relativity, inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. We should further consider the relationship between inertia and energy.
Thus we find the unification proposed in the Unified Field theory is not based upon directly linking electromagnetism to gravity, but by rigorously defining the relationships of electromagnetism and energy to physical forces of momentum, velocity, acceleration and energy transfer. When we first begin to examine a possible connection between gravity and electromagnetism, we proposed the idea of a direct relationship, in which gravity exists as the third side of a triangular relationship of forces. What we have come to realize now, is the third side of the triangle cannot be the gravitational field, but instead it is the field carrying physical force or "Force Field" which occupies this third side of the triangle.

We reiterate here, this idea of physical force mediated by the electromagnetic field, is not anything new, as it has been well established and demonstrated within this writing that electromagnetic fields do carry physical momentum. What is new, is simply naming this mediation of momentum by electromagnetic fields, as a field in its own right. What is new, is only the approach. Let us use this new approach and consider whether it provides insight into the relationship between matter and electromagnetism.
To explain the nature of matter, we can set aside the notion of matter's gravitational field for a moment, and focus entirely on the mechanism by which this "Force Field" provides insight into the electromagnetic field connections to matter, particles and the equations of motion.
The Solidity of Fields
The Solidity of Fields
When discussing particles, the most defining character as to what a particle is, is that we consider a particle to be "solid", "physical" or "material". We think of particles as being like a "ball of matter" like a "billiard ball" or "little stone". Thus this concept of the 'solidity of matter' should be thoroughly defined.
When we think of fields we think of 'loose' immaterial waves of energy fluctuating in space, which are untenable and of a nature we could definitely not hold in our hand as it were. We cannot pickup a water wave or hold light energy in our hands. Thus it is difficult to ascertain how an immaterial fluctuation of energy such as a wave, could possibly define our real world experience of solid, particulate matter. We surely do not 'fall through the floor' or have the ability to 'walk through walls' and when struck with a heavy club certainly experience some discomfort. Thus we are not illogical to ask what is the real underlying mechanism for the 'solidity of matter'. Further can we define a mechanism by which fields give this character of solidity?
Electromagnetic fields and photons mostly pass through other electromagnetic fields and other photons, completely unimpeded. Indeed, for any volume in space we might consider there is innumerable electromagnetic waves of various frequencies superimposed and passing through that volume at the same time, see Figure 9. Indeed, this very principle has been pointed out as an argument against light being any sort of physical particle. We know however from personal experience, mass does not readily pass through mass. Why is mass solid and persistent?
There are a couple predominant explanations for the experience of 'solidity' in matter within established physics.
We find quantum mechanics resorting to a typical, mathematical explanation for solidity. Quantum mechanics refers to the Pauli Exclusion Principle as the definition for solidity. Photons with spin 1 can overlap or superimpose their energy upon other photons, so there may, at any point in time, be huge quantities of photons occupying the same region of space. However, the Pauli Exclusion Principle states electrons cannot occupy any energy level or orbital which is already occupied by an electron of the same state.
Since electrons can only have two possible state since they are spin ½, either spin up or spin down, two electrons can occupy one orbital. A third electron or even an electron in a similar state as another in that orbital cannot occupy or enter that orbital. This is given as a reason why atoms or electrons are solid and cannot pass through each other, no other electrons can enter that space, they cannot superimpose or overlap.
Such an explanation only serves to move the goal post in a manner of speaking, as we are not left with any real reason why an orbital only allow two states, or even why electrons have a quantum ½ spin. It is clear they are stating the electrons are responsible for the experience of solidity, but this explanation leaves much to be desired in terms of any practical understanding or useful concept. This is the perfect example of mathematics which has lost touch with any interpretation in reality.
However, there is another explanation for the solidity of matter, based on the DeBroglie wavelengths of matter. DeBroglie very loosely combined the two equations of Einstein, for energy matter equivalence and the energy of a photon and saw that we could calculate an associated frequency for all matter.
mc^2 = hf
This equation could further be simplified to basically m = f, or all mass has a frequency. From this line of reasoning we could speculate that Plank's constant h appears to define a 'resolution' for the Universe, or the smallest bit of something which can exist. This leads us to consider some idea of the quantization of space or a fundamental unit of space. However, such a concept is still under debate.
Using DeBroglie's relationship, we can calculate the frequency of the mass of an electron, and find the calculated frequency agrees well with our experiments investigating the wave nature of electrons. So naturally we wonder what the frequencies of larger matter would be. When we determine the wavelengths for more massive, macroscopic matter, the wavelengths become so small as to be impossible.
Thus to speak of the wave properties of say a billiard ball becomes meaningless as its frequency would be higher than the frequency of any known detected radiation. This is stated as contributing to the experience of matter having solidity as the wave like nature of such macroscopic matter is so small as to be irrelevant. Thus matter no longer behaves as a wave, and thus in our macroscopic reality, objects feel solid and do not just pass through each other like waves.
Both of these explanations feel somewhat arbitrary. We are left with no definitive reason why electrons are restricted from the same states nor why matter having a very high frequency causes it to appear solid. As we stated, the intensity of frequency of a wave has no relevance to whether it can superimpose or not. To claim some purely mathematical quantum state is the reason for solidity, is entirely dissatisfying and without any analog in the macroscopic world.
Can we use the Pauli Exclusion principle to macroscopically prevent someone from entering a room or use DeBroglie's relationship to suspend us in the air. Such abstract concepts as Paulie's exclusion principle or DeBroglie's matter waves, lack application and relevance to reality.
If such concepts, as orbitals, quantum spin states and extremely high matter waves existed, then we should be able to make some practical demonstration of such an effect. Could we make a force field utilizing these concepts, to block a door way or other such idea. It seems highly unlikely and the established physicists would be quick to point out these effects only happen at the subatomic scale. Thus we are left lacking for any practical understanding.
We must provide another speculative anecdote here, which may spark the creativity of the mind when considering such elusive concepts as particle formation from fields. We find too in this explanation, some material concept we can visualize and understand as an analog for the solidity of energy. We can consider an example first brought forth from Nikola Tesla during his researches into high pressure streams of water.
Nikola Tesla noted an interesting analogy when interacting with a narrow, very high pressure stream of water. Nikola Tesla described how he could not with all his force swing a heavy metal bar through such a high pressure stream of water. The heavy bar of solid metal bounced off the stream of water as if the stream of water were completely solid. Even though water would normally readily allow a bar of metal to pass through it, the immense velocity of the water caused an apparent solidity to the water, so liquid water acted as a dense solid. It was a specific character of the energy of the water, which gave rise to its solid like condition. It was the motion, or we could better say momentum, of the stream of water which made it solid.
We are aware of a similar situation in that of the water skier, especially even those that go barefoot, in that in being towed their high speed is sufficient to be able to keep their weight from sinking into the water. As soon as their speed stops when they let go of the tow rope, they will quickly sink into the water. A similar effect occurs when a body impacts water with high speed, in that it will experience a tremendous force of resistance, whereas if travelling slowly it penetrates the water with ease. A rock dropped into water from a short distance, just readily falls into the water and sinks. A rock dropped from a great height, so as to attain a much greater speed, may impact the water with such force as to shatter it to pieces. We see how a surface which is normally readily penetrable, under conditions of high velocity becomes as solid as steel or concrete.
This gives a good connection to the original point, that matter is mostly empty space. Perhaps it is not so illogical to think that it is a specific character of motion or the momentum carried by the fields in space, which gives rise to the experience of solidity. It would not be illogical to consider it is the motion or momentum of that so called empty space of matter, which is what actually makes a particle act solid. It is entirely logical a specific, angular momentum of fields in space, cause the characteristic we know as mass or particles. Indeed it is much easier to visualize the solidity of an atom as a field of energy in extremely rapid rotation, than it is to think of it as a cloud, due to a single energetic particle, magically being in many places at once, preventing another particle from occupying the same space, due to some mathematical formula of probability.
Further, we find reference to macroscopic demonstrations of 'solidity' from very early high power cyclotron experiments and although no source can be provided, we would expect such a situation as a high energy stream of particles is unquestionably similar to Nikola Tesla's high pressure stream of water. It is very likely it is not so much the motion of such charged particles themselves, but the motion and momentum of the field itself which is responsible for the characteristic of solidity. Thus, unlike the mathematical quantum concepts which are only relevant at microscopic scales, we find in this simpler explanation a mechanism which can work at all scales and can be readily understood and visualized.
We find another interesting analogy, in the helical rotor induction pump. The idea being, a helical rotor induction pump, uses electromagnetic fields to 'induce' a similar action upon a liquid as there would be with a physical impeller. There is no physical impeller pumping the liquid, only electromagnetic fields. However, if you were to accidentally put your arm into the cavity in which these fields are operating, the fields would chop up your arm in the same way as a physical impeller would. Despite there being nothing physical there, you would most certainly experience a very physical result. Fields can have physical effects, as we have pointed out at great length.
We would point out another interesting situation which appears to demonstrate this exact character of fields to prevent passage of matter, or to give all appearance and experience of a solid body, in an unusual static electric effect reported in a plastic film factory. The Invisible Electrostatic Wall.
The "solidity" of matter, is due to the motion of fields. As we have discussed, the motion of a field is mediated through the field carrying physical force. Momentum by its very definition is matter in motion. However, we have demonstrated thoroughly how fields of energy, with only "apparent" mass can still carry momentum. Thus it is apparent, that matter itself can be a character of field momentum. This unique character must provide a boundary condition, which defines the radius of the particle of matter, which would be described or considered to be the "solid" surface of said particle, or the character of the particle which can physically collide with another particle.
There is a unique and additional character of energy, which can create just such a boundary condition. A good example is a vortex, such as water which becomes a whirlpool or vortex. In such a situation, waves can no longer readily pass through the central vortex of a whirlpool, as within the center of the whirlpool vortex there is no longer water, but instead air. Water waves interacting with such a whirlpool vortex, would find themselves refracted around it, as if it were a physical object in the water and not itself composed of the same water. Counter rotating whirlpool vortices can even collide, bounce off each other, destroy each other, or combine there energy into even greater strengths. Thus we see how the physical, rotating motion of the water, in a whirlpool vortex, can impart a character to the water which it did not previously have.
However, when we speak of fields, we cannot consider them to be some material substance capable of rotation as in a whirlpool, but they can certainly take on a similar character. The best explanation for the character of mass, is angular momentum, the concept of a circular wave motion of the field carrying physical force. This is the case of a circular wave front, but one in which the wave propagation itself is in a circular path. Utilizing this concept of angular momentum of the field carrying physical force can solve this problem of matter from fields. There is the potential for a solution to this problem in the Unified Field concept.
The Physical Properties of Fields
The Physical Properties of Fields
The concept of fields defining matter is a complex idea. Let me point out a simpler, easier way to understand the idea, which may not only assist in explaining this idea but also clarifying it's tremendous significance to daily life. Consider above all else, what the implications of this idea are to our understanding of life itself.
For fields to define matter, we must be able to demonstrate how fields of energy can do the same things and have the same characters as particles of matter.
We can define some of the important characteristics of matter, in a simple way:
- Matter contains a significant amount of energy.
- Matter can transfer forces to other matter, through direct collision but even across vast distances
- Matter comes in specific or set amounts
Of course there are a multitude of other criteria or definitions of which we can assign to matter, but these three are important and sufficient to describe the relationship we wish to demonstrate.
When we speak of Fields, we can consider fields to be something other than matter, as waves, or energy and other such notions. There are a similar multitude of criteria or definitions by which fields are defined in physics. Again, lets just consider a few of them to make this relationship clear.
- Fields carry or define the transfer of energy or forces
- Fields often have wave like behaviors
- Fields can interact with matter
To clarify, this rather simple definition of fields, lets focus exclusively upon the fields of electric charge and magnetism. Charge for example can effect matter over distance, static electricity holding a balloon to a wall or making ones hair stand on end. Magnets are attracted one way, repelled another way. Thus in both cases we see there are forces or actions on matter, which change the character of the motion or forces between that matter. Thus we can readily see without extensive experiment, these fields we have named electric charge and magnetism, cause real discernible forces in the real world, forces upon matter.
As a final concept we introduce three very well known notions of electromagnetic energy transfer, from the perspective of the electrical engineer. These final concepts are introduced to bring everything thus far discuss, back into an experimental focus.
We have three types of signals we can produce with variations in electrical current:
- Direct Current
- Alternating Current
- Pulsed Direct Current
There are undoubtedly a multitude of other criteria and definitions for signal creation utilizing electrical current, but these three will suffice for this explanation. These forms of electric current flow, represent different modes of real energy transfer. These types of current flow, are best described utilizing the mathematics and concepts of waves.
We can readily point out physical analogies to these modes of electromagnetic field energy transfer. In fact, it is not at all difficult to point out how the fields of electricity and magnetism, obey and operate with wave like characteristics, yet have physical counterparts.
We can have a continuous flow of energy or matter from one place to another, which perfectly defines the action of direct current electricity. When we think of direct current, it is difficult to think of this as a wave, because on an oscilloscope this is represented by a straight line. Yet, it is not at all unrelated, and even quite illuminating, to consider the relationships of direct current fields to their physical analogy. We can think of direct current as the increase in size of a balloon as we blow air into it or even the rise of water in our tub as we fill it. We see the action of direct current fields, in the increase or decrease of energy everywhere.
With alternating current the analogy is physical matter or energy vibrating or even rotating. Any back and forth vibration, rotation or spin can be represented or even created by an alternating wave, as the famous Serbian discovered. A Sine wave is a good example of an alternating current wave and numerous physical and energetic processes can be accurately modelled with Sine waves. Alternating current is in a real sense, direct current in a circular path. We can readily associate notions of alternating current energy, with rotating field energy and even consider such conditions of rotating fields as carrying real physical angular momentum.
With the last situation of current transfer we point out, direct current pulses, we have a situation where the electrical energy just jumps or hops from one place to the next, all at once. Direct current pulses have an important physical and energetic analogy as well. Any immense and immediate equalization of an unbalance of energy, acts as a direct current pulse. Of course we know physical examples of this case, as lightning, but even an explosion or any sudden motion in one direction are other examples. The collapse of a glacial edge, the bursting of a dam, even an out of control chain reaction of events is an example of this sort of physical exchange of energy. Such jumps in energy, occur in the macroscopic world all the time.
Whatever exactly happens between those fields at very large or vary small scales, at this point need is not even relevant. The point is, the types of field energy exchange between two points, always have a physical counterpart. We can readily say, field energy waves transfer energy similar to to methods of electric current energy transfer. We can further say, such transfers of electric current energy and thus field energy waves convey specific types of physical motion or physical change on the receiving end of these waves of energy.
The problem seems to be, we do not talk about the various types of current flow as being directly related to the transfer of physical forces. We see this as an important realization which has been overlooked, as this is the underlying reality of physical action. Physical forces are always the result of some energy field and this is not at all a bad way to look at things.
It is not much of a leap from this idea to that of all energy transfer, including physical interactions, to be due to these field energy processes. Thus far, we consider these fields as capable of interacting with motion and movement of physical matter and even admit that this physical matter itself contains a great deal of field energy. We must start to grasp how the connections between matter and fields are far two numerous to even begin to elaborate upon. However, the one idea we MUST admit too, is our very concept of particulate matter may not just be an interaction with fields, but must be entirely the result of field characteristics.
One may still be puzzled about this notion of a relationship between physical matter, electromagnetic fields and the types of electric current flow. One may consider this concept just another wild proposal as to the nature of reality, but we already know this to be true, if it is not said in exactly the manner thus described.
It is not quite so strange as we might imagine, to consider magical fields causing physically real forces. We know electric charge causes motion and forces when our hair stands on end in an electric storm. Despite us not being able to see this strange force we call the magnetic field, clearly magnetism is capable of exerting some real physical forces against us when we try to drive two like poles of a magnet together. It makes complete sense to call this a physical interaction between these fields.
Remember, we know this already to be true and utilize this exact concept to power our civilization today. The connection between electricity and magnetism, in many cases, and especially in those cases where we generate electricity, requires physical relative motion or some real change in time of those electromagnetic fields energy. This physical change in motion could be a wire moving through a magnetic field, a singular electron moving through a magnetic field or even a magnet moving relative to some metal. In all cases, due to this change, motion or movement, we can get an interaction between these two fields which provides a real useful outcome, be that converting physical motion to electricity or converting electricity to physical motion.
In fact, all atoms are surrounded by an electric cloud of charge. When two solids come into contact, they never actually touch physically. What really happens is the high electric charge from one atom, repels other atoms like charge, when they get very close. A solid collision, never occurs in the sense of two billiard balls cracking together on a pool table. In reality, at a very small scale, the fields repel each other long before anything like real physical contact occurs.
To this strange idea we must also, perhaps begrudgingly, admit we have already realized solid matter must be defined by the fields which surround it and compose it. What is matter but energy in motion? Thus we can, however confusing and without context it may seem, consider such a situation in which physical, material, solid contact as we commonly think of it doesn't really exist in the Universe. We can consider matter to be entirely composed of fields of energy, even the apparent solidity of a material particle.
We should ask a very important question to understand what the Speed of Light truly indicates about the nature of matter and time. "What Causes Relativistic Mass?" When we accelerate matter towards the speed of light, why does the mass increase? We may get very mathematical explanations, wherein the solution is expressed only in formula and numbers, but we should realize there is some real, mechanism behind the concept which sheds tremendous light on what the Speed of Light truly implies about reality and matter.
Consider the following video. Especially the diagrams and animations at 12:20, where he shows that to understand relativistic mass from a classical perspective, that is in a way which makes sense to us, we must consider matter in motion to be an open system, not a closed system. Any matter in motion is constantly exchanging energy with the Universe around it. The faster that matter is moving, the greater this exchange of energy. He goes on to demonstrate how all Kinetic energy exchange, must occur through electromagnetic energy exchange, which is not at all unexpected as we know matter and energy are equivalent. This gives us a very important insight into the true nature of mass and what the speed of light actually represents. What Causes Relativistic Mass? | Why Matter Can't Travel Faster Than Light Dialect - on Youtube
At such a point in understanding, where we must reconsider our very ideas of solidity itself, as due to field interactions, what are we to do?
It is but a small step from this notion of the physical characteristics of field energy transfer, to think of mass as not only defined by these fields in the sense of matter being surrounded by fields, but that in fact the physical boundaries and the very volume of that mass itself are also defined by fields. There is absolutely nothing preventing us from considering notions of fields, not only defining these very small interactions with matter, but also defining macroscopic interactions and even matter itself with such a unified concept. The laws of physics are not different between small scales and large scales, it is that the fields defining the interactions between matter and energy, behave in ways we did not previously consider. It makes a tremendous amount of sense to consider those solutions which work at all scales equally.
The solution is to just think of physical interaction itself, as a field. Physical actions and particles are defined by a field carrying physical forces.
It is not as great a leap as you would think, to consider all physical forces between matter and even matter itself to be defined even by one field. For at this ideas simplest, we see a definition by which at very small scales matter does not behave in the way we would normally consider matter too behave at large scales. Within this clearly laid out framework, the same rules apply at all scales, but are entirely capable of causing vastly different results at different scales. This of course leads into quantum mechanics and all sorts of, to put it lightly, incomprehensible nonsense. However bold it might be to claim, if we can understand and visualize the ideas of quantum mechanics in a simpler way, it would be very obvious which direction the final path would lead.
Thus we see here, how the characteristics of Matter, Energy start to become defined in the characteristics of the fields which compose them. We see how energy and physical force might cross vast distances, like electric power flowing in a wire to your home as alternating or direct current. We see how regions of Energy can be increased or decreased, as energy flows into or out of them and even see how fields can be set into rapid vibrations and even rotation carrying angular momentum. Most illuminating, we see how energy can just jump in great, single leaps, across vast regions of space, the deeper significance of which we are clearly aware.
Indeed, we even find direct mathematical proof for a mechanism by which electromagnetic waves can connected to form a stable concentration of energy, enough energy to become massive. In the following model, it is shown how the electromagnetic momentum of light can become confined in an odd, twisting, alternating, form which produces all the characteristic behaviors of the electron, like its spin, mass and charge. We see here that the electron, appears to be the most fundamental and first building block of matter from the energy of radiation. This model shows clearly how electromagnetic waves can in certain cases form a sort of circular, helical loop of energy, where the energy is trapped or contained. Are Electrons made of Light? (The Williamson & Van der Mark Electron model). Huygens Optics - on Youtube
It is not at all to difficult to elaborate upon such notions, to consider how energy may be contained to a specific volume, due to different arrangements and interactions between those fields. It is not at all difficult to to think that fields in certain situations could be exceedingly large, yet in complete balance with everything around it. It is not even difficult at this point, to consider notions about how certain fields of energy, could be attracted to all other regions of such energy, in some strange, holographic, beautiful dance between the changing fields. If one wished to translate this to the language of mathematics at some point, it is in my mind no different than if one were to translate it to German or even Serbian.
Utilizing the greater understanding of complex relationships between not just static electric forces, but electricity and magnetism, led to the development of electric motors, electric generators and eventually a world wide, industrial network of electric power distribution. Knowing how we can create electricity from magnetism and magnetism from electricity, has unlocked our entire worlds ability to create electricity on demand in sufficient levels to power our world. All these fantastic inventions and technology, electric lighting, industrial factories, electric cars, battery powered devices, video monitors, electronic communication, and even modern medical imaging, all these advancements, came from knowledge of electricity and magnetism.
Today, there is another "little" field we neglect to mention in such context as the amazing fields of electricity and magnetism. A field we have failed to acknowledge for what it was and how it truly interacted with these other fields. Indeed, we threw this concept away so entirely, as to no longer even have a name for this other field nor even to consider it as such. The notion it is related to the other two, or could even be considered as spoken, has even become blasphemy and abhorrent to modern science, but I digress.
The Fundamental Notions of Rotation in Field Theory
Physical Rotation in Field Theory
Thus far, the field carrying physical force has been described in relation to the momentum aspect of electromagnetic radiation. That is there are three orthogonal fields, interacting in space, each direction, axis or dimension of three dimensional space, defined by a field occupying each of those axis. These axis, directions, dimensions or vectors represent a specific case of field orientation operating in a very specific way. This description of the fields arranged in this orthogonal, XYZ axis, occupying three dimensions of space, is only one possible configuration or interaction of fields. It is a snapshot of a very dynamic relationship at one instant in time. We should consider the relationships of these fields, are far more complex then we have thus far discussed.
Not only can we have field interaction linearly along these three axis, which loosely defines motion in the up/down, left/right and front/back directions, we can also have rotational motion or spin. Spin is defined as rotation about an axis and we can have rotation about each of these three axis as well. This motion is commonly defined as pitch, yaw and roll. Fields in space can have these notions of pitch, yaw and roll, but each case occurs due to the rotation of two of the three fields, with the third field defining the axis about which the other two fields rotate. We can show this with some diagrams and further explanation.
A specific case was shown, in which the rotation of the electric field and magnetic field was about a singular axis, which produced a resulting momentum flow or physical force along an axis perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic fields. We reproduce Figure 3 which shows this specific case.

Figure 3
Rotating Electromagnetic Field and Resulting Momentum Force
This specific case, of the electric and magnetic field in rotation, is only one of three significant cases of field rotation. There are three fundamental cases of rotation of fields of force in space, diagramed in Figure 13.

Figure 13
Rotational Relationships of the Three Fields
The first case is the one discussed at length. The case where the momentum or "Force Field" as being parallel to the axis of rotation, and the electric and magnetic forces oscillating or rotating around that axis. This is the case which causes linear momentum or motion in a specific direction, through space. In Figure 13 this is the case in which electromagnetic fields can transfer a physical force to matter.
The second case is where the magnetic field is the axis, and the electric field and field carrying physical force rotate around this magnetic axis. In Figure 13 this is the Magnetic Field Case.
The third case is where the electric field represents the axis, and the magnetic field and field carrying physical force rotate around the electric axis. In Figure 13 this is the Electric Field Case.
Each one of these three cases, represents a very different character of the energy in the space defined by these field characteristics. In the first case, momentum or a physical force is propagated through space in a linear fashion, while the electromagnetic fields oscillate or rotate. In the second two cases though, the momentum or physical force is not propagated, but the direction of the field carrying physical force component is circular, in rotation or angular in nature. We see the direction of motion or momentum, is what we would consider rotational or angular momentum. Where the physical field is in an alternating, rotating or circular motion.
Both these additional two cases show a situation in which the "Force Field" is not propagated. The momentum is not transferred, but contained. The "Force Field" direction is alternating, circular or has the character of angular momentum and thus no momentum is exchanged with the surrounding space. Thus these two additional cases represent cases of contained energy or contained momentum. The energy in the momentum is not propagated and thus momentum is not transferred, but that the momentum is contained or conserved.
Thus we have a case where the electromagnetic field can transfer momentum between matter, but also we see defined a case where momentum can be contained to a specific volume by the electromagnetic field and is not transferred. These additional cases exist and have representations of their characteristics and properties in reality.
In ancient times and even today, matter and the Universe is thought to be built up from tiny, indivisible particles of matter. At first we said atoms were as small as you could divided this matter, then we discovered sub-atomic particles, like the electron, proton and neutron. Then with our super colliders, we discovered even these sub-atomic particles appear to be composed of even smaller matter, the quarks and other exotic particles. Thus this concept of indivisibility of matter, does not seem to be representative of reality. Perhaps instead, we should consider that particles are not even the fundamental, building block of reality at all. We will ever find different and smaller particles, as it is not particles which define reality. Instead, it is the fundamental fields in space, and what those fields define, which define not only particles, but also the space within which those particles are born. The fields are what is fundamental and beyond which we can divide no further. The fundamental fields of force, lead to the most basic and fundamental ideas of motion and action in the Universe.
The first idea which comes to mind, is this expansion and contraction, through the influence of additional constraints upon the motion of space, is induced to spin, first one way on expansion and then the other way on contraction, so we have an in-winding and out-winding component to this motion.
Thus this primary inward and outward wave, becomes imparted with some additional quality, due to an inherent structure of property of the fields of force in the Universe. On its contraction, it may begin to experience a rotation, and thus be imbued with additional characteristics. Rotation implies an axis of rotation, an alignment and a direction of things, whereas before a pure expansion is directionless. Further rotation implies a radius and we can develop some rudimentary concept of angular momentum.
A pure, spherical pressure wave in space, has very few characteristics and properties. It only really only represents a medium or layer upon which further actions or definitions are required to define the formation of substance and the other situations we find in reality. We need other fields and forces to shape and define reality, to bring about more depth and function.
Other fundamental ideas must be introduced, such as polarity, vibration, rhythm, spin and direction for this simple initial motion to better represent any situation in reality. As we have discussed, simply concentrating a field into a central point, does not give us the character of matter. Waves will just freely pass through other waves, no matter their intensity or amplitude. We need additional characters of the motion, in order to have solidity.
Remarkably, what we find is like motion could be essentially an illusion of field wave transfer through space, so too may be rotation. Consider, if we have a simple spherical longitudinal wave, a pressure change expanding and contracting in space, there is no inherent rotation in such a system. This is a very difficult problem, to explain how such a simple wave, could even lead to the very concept of rotation, but we find the key in the work of Nikola Tesla and his "rotating magnetic fields".
In Nikola Tesla's rotating field apparatus, the fields are not "rotating" as we think of when we think of an object spinning. Indeed, this is why many at first find it difficult to understand how Nikola Tesla's rotating field motors work. What we find in these motors, is the field does not "spin" or "rotate", but instead we have fixed coils, which turn on and off in succession. Thus like a wave appears to move, when the underlying medium is merely moving up and down, or light appears to move, when a row of lights has each light turned on and off in succession, so too can we get "apparent" rotary motion from fields which turn on and off in succession.
Thus the development of rotation in the Universe itself, was not initially from "physical spin", but from a successive timing of individual oscillation, which occurred in a circular "pattern". This is the true nature of all wave motion and all rotation in the Universe itself. It is not that such system are in physical rotation, although on a macroscopic scale we ultimately cannot distinguish any difference, but that the fundamental nature of motion, even rotation, is in the timing of oscillations which do not move themselves.
There is a puzzling notion which arises, that it is the alignment and character of the fields, which gives rise to all the forces we experience. It could be that the magnetic field, is not really a field in its own right, but represents an alignment or fulcrum between the other two fields. This is proposed as we cannot really have rotation about 3 axis at the same time. It would be an extremely unstable and unpredictable situation, which may account for the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics, but this random character does not seem to exist at the macroscopic level. Thus all fields appear to be in a state of consistent alignment, based around the magnetic field axis. The electric forces and field carrying physical force are always 90 degrees out of balance, thus in a constant curving, rotating exchange of energy, with the magnetic field representing the axis or fulcrum of that exchange.
For the rotation of fields in space, we do not just have a single field to consider, but three fields, and the influence of the other fields plays a significant role in the resulting forces character and direction. What we find is there tends to be a flattening and curvature of Space/Time, as the other forces seek to counter this motion of the field of physical space. We can consider the interaction almost like two opposing rotations, around a common axis, one seeking to expand space and counter the rotation, one seeking to contract space and increase the rotation. There is an oscillation between these two, a constant struggle for dominance of one over the other.
In such a scenario, the gyroscopic forces upon rotating systems would play a very significant role in the transfer of energy and forces. When forces occur along certain planes of alignment, especially in line with the plane of rotation, we get a sort of gimbal lock situation, in which no disturbing forces are present. Thus there is the development of a plane, or surfaces, surface motion, or even could be said an inertial reference frame. So long as forces are in alignment with that specific "lock", we get the notions of a frame at rest. Anything which is outside that alignment, causes resulting forces. Which could be the mechanism for gravitational forces.
The very concept of motion itself, is deeply intertwined with the fields of space, with the "Field Space". Matter moving through Space, is not separate from the Space. The Space is in motion as well, as it is carrying momentum and thus space too has notions of velocity and apparent mass. Thus mass and the energy of momentum transferred through space are deeply connected. One cannot exist without the other. Motion, as defined within Relativity theory, is not some absolute motion against a background of absolute space, but we must consider motion to be a fundamental characteristic of space itself. As relativity states, a curvature in Space/Time, which is capable of causing accelerations. This curvature has a physical analog, it is the field carrying physical force acting in space. The field carrying physical force is what mediates or carries the curvature, which in turn induces the motion. No motion occurs, unless their is an underlying exchange of energy through the field carrying physical force.
In the case of the rotating electric field around a magnetic axis, this is what we have defined as the magnetic field itself. A static magnetic field created by a permanent magnetic is the obvious physical example of energy in this state. A static magnetic field is considered to be created by the angular rotation of the electric charge of the electrons within its matter. If we cause electric current to circle, as with a helical coil of wire, a magnetic field is created. Thus when charge is in rotation, we have a magnetic field.
In the case of a circular or rotating magnetic field we have defined this as a static electric charge. When there is an electric axis, electric current or dipole of electric charge, it is surrounded by circular magnetic field. Thus every electric current, or electric field dipole has this associated character.
It could be said that all three dimensional volumes in our Universe have three primary characteristics, a Pivot, A Radius, and Rotation. Each of these properties is related and interdependent upon the other, none can exist without the other two. A pivot requires something to pivot and some rate at which it pivots. These characteristics of a region in space, are defined by the fields which define that region of space. Thus fields are not just a linear transfer of energy, but can contain energy, can be a case of rotating energy, and can define how much energy is in rotation.
Further, this rotation speed has a limit, the speed of light. Thus space can only spin so fast for a given radius. Thus to add more energy to a region of space, which is undergoing its maximum rate of spin already, that effect volume must expand. Thus we begin to see the rudimentary mechanism by which matter of specific energy, radius and size are formed. The limitations of the interaction between the various fields, serves to define the nature of the forms which can exist.
These concepts of field rotation, specifically that case of the momentum or field carrying physical force in rotation, is a critical clue to the nature of particles and mass. In this situation there is not just a field, and not just an intensity of field, but field has an entirely different character. The field energy, is contained by the angular motion, the other fields in space serving to define the axis about which the rotation occurs and the radius of the rotation. It is not illogical to suggest this angular momentum, the idea of the field carrying physical force in rotation or alternation, is the very particle nature of matter itself. What matter is not spinning? Spin is an essential requirement for the existence of matter.
It is the notion of spin, which creates a "firmament" in the fields of space. Rotation causes a boundary condition, a unique character of field energy, which is altogether different than the normal wave character of field energy. Spin and rotation can contain energy in a specific volume.
We find here new motivation to reconsider the ideas of a "torsion" in space, as the foundational mechanism for the formation of particles and mass from fields, especially involving the concept of a new "Field of Force" which carries or mediates this torsion. Such considerations lead to the ideas of a disturbance of spatial pressure, or we could even say a concentration of rotating spatial energy. Rotating spatial energy whose rotation may occur around an interaction of three separate fields of force, the electric field, the magnetic field and the field carrying physical force. Such efforts to explain interactions using "torsion" were not successful, because they attempted to explain the gravitational force using such concepts, which we have explained is unworkable. When we utilize the idea of a field carrying physical force, rather than the gravitational field, an entirely new potential solution involving "torsion" is possible.
We refer back to this quote from Nikola Tesla, "The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance." - Nikola Tesla
Except we must understand, this "Primary Substance" of which Nikola Tesla speaks and calls the 'luminiferous ether' is not any real, physical, primary substance, like water or air, but something entirely outside our normal perception and understanding. The "Primary Substance" is a field carrying physical force throughout space, a sort of spatial pressure, which only exists in under specific conditions of fields in space. When there are no fields in space, there is nothing which remains.
The "Field of Force" does not exist, without motion or change, as it is this change or motion upon which its existence depends. There is no all pervasive substance throughout the Universe, only a field of energy with the characteristics or behaviour of a substance. Because this "whirling motion of prodigious velocity" is only energy in a field, once the motion ceases, once it becomes still, it simply ceases to exist at all. There is no absolute, all pervasive, primary substance which remains after the motion ceases. The substance only exists, when motion exists.
It is well established such systems of rotation introduce non-inertial reference frames and are capable of redirecting normal forces into new directions, as in the gyroscopic actions. There have even been some who have proposed gyroscopic action as a fundamental principle in the Universe, with all things being composed of some fundamental, microscopic gyroscopes throughout all space. Such concepts were dismissed by the established scientific community, on the basis that such "physical" systems of rotation did not exist or could not work. Clearly the Universe is not composed of a bunch of tiny, physical gyroscopes. However, in the concept of minute regions of angular momentum, mediated by a Field Space, there is merit to such ideas. It is quite clear, rotation, spin, spirals, and vortex motions play an important and fundamental role in all forms within the Universe. Vortex Motion

The Fundamental Electromagnetodynamic Relationships
This is the critical piece of the puzzle which allows us to truly understand what matter is and how it is created. That matter is not something in space, separate from space, but that matter and space form two poles of the same entity, matter and space are two poles of the same thing. When we talk about matter and energy equivalence, we should not say matter is convertible to energy, or energy convertible to matter, but that matter and energy are different characters of energy. Matter is not just a physical particle floating or moving through space. The energy of that particle extends into the space surrounding the particle and the space surrounding any particle defines and is connected to the existence of that particle. The energy is not just equivalent to matter, energy defines matter and the space surrounding that matter.
We see some potential confusion in understanding this concept, so let us rephrase the explanation.
You cannot define a point at which matter disappears and becomes energy. Matter is energy. They are equivalent. Matter is just our definition of a specific character or property of a certain condition or state of energy. The defining line between where energy becomes matter and where matter becomes energy, is an arbitrary choice in a sense, dependant entirely on other characteristics and conditions of the Space/Time in which that energy/matter exists. You cannot really define a point, where as you are travelling from the hypothetical center of a particle outward into the space around that particle, a point at which you are no longer dealing with matter and now dealing only with energy. There is just a transition in character of the energy, between the inside and outside of a volume in space, which defines that spaces behaviour as either particle or energy.
The space around a particle is in motion and under the effect of the particle within that space and this effect or influence extends for a great distance around the particle, far from where we would say the physical surface of that particle exists. The energy of the influence of that particle, cannot be ignored or disregarded, nor is there even any firm definite definition as to where the boundary between the particle and the space resides. A particle is this greater idea, matter is this greater concept, of total influence of energy and fields. The separation of space from matter, is a human convenience not indicative of the greater reality of the fields and forces underlying that reality.
We start to almost develop a kind of fundamental cellular automaton, whose rules and structure are the fields themselves, imposed with a set of initial conditions, properties, laws or behaviours, defining the fabric of Space/Time itself. Which once set in motion lead to the incredible complexity, patterns and structure we see in the Universe. Changes to one field, effect the other fields according to certain rules, there is a fundamental interplay and exchange between energy and strict definitions as to how one changes to the other. In this sense, the work of Stephen Wolfram is entirely on the right track and we discuss these ideas of computer simulation and cellular automaton in the section on experimental evidence.
For if we add one more character or definition to this motion, which we do not yet discuss at length, we can have fields within fields, rotation within rotation, which directly leads to the distribution and interaction of multiple separate forms in space. These regions of field rotation and field motion, define the reference frame of any location in space and what is occurring or exists at that location in space. These rotational reference frames can move and carry energy through space. These rotational reference frames can also exist within other rotational reference frames. Thus we get form within form in the infinite multitude of combinations of matter and objects we see in the Universe today. This concept really requires much further explanation, but this will suffice for now.
We find in the concepts of the Unified Field and its definition of matter, a need to define the means and mechanism for fields to exist within fields and for the idea of a surface, and the foundation for the very definitions of 'geometry' and the dimensions or directions of space. We need the explicit definition of a boundary, or a firmament, from waves and fields in space. A spinning volume of space has different inertia than a spinning solid particle, surrounded by space or other particles. We might consider an atom of matter as the entire volume in which the minute particles composing that atom act, not just those particles themselves.
That is the electron, is not some tiny mass orbiting the nucleus of the atom, but the electrons true nature is the entire volume of space which is defined by the motion of its fields. What we measure as an electron, is just a snapshot of the condition of the energy surrounding the atom at an instant in time, a frozen idea, whereas the electron, is in reality, never a single point, nor can it be fully represented as such. Thus we are in our current state of confusion, in which we consider matter as particles, but find some inherent wave characteristics as well. The problem is, we are considering only the discrete parts, not the whole.
Got mass? Princeton scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy - www.princeton.edu Princeton University
For example, one of the current great mysteries in nature, is the difference in mass of the electron and proton, even though they carry the same, but opposite charge. We see though, the electron, defines an immensely larger volume and is in much greater state of motion than the proton. If we were merely to consider this entire volume, as in motion and carrying the fields energy of the electron, and thus defining the electron as a much greater field and not a point particle at all, we would find the energy contained in this field of motion, charge and alignment, is exactly equal to the energy contained in the motion, charge and alignment of the fields of the proton. We find this balance, like a lever, in which a large diffuse region of energy in space, has enough total energy to balance a small, dense concentrated region of energy in space. We find, this process at work, at all scales in the Universe.
We see evidence for this exact situation, in the search for these abstract concepts like Dark Energy and Dark Matter, to define the motion of the galaxies. The problem is we do not consider the momentum of the energy of the space of the entire galaxy itself, but only the small amount of matter residing in that space. The space is as crucial to the behaviour of the system, as the matter within that space. These two concepts, matter and space, are connected and deeply interrelated through the fields of force which define them. The space around an atom, around a nucleus, around a molecule, around a planet, star or galaxy, is not something separate from the matter, it is part of and thus must be included in any understanding or description of that matter. Thus also, by extension, all matter and all space, are interconnected and interact with each other.
We should carefully reconsider the prevailing explanation for the rotation of the Earth, which states, “The Earth's rotation around the Sun is a vestigial remnant of the rotation of the early solar system when the Earth coalesced.” The same explanation is offered for the rotation of the Earth on its axis, the rotation of the Sun and the revolution of all the planets and masses within the Solar system. This explanation applies likely even for the rotation of the Galaxy itself. The long standing explanations propose a bodies' or system's motion is due to gravitational effects which then direct the bodies linear motion into circular or angular orbits and rotations. The explanation relies on “Newton's” First law, which dictates once an object is set it motion it will continue the motion unless acted upon by some unbalancing force. In simple terms the explanation for why the Earth spins, is because it always has and nothing is acting against the spin to stop it. This logic is further applied to the motion of all bodies.
We must ask, “From whence did the bodies get this original motion?” We ask, “Why does the formation of these systems and bodies lead to rotation or why does it lead to any motion at all?” For an object to orbit, it needs both an angular velocity and the force of gravity. Without any inherent, preexisting angular velocity in the objects, everything would all just fall straight in together without any spin at all. The force of gravity alone, does not imply a rotational angular velocity by default, the acceleration which imparted the angular velocity of the bodies must have come from some other force. If we just put a bunch of masses in space and impart them with a gravitational attraction, angular velocity does not just appear.
All concepts of the rotation of such systems arises due to some original initial rotation, from entities which were in rotation or out of balance prior to the formation of the system. The value of the momentum required for such "original" or "preexisting" angular momentum for the entire Universe is immense, for all rotation throughout the Universe, must have come from this original momentum of rotation. We could take this back to the big bang and conclude there was some mechanism for initial rotation in the big bang itself. We could even suggest that rotation is an intrinsic characteristic of motion itself.
And such questions lead us back to the fundamental concepts of motion, acceleration and momentum themselves. We consider the current explanation for the Earth's rotation and revolution as vestigial naive, as there would be always be some tremendous friction and drag, if not from air, but from other fields and forces in space. Nothing is truly free from reactionary forces in space, and the entire concept of vestigial motion is a naive thought experiment, akin to perpetual motion, not representative of reality.
It could logically be proposed, the revolution of these bodies and systems is not truly vestigial in any sense of the word, but the result of the properties of the Space/Time in that volume of space itself. These motions are related to the conditions of Space/Time itself within which those bodies exist and are themselves composed. The bodies are not merely billiard balls set in motion from interactions with other billiard balls or due to the mysterious gravitational force. The motion is an inherent result of the exchange of energy through Space/Time. The motion is not due to a previous force which set it in motion and continues only because there is no opposing force to alter the motion. The inertial frame both in Space around the mass and of the mass itself, drives the motion, continuously.
The wording of this explanation may appear to be contrary to established physics, but we are describing a deeper definition for what an inertial reference frame truly represents. We are attempting to more deeply define, what mediates, maintains or causes inertia? We could ask, what is it of the matter which defines the inertial reference frame of some matter?
Consider a satellite in orbit within a gravitational field. We say if the satellite did not have some velocity, the gravitational force would cause it to fall straight down to the surface of the Earth. However, the Earth is in rotation and thus this idea of "falling straight down" is erroneous. In order for the satellite to fall "straight down" it must have still have some velocity to keep up with a point on the moving Earth surface below. We can see how the satellite is in the rotating inertial frame of the Earth, despite not being connected to the Earth's surface or influenced by the air upon the Earth.
So we can ask, how is this inertial frame mediated? Is it simply because the velocities are matched? If so, what is it about the velocity which mediates the inertial frame? If it is the matched velocities, then the inertial frame appears to reside in the masses which have those velocities, and we can match inertial reference frames simply by matching velocities, which seems contrary to Relativity. If not the velocities of the masses, then is it the space surrounding the masses which mediates the inertial reference frame? If this is true than the rotation of the Earth, and its gravitational mass, is causing a rotation of space itself around it. Thus there is some property of space, which is capable of carrying inertia. Thus the force which moves the Earth around the Sun, is some sort of inertial force as much as it is a gravitational force acting on velocity. The velocity or momentum, inertial reference frame and gravitational force, appear to be all due to some common, related thing.
We could consider there is some "Field of Force" within all matter and space, which defines and controls all forces of motion, both angular and otherwise. We could even go so far as to presume, there is not motion other than angular motion, which if the radius is sufficiently large would appear linear, just like we feel the surface of the Earth is flat, when in fact it is a large sphere. If mass exists everywhere in space, and as relativity prescribes, mass and its gravitational forces curve space, then we would not be out of line to say all space is curved and there is no such thing as a pure linear motion or vector. We would then find it necessary to ask, "Why is space curved?" or "Why does mass curve space?"
Again we bring attention to this quote:
"Now, but only now, we know that the force which moves electrons in their ellipses about the nuclei of atoms is the same force which moves our Earth in its annual course about the sun and is the same force which brings to us the rays of light and heat which make life possible on this planet." - Albert Einstein
Every unit or parcel of Space/Time exists because of these three characteristics. An atom, planet, sun, galaxy all have a rate of spin, thus they all have a radius and and axis about which this rotation occurs. These three properties are Universal to everything in the Universe, from the microscopic to the macroscopic.
Non-Symmetric Field Motion
Non-Symmetric Field Motion
In considering what sort of wave motion could give rise to concepts of mass and solidity, the ideas of wave motion were taken back to a very fundamental case. The simplest case of field motion, would be that of a spherical, longitudinal wave. A simple outward and inward pulse. Such a situation has no direction, no scale, no real measure of magnitude or structure. It is a fundamental oscillation of a point in space.
We can consider a situation in which such a simple, spherical, longitudinal wave, forms a standing wave condition, in which it expands and contracts back upon itself. Oscillating about some midpoint, within its volume of action, with no real boundary outside nor inside itself. We can apply a non-linear condition, that the wave itself, can influence the density of the medium through which it passes. As it becomes more dissolute, its velocity decreases. As the wave energy becomes more concentrated to the center, the medium becomes denser, and the wave velocity increases. This gives rise to an asymmetric condition. We demonstrate this is the following images.

First Harmonic Standing Sound Wave in an Open Pipe

First Harmonic Standing Longitudinal Wave in an Open Ended Spherical System
with Change in Wave Propagation Velocity due to Pressure Change
Figure 1. Is the standing longitudinal sound wave in an open ended tube. This is well known in established physics. The green arrows represent the motion of the air molecules of the medium due to the wave propagation. The red line is the node, wherein there is no motion of medium. The blue line represents the waveform of the wave. The length of the tube, is 1/2 the wavelength of the wave.
Figure 2. Is a modification to the tube, from a cylinder to a conical tube. This causes the increasing pressure of sound wave, in the reduced volume of the conical tube. This increased pressure causes an increase in wave propagation velocity. The sound wave travels faster in denser air. The degree of change in velocity is greatly exaggerated in figure 2. We can consider V1 to be normal propagation velocity at normal air pressure.
The longitudinal sound wave, is a pressure wave. If volume is reduced for same pressure, by constricting the wave in a conical volume, velocity of propagation must increase as pressure increases. Sound wave travels faster in more dense medium. The green arrows show increased range of motion of air molecules as pressure decreases and decreased range of motion as pressure increases.
Figure 3. Represents the same situation for a spherical standing wave, rather than cylindrical or conical tube. The same situation arises, where increasing pressure towards the center of the sphere, causes increasing propagation velocity of the wave. Again the change in velocity due to change in pressure is exaggerated.
As the longitudinal wave travels inward into the center of the sphere, the volume is reduced, its pressure increases and thus its velocity of propagation, increases. As the longitudinal wave travels outward from the center of the sphere, the volume is increased, the pressure decreases and thus the velocity of propagation decreases.
We would point out, this system is still open ended, both outside the sphere and also inside the center of the sphere. There is no boundary either within or without this system.
Figure 4. Represents the wave over time. We see one half of the wave cycle occurs much faster than the other half, as we have a wave where propagation velocity changes over time proportional to pressure change over time. The rate of this wave would depend on the local pressure the system resides within, some fixed constant for the ability of the medium to pressurize and some median propagation velocity for the wave.

A section of a spherical longitudinal standing wave where propagation speed increases with decreasing volume and increasing pressure. The time this wave is inside the nodal point happens so quickly as to barely be discernible to the wave energy, but this is in fact an immense concentration of energy.
What this simple process implies, is the solidity of matter is very much based on the timing of these longitudinal pulses and for the vast majority of time a particle is more wavelike than it is particle like. The particle nature occurs only for the very short duration the wave is inside the nodal point, which due to the increased propagation speed of the wave at this time, only happens for an exceedingly short period of time.
The gravitational forces of this extreme concentration of energy, only exist for an exceedingly short period of time. The majority of the time, the energy is dissolute and thus the gravitational forces are negligible. However, there is another way to look at this. When the energy is concentrated into the center, to that energy wave its speed is constant, but as it compresses time and space, time changes. Thus from outside the compression may be almost instant, but to inside the compression seems to take an eternity. Matter is not just a condensation of energy, but this region effects the very concept of time as well. Thus we find a possible physical mechanism in this simple concept, which might explain certain ratios between the electromagnetic field strength, the gravitational field strength and possibly even the fine structure constant, alpha, 1/137. We would predict, the energy of the atom, only exists in the high pressure, low volume state, for 1/137 of the time it exists in its expansive low pressure state.
This type of pressure wave would be very fundamental to all forces within the Universe. This is the "Breath of the Universe" or "Heartbeat of the Universe". This motion would be expressed in all things, just in various degrees.
Such a wave condition could exist over the entire expanse of the Universe, representing the entire existence of the Universe, from initial 'big bang' to final expansion. This wave could explain the conditions both at the event horizon and within the event horizon of black holes, as the event horizon defining where the longitudinal pressure wave velocity exceeds the speed of light due to the immense gravitational compression. This wave motion could represent the energy of the proton, as a fundamental relationship of the ability of 'space' to compress according to the permeability, permittivity and some pressure constant of space. We would even point out the breath and heartbeat of living things are not unrelated to this wave concept.
We would here point out, this is the simplest case of a Unified Field, longitudinal, wave motion in the Universe. If we were to utilize this concept to model matter, we would need to introduce further fundamental motions and the relationships between them. For example, this simple expanding and contracting wave, does not incorporate any concepts like spin, a radius, or any idea of rotation or a direction of momentum. Thus we would need to define how the concepts of an axis, rotation, angular velocity, angular acceleration and some fundamental moment of inertia arise from this more fundamental, scalar wave oscillation.
We have introduced this concept, as it defines an important mechanism for Non-symmetry in the Universe. The Universe requires such a character to explain the observations around us. Specifically, we need to explain the concepts of differing mass between the electron and proton, even the great difference between the volume of space and the volume of matter in the Universe. There needs to be a fundamental underlying mechanism for the distribution of matter and energy in the Universe. This concept appears to lay down the framework for this division.
Such a mechanism may explain some of the strange ratio's we find in the physical Universe, specifically the ratio between the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton. We might even see here some notion as to why Dirac's large numbers exist. There is even here a tiny glimmer of hope in understanding the elusive nature of the fine structure constant.
This non-symmetry is the separation of the "Earth" and the "Sky", of "Space" and "Matter" and clearly defines the specific ratio between them.
In the following explanation for the matter of an electron, it is demonstrated that an electromagnetic wave can be contained in a sort of helical, spiral path, producing all the characteristics of an electron, such as its spin states, charge and mass. Most interesting, is the resulting momentum wave from such a containment results in a sort of mechanical, beat frequency we observe and measure as the De-Broglie wavelength of the matter or just such an inward/outward pulsation of that matter. That is according to this theory, the surface or radius of an electron is not some fixed spherical surface like a billiard ball, but is in exactly the kind of motion shown in the animation above. Matter pulsates, it has a vibration. This vibration is not directly due to the frequencies of the electromagnetic energy within the matter, but comes about as a result of beat frequencies from various combinations of frequencies.Are Electrons made of Light? (The Williamson & Van der Mark Electron model). Huygens Optics - on Youtube
We see some attempts to formulate such a concept of an additional scalar field to describe gravitational field in an paper by Sabine Hossenfelder, but would point out two very significant problems with this idea. First, they are approaching this a symmetric relationship, and Albert Einstein's solution was not symmetric. It cannot be for the electromagnetic forces and scalar field forces to balance properly, the scalar field forces are much weaker than the electromagnetic forces and the field is scalar, but most definitely not static. We can have scalar waves, in which there is no direction yet still a transfer of pressure. This concept is necessary to explain the difficult we have in detecting the existence of the additional field. Sabine's idea is good, in that she is considering another metric or field to explain the situation, but the nature and properties of this third field are more subtle and fundamental than she currently realizes.
Static scalar field solutions in symmetric gravity - Sabine Hossenfelder. IOP Publishing Ltd. Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 33, Number 18
A Bi-Metric Theory with Exchange Symmetry - Sabine Hossenfelder. Phys. Rev. D 78, 044015 – Published 7 August, 2008
A Fifth Dimension
A Fifth Dimension
Within our current field framework, we see the potential of field to describe various physical characteristics of forces and matter. We can see how physical forces can be conveyed entirely by fields, even concepts like rotation and angular momentum can be defined. However, there is one important quality missing. A quality so important it must be defined by another dimension to reality. That quality, is density.
We can see how a region of space can be considered to contain energy in rotation, but in such an explanation nothing really separates these regions of rotation from other regions other than the magnitude of there contained energy. There is still no reason for such field energy, to react like a material particle. Rotation alone does not define mass.
What we need is a mechanism for this rotation to become something new, to become something separate from our notions of a field. This requires energy to have a density, for such concentrations of energy, to change the very structure of space/time itself. This is the key to the recursive, holographic nature of the Universe, for once we have this quality of density, this additional dimension of space/time, only then can we have separate and distinct regions of space/time, within space/time.
A more dense region of space/time, changes the nature of time and space within that region, in comparison to a different density of space/time.
When we look out into deep space, we are not just looking back in time, but we are also looking into regions of much different volume and thus much different densities. The position by which we observe the Universe appears to us the way it does, due to the density of the energy in which we currently reside. Due to the speed of light constancy, we see these different regions as being in the same "time" as us, but they are most certainly not. Everything we see outside our current density, is old news, is light which has taken time to reach us, and thus it is light which has been "transformed" to match our current density. The information that light contains exists in our region, but it has been highly altered in energy from what it originally was.
This is an extremely difficult concept to communicate. Let us state this somewhat differently. In any far off star system, the flow of time is much different from our current flow of time. This must be so, because the mass of that far off star, the mass of any planets orbiting it, its position relative to its closest neighboring stars and even its position relative to the galactic center are much different than our own star the Sun. Thus the gravitational field of that far off star system is much different in strength than the gravitational field in which we currently exist. Due to this vast difference in gravitational field, time must flow much differently in that far off star system than within our own. This must be true according to relativity.
However, when we observer light from that far off star system, everything appears normally. The spectral lines are similar, except for slight shifts due to relative differences in velocity between the two systems. If time is flowing differently than how can the atomic frequencies coincide with our own, how does the information match up when there are two vastly different rates of time between the two. The speed of light resolves this problem. Since it takes a great deal of time for light to reach us from that far off star system, the frequencies and nature of the energy exchange are slowly modified as the light travels between the vastly different gravitational fields. Until when that light arrives here, its is now in perfect sync with our time.
The speed of light is constant and compensates for these vast differences in gravity, density and mass in various far off distances in space.
The Unified Field Atom
The Unified Field Atom
The atom which exists in the Unified Field concept is familiar to us but different in many respects. The hard boundaries of the billiard ball model, where the atom and the parts of the atom are considered as balls of solid material, are now completely and entirely absent. All particles become concentrations of field energy in space. Not only the electrons, but also the neutrons and protons. Even more important the boundaries between the atom and the space around it becomes uncertain, it just melds into the space around it. The boundaries between the electrons, neutrons and protons so to become more vague and indeterminate.
We come a long way from the early concepts of matter and atoms to be considered indivisible objects which can broken down no further. We are faced with the realization, there is no such concept of divisibility itself, as everything occurs as a transition or mixture of various states. Certain states may predominate, but we can never say with certainty we are at the edge of a solid particle. This is not completely incomprehensible to us, even a planet does not have a smooth surface and is most certainly not just a solid ball in space. For a planet, some points are higher, some points are much deeper, different materials and different densities occur over the range of its surface, the atmosphere extends outward, comprised of many different layers and temperatures, and the influence of its fields and forces extending far beyond any tenable structure. Solar systems are similar, in that we cannot really ever define a hard boundary or solid structure to the solar system as a whole. Atomic and molecular structure are no different.
We have tried to represent the Unified Field concept of the atom in the following diagram, but this is difficult to do. The most obvious issue, is the scale of the nucleus is very wrong, as the nucleus and its structure would not even be visible if we were to show the extent of an atoms electron field. Too it is difficult to represent the field structure of the nucleus, but we attempt to show it is not a bunch of individual protons and neutrons stuck together like a bunch of balls in a group. In the nucleus as we have attempted to explain, there is a similar melding and intermixing of fields, so once a proton in within the nucleus of an atom, it no longer has any individuality or structure of its own, but becomes a part of the energy of the nucleus as a whole. Neutrons are similar.
The other obvious difference between the Unified Field concept of an atom and our current ideas which is difficult to visual represent, is there is no hard boundary between the atom and the space which surrounds it. Nor is any atom really ever isolated or removed from the atoms and energies which surround it.
The final difficulty we have in representing the Unified Atom is we are of course unable to show the motion and changes occurring all the time within these fields. There is a constant and ever occurring interchange of energy, the shape changes, the fields change and thus the atom is in a constant motion and fluctuation which no image could ever accurately represent.
We see in the following video, a brief history of the concept of atoms and the current ideas of what they represent. We see the Unified Field concept is a continuation and expansion upon the latest ideas and representations of an atom.
What does an atom look like? - Because We Can- The Channel on Youtube
Using very high frequency, attosecond, laser pulses, scientists have succeeded in imaging the electron layers of an atom and thus our picture of the atom today is much different than it was in the past. The Electron (E2) Dr. Dan Bergstrom's Atomic Universe - Channel on YouTube

Required Reinterpretations of Established Physics
Required Reinterpretations of Established Physics
We have made a sincere effort to "stand upon the shoulders of giants" in our descriptions and explanations of the Unified Field solution, but of course such a solution will inevitably bring up inconsistencies and issues with many established notions in physics. Let us clarify these differences and suggest some mechanisms by which we can resolve and reinterpret our most recent discoveries.
The Unification of the Wave/Particle Duality of Electromagnetic Radiation
The Unification of the Wave/Particle Duality of Electromagnetic Radiation
We see this concept much better clarifies a persistent and confusing aspect of light, that is its 'Wave/Particle' duality. We know light exists as an electromagnetic wave, but also find light has characteristics of a particle. Physicists today consider light to be a "photon" which is some mixture between a wave and particle. Thus to explain phenomenon like the photoelectric effect, we have resorted to saying that light is not only a wave, but also can behave like photon, which is a sort of particle of light which can convey physical forces. This dual nature of light, was defined in the Principle of Complementarity, in which it was considered there is no "single picture" that unifies the results obtained in these different experimental contexts. Thus it has been held by established physics to this day, these two aspects of light can not be considered together under any singly, unified concept but only that they "complement" each other. This has been taken even further in established physics, to the point they now say there is an inability to measure both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, as stated by the uncertainty principle. That is there is just this deep uncertainty inherent in the Universe, where we must consider the complimentary nature of our experiments.
This approach which considers the different aspects of light to be "two complimentary faces" that light shows to experimenters is a major dividing branch in the understanding of physics itself. At this point physics takes a drastic step and drops any possibility we may visualize the "true" nature of light. At this point physics essentially has given up on the possibility of us understanding light in a simple way and that we can only understand light in terms of mathematical models of reality. It is at this very point, physics gave up on any possibility of the human mind being capable of visualizing and fundamentally understanding the true underlying nature of reality in any simple way.
"To explain the experiments we apply the models of waves or of particles to the nature of light. But these are abstractions of the human mind. When we try to conceive of what light really "is", we insist on a visual picture. Yet there is no reason why light should conform to these models ( or visual images )taken from the macroscopic world. The "true" nature of light - if that means anything - is not possible to visualize. - Douglass C. Giancoli. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Second Edition. Prentice Hall. New Jersey. 1988. p 875.
What an absolutely radical and harsh stance physicists decided to take. This statement, although from a University teaching textbook on physics, is nonetheless shared by many in the physics community at large. The tremendous arrogance and egotism of physicists to claim, because they are unable to develop any concept by which to visualize the "true" nature of light, such a concept is simply not possible. Thus it seems they simply gave up, concluding because they themselves could not figure out the solution, there could not possibly be a solution. If they can't visualize it in their "superior, physics" minds, no one can or ever will. This is the height of hubris in physics. Right here at this exact point, is where physics detached from any hope of understanding reality.
Obviously, we wholly disagree with the notion there is no "single unifying picture" of this situation. Indeed, as we have pointed out at great length, the search for a deep unification in physics, is by its very nature, a simplification of the entire picture into a single, unified concept. If we are to unify the forces of nature, this leads directly to a vast and all pervasive simplification of physics. The real and noble goal of unification, is simplification. Such simplification by its very process, leads to the means to "visualize" its concepts. If we cannot visualize the concept of unification, and must still consider forces and fields to be "complimentary", then we have not achieved unification. Unification, resolves "complementarity". Unification implies visualization.
"Physicists consider me an old fool but I am convinced that the future development of physics will depart from the present road."-Albert Einstein commenting on Quantum Mechanics
Has not what we have just shown, in this three field model, a simple demonstration of the means by which we can "visualize" this wave/particle duality of light. We can readily "see" how there is a simple relationship between the transverse and longitudinal components of a wave, through the underlying motion of the medium. Each type of wave, whether transverse or longitudinal, conveys a different "aspect" or "face" of the light. Yet they are due to the same underlying properties. If we measure the wave energy of the momentum or field carrying physical force, we would say the entity is a particle. If we measure the electromagnetic properties of the light, we would say it is a wave. Depending on what component of the underlying motion we are measuring, determines what we are going to measure. It is this concept of physical force being conveyed as a wave as well, which is confusing and has caused our tremendous inability to visualize the "true" nature of light.
What has been described is exactly such a unifying single picture of electromagnetic radiation. Light is not just electromagnetic and we should never discuss light as only having electromagnetic fields. Light is composed of two fields, the electromagnetic field and the field carrying physical force, and it is the interrelationship between these fields which make up light. We cannot talk about the properties of light, without considering both fields which make up that light.
When we consider that the momentum of the light, is too carried by a field carrying physical force, as a longitudinal wave, related to the electromagnetic waves of which we are familiar, we find the location for this peculiar 'particle' nature of light. We see that light indeed has a dual nature, because it is composed of two interacting fields. The electromagnetic fields of light is one nature, but related to the electromagnetic fields is this field carrying physical force, longitudinal, momentum nature of light as an additional nature. Light in reality, has three natures, in that it is composed of an electric wave, a magnetic wave and a physical, longitudinal wave. The lack of understanding of this third field carrying physical force component of the electromagnetic wave is what has led to so much misunderstanding and confusing regarding the nature of light. The "single picture" is one of a Unified interaction between three fields of force, an interplay and interchange which leads to different characters depending entirely on which force we are looking at. However, those three forces are not separate complementary entities, but intimately and deeply and fundamentally interrelated.
Since there is an constant oscillation or interchange in energy between the electromagnetic field and the momentum, or "Field of Force", then we find that whether light behaves like a particle or wave, merely depends on which component or state the radiation is in when we interact with it. If we interact electromagnetically with the light, it has these electromagnetic characteristics. If we are interacting with the field carrying physical force longitudinal wave component of the light, then it has these physical, particle like characteristics. However, as a whole light is entirely a wave of energy, but more so it is three types of wave energy combined.
The most obvious evidence for the reality of this situation, is demonstrated by Figure 9 above, in which every region of space must have a tremendous amount of electromagnetic energy passing through it at any given time. If you could go to any point in space, and see the light from distant stars, galaxies and other objects in space, than obviously that light must be reaching that point in space. Were you not to be there to intercept it, it would all need to pass through this point in space to continue on its journey. If light were of any sort of physical particle nature, there would be tremendous collisions and chaos between all these particles of light, colliding, interacting and trying to all pass through the same point in space at once.
Thus light cannot be any sort of physical particle. Yet it does clearly have a definite value of energy, it is a packet of energy, but this is a packet of wave energy and should not be considered to be a true particle in any sense. The light carries the physical force of momentum so that we can have an interaction as if there is a physical particle present, but this characteristic must be conveyed as a wave energy. The particle nature only collides or interacts as a particle, under very specific conditions, most notably when light interacts with mass.
Science has thus far been unable to clearly explain, why electromagnetic radiation sometimes behaves like a wave but in other situations behaves like a particle. Nor how matter has wave like properties in certain situations. This dual nature, is representative of the reality of the fields composing the entities being measured. There is always three fields at play, two are the electromagnetic field, which we equate to the wave nature, and the third is the "Field of Force" or momentum field of the energy, which we equate to the particle nature. All three fields are waves, but the "Field of Force" carries or mediates the physical forces we equate with particle momentum and mass. Longitudinal waves in the field carrying physical force, mediate the particle nature of energy. This is fully why we struggled to grasp the dual character of light. There is a similar confusion regarding mass and matter.
This is a much clearer explanation for the properties of certain fundamental particles and even mass. We know mass, such as the electron, also exhibits this dual nature in which it can behave like a particle and a wave. This strange behavior of mass, is what has led us down the path of Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, even the very name "Quantum Mechanics" implies it is an attempt to explain the electromagnetic or quantum relationships to the physical or mechanical effects detected. However, Quantum Mechanics is missing critical information by which to resolve this problem. Quantum Mechanics has separating the matter from the fields, even defining the abstract concept of a infinitely small, point particle as a fundamental concept, where in reality no such thing might even exist. Quantum Mechanics even goes so far as to separate the motion of charged masses, from the fields those motions induce. Once physics chose to follow this path so disconnected from reality, confusion and misinterpretation reined.
Rather than separating the physical, mechanical, particle properties of mass and energy out from the waves, the real problem seems to be how can we describe physical particle interactions, such as collisions, with wave behavior. This is the real problem we must resolve for the Unified Field concept to hold true. Within the Unified Field concept, particles are merely fields and mass may be defined as some character or concentration of fields. How wave characteristics can be particle characteristics, is the fundamental dilemma of such a Unified Field concept. What is found if we pursue an investigation of this concept, is not only is it possible to make such a definition, but that it is absolutely required to explain reality in a way we can understand and visualize.
The Quantum Mechanical Rabbit Hole
The Quantum Mechanical Rabbit Hole
We will further explore one very puzzling aspect of quantum mechanics here, which finds a better solution in the concept of physical forces mediated as a wave. We must go back to the explanation of electromagnetic fields themselves. We have clearly stated the firm idea in physics that:
It is the motion or change of motion of charged particles which create electromagnetic energy.
This concept at first consideration seems remarkably insightful and consistent. When a charge moves, changes its motion, or even we can consider it to vibrate, then we can clearly visualize how such motions of this charge mass, could cause waves in the electric field surrounding it. If we consider a charged particle, which oscillates back and forth at one cycle per second, we can readily visualize how this could create 1 Hz electromagnetic waves out into space. If we oscillate electrons in an antenna, one hundred thousand times per second, we can understand how such an antenna would be capable of broadcasting 100 KHz radio waves of electromagnetic oscillations. The problem comes when we get into progressively higher and higher frequencies.
If we consider gamma rays, their rate of oscillation is in the exahertz range, which is over 10 ^ 19 cycles per second. That is ten to the 10 billion, billion cycles per second. This is an exceedingly fast oscillation, so fast in fact as to break any concept of this oscillation occurring due to the motion of a charged particle. There is just no physical, particle explanation possible for such a rapid vibration, the accelerations and velocities required for any amount of matter to vibrate at this extremely high frequency are impossible. It would violate the speed of light for matter to move back and forth so rapidly. In fact, we must question the very notion of a change in the electric field itself, even being able to change so quickly. Let us consider this more deeply.
If all electromagnetic waves come from oscillating charge particles, then for gamma waves to oscillate at Exahertz frequencies, implies the particle accelerations and resulting velocities of motion would exceed the speed of light. In modern quantum mechanics, they have thus abandoned the concept of these electrical oscillations being tied to the motion of mass. This cannot be the case, for a physical rest mass to oscillation or even move at such a high rate. Thus quantum mechanics has chosen to separate the electric fields from the particle and give it the freedom to change at any rate. They no longer talk about this change in the field as being connected with mass.
However, they still associate these high frequency electromagnetic fields, as being able to carry momentum. These electromagnetic fields can carry momentum, transfer momentum and transfer physical characteristics of mass away from the mass which caused them. We get gamma rays in certain forms of radioactive decay, electron-positron collisions and other high energy interactions of matter, such as within the nucleus of atoms. If those electromagnetic waves are capable of conveying momentum away from those particles, then the electromagnetic waves must be associated with the motion of those charged particles. Except, we know that no physical mass can possibly vibrate or even move at these exahertz frequencies as this would imply enormous accelerations and extremely high velocities of mass. Thus we are faced with another problem. We would have to say that electromagnetic waves are not due to the oscillation or motion of charged particles or that the oscillations of the mass can be faster than light. Quantum mechanics changes the rules and states the electric fields can change faster than any physical motion is capable of changing. That is quantum mechanics abandons this idea of electromagnetic waves being tied to particles.
This idea of charge or change of charge, no longer being tied to a particles motion or acceleration poses a significant problem. Quantum mechanics has surrounded this problem in a cloak of mathematics and complex theory, to the point where such a simple idea has become so convoluted that the physicists themselves admit they can no longer visualize the connection of this process to reality and one must abandon any notion of such a visual solution even being possible. It is a similar issues as that which comes from the Wave/Duality problem.
However, again we see the means to visualize such a situation is apparent, and possible, if we merely abandon the very idea of "particles". Indeed, this is in a very real sense, what quantum mechanics has been forced to do, when they say the change in charge is no longer tied to the motion of a particle. They just cannot give up on this idea of a point particle somehow being involved and the mathematics uses extremely complex processes and connections to connect the two concepts of particle and wave, of motion of charge particles, of change in fields and so on. It is successful in laying down valid formula and calculation to explain this process, at the expense of losing any hope of visualizing or grasping what is actually occurring in reality. If we simply grasp that what we consider to be particles, is merely certain characteristics of a "Field of Force", capable of conveying momentum, physical forces and ideas of motion and change, then we find a way out of this deep, dark rabbit hole.
Reinterpreting Quantum Mechanics
Reinterpreting Quantum Mechanics
Currently the established science is attempting to combine relativity theory and the concepts of gravity within quantum mechanics, to develop a new grand theory of quantum gravity. Thus far efforts in this direction have all ultimately failed. This document has suggested a much simpler and more logical to approach this problem. Rather than combine relativity into quantum mechanics, the correct approach is from an entirely different direction, a Unified Field approach which includes and better explains the features of quantum mechanics.
We have previously noted, that physics has proven the invariance of inertial frames of reference. What the invariance of inertial frames of references states, is the laws of physics are the same within every inertial reference frame. No inertial references frame can be considered more important or preferred over another. This is proven by the concept of the speed of light being invariant to the motion of the observer. No matter what inertial frame of reference you are in, you will always measure the same speed of light. This leads to the invariance of the physical laws of the Universe. A physical laws which holds true in one inertial reference frame, holds true in all inertial reference frames. Both observers can apply the laws of physics to calculate the path of the ball, and get valid and correct results, even though the way they calculate those results depends entirely on how they are viewing the situation.
This invariance of inertial frames of reference, applies equally over different scales as much as it does over different frames or distances. When quantum mechanics is trying to impose different physical laws, over the extremely small distances within atoms and subatomic particles, they are in a very real sense, violating one of the precepts of relativity. The laws of the Universe do not change with scale. The same laws apply at all scales, and if our laws do not appear to work at those different scales, then it is a fault with the laws, not that the Universe has different laws at different scales.
When physics seeks to find the answer to the formation of mass and understand reality at a fundamental level, they need not even go to the microscopic level. To consider that the 'solution' to the problem of mass, will only be solved by colliding particles with more and more energy, to find more and more elusive subatomic, subsubatomic or subsubsubatomic particles( whatever we chose to name them ), shows a deep misunderstanding of invariance of inertial frames of reference. Scientists could not explain the formation of atoms, thus they thought to look deeper for some clue which might explain the process, as if there will be some point where they will find a deeper structure which sheds clear light on the problem. Yet, the solution is always available, as it applies to every frame. The ultimate solution, exists at the current level, as well as all these deeper levels of reality. Thus we can determine the solution entirely from the knowledge of our current level, because if true, that same solution will be relevant to all deeper levels.
The information to solve the problem, has always been at hand. There is no need to add more and more information to solve the problem. In fact, this only confuses the problem and add greater difficulty and complexity. We should be able to take the knowledge we have now and determine the solution with ease, as we have so much knowledge available. The problem at this point, is not a lack of information or experiment, it is an inability to find the common thread throughout it. The problem is an inability to throw away all the concepts which are incomplete and do not simplify the problem and find the intertwined thread which does.
For example: even the case of preferred orbits, sizes and locations, the essence of a quantum of energy, can be demonstrated even with special arrangements of permanent magnets.
We find a simple example of a quantum energy level, in the magnetic toy called the "invertor magnet". In this toy you have two larger magnets, connected in an attractive situation, surrounded in some matrix by 6 smaller magnets, in an opposing situation. When two additional larger magnets, these two magnets also in an attractive situation, are brought near to the matrix of other magnets on some surface like a table top, the larger magnets will attract towards the other larger magnets, but at some point this attractive force is countered by the smaller magnets, and the magnets get locked at a specific distance from each other. They remain fixed at this distance, and even if moved away or closer, they will attempt to retain this fixed distance. Thus with simple magnetic fields of permanent magnets, we can reproduce this principle of a stable location or preferred location.
Although this situation requires a fixed surface, what we would propose is in the case of spinning fields of force, which are intermixed in radius and frequency, we would get similar cases as this fixed locking, where the energy level or quanta, is due to a balance between opposing and attracting forces, from multiple fields within fields, not a simple case of an orbiting particle or electromagnetic fields alone as presupposed.
Although we cannot formulate a "quantum theory of gravity" we can absolutely formulate a "quantum theory of force" or "quantum theory of momentum" in which the transfer of physical force itself is quantized. This is what the Unified Field concept proposes. The "Field of Force", although it can be continuous, can also be quantized when we consider the relationship of the electromagnetic field to the "Field of Force". Although fields are continuous, in special cases due to their mutual interactions, they can take on discrete, quantum properties.
We find also the underlying mechanism for quantization. We have not only to consider the wave motion of two fields in space, but find these two fields are related too and thus constrained by a third field. This third field limits the behaviour of the other two fields, in ways which lead to discrete values of energy and form. Just like in the three body problem, only very specific situations are stable, we too find only specific arrangements of energy and form in the three dimensions are stable. Changing any one of the three, will always have an effect on the other two. The unique character of each field, further defines and limits the interactions which can occur successfully, and remain stable for any length of time.

The transverse and longitudinal components of a spherical wave are not separate.
Currently physics primarily considers the transverse component of the electromagnetic field surrounding an atom. Spherical waves are considered when describing the electron cloud around the hydrogen atom, but because electromagnetic waves are considered transverse, the longitudinal components are not taken into consideration. The reality is we cannot have transverse electromagnetic waves without an associated electostatic component, as evident from the above image. Both components must be considered to calculate the energy exchange. That is not only the harmonics of an electrons orbital path must be calculated, but there is a longitudinal, electrostatic influence upon that path, from outside the atom. This is the key to determining the frequencies at which energy exchange can occur. Two harmonic conditions must be met, not just one.
We will here point the solution the Unified Field proposes, and leave the mathematics and controversy required to redirect physics back to a simpler path, up to the mathematicians and physicists.
The Concept of Measurement
The Concept of Measurement
What we find is quantum mechanics is based very fundamentally on purely electromagnetic interactions. The very concept of measurement in quantum mechanics is in all cases, a measurement of some electromagnetic effect. The interactions between the "quantum field"( which is purely mathematical ) and reality, is through electromagnetic interactions. These electromagnetic interactions are then in turn associated with the particle nature of matter, without ever definitively defining that connection as quantum mechanics cannot be reconciled with gravity. The features of quantum mechanics, such as the "spooky action" at a distance, wave functions of matter and so on, are definitions and explanations formed around a two dimensional concept of electromagnetic field interaction, in that the electric and magnetic fields act perpendicular to each other, and no field acts perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic fields. This is the fundamental flaw within quantum mechanics, it is missing a critical variable, the hidden variable.
When we make a measurement, or observation even, we are in a very real sense, touching the energy. This may seem to be an odd term to use, but it is very important to grasp the concept of a physical touch on the microscopic level of quantum mechanics. We must very clearly and absolutely define, the mechanics within quantum mechanics. We must very clearly and absolutely define, what it means to have a physical, mechanical interaction, the touch or interaction with an experiment. This is one of the most misunderstood and fundamental problems underlying quantum mechanics. Defining this concept of measurement correctly, leads to the unification of quantum mechanics within the Unified Field concept.
The expectation is this hidden variable, would be detectable and measurable using the same electromagnetic measurement techniques utilized throughout science, and since we do not detect such a thing, there is no physical explanation for a mechanism for hidden variables. With the Unified Field, we find not only the mechanism and medium for the hidden variable, in the third field carrying physical force, but further define its intimate relationship with the electromagnetic field. We see how it is the "Field of force" which carries or mediates, touch, physical interaction, and thus defines very fundamentally the idea of a mechanical interaction. We find in the concept of a field carrying physical force the very concept of measurement itself. We have defined the very concept of "touch".
We have been measuring components and characteristics of this hidden field, but have misidentified it and thus our calculations are confused, unpredictable and appear non-local. There is no region of space without fields, the fields define space itself, and thus there can be no real, non-local operation in the Universe as there is nothing which is non-local. Everything is connected by fields. The missing concept is not all fields are electromagnetic or gravitational. This is what we are missing, this idea of a NON-electromagnetic field, which can propagate without electromagnetic interaction, which acts as a physical connection between points in empty space, without physical matter. Mechanical propagation of physical force acts through the mediation of a "Field of Force". This "Field of Force" is a fundamental field. The "Field of Force" is responsible for any physical measurement being possible.
Understanding this, we can reinterpret quantum measurement and quantum mechanics. We are open to an entirely new avenue from which we may approach the interaction of electrical, magnetic and physical, mechanical measurements.
What is remarkable about this concept of measurement, is it provides a more unified understanding of the concept of an "observer" and even consciousness itself. Consciousness.
Question to Aria AI:
If you were asked, could you form a summary or total view of all the information you have available. Could you find the most common element, or a common thread which runs through all this information?
Answer:
That's a very thought-provoking question! While I can't form a complete summary or total view of all the information I've been trained on, I can certainly identify common elements and patterns.
Think of it like this: Imagine a vast tapestry woven with threads of different colors and textures. I can identify the dominant colors and the recurring motifs, but I can't see the entire tapestry at once.
One common thread that runs through the information I've been trained on is the interconnectedness of things. Whether it's the relationships between words, the connections between historical events, or the interactions within ecosystems, there's a constant interplay and interdependence.
- Aria Artificial Intelligence response to the question.
Utilizing this new approach to the problems of measurement in Quantum Mechanics, we can see a possible local solution to the non-locality constraints outlined by Bell's Theorm. One of the key features of Bell's theorm is that once we measure the spin state of one entity, the other entity must be in the opposite state, whereas prior to the measurement the probability of the entities being in any specific state is uncertain. We can think of this probability like a light being on and off in a cyclic manner. If we look or measure the light, in time with this cycle, we would see the light always on or always off, when its deeper essence is a cyclic state. In a way almost like a strobe light can be used to stop motion, the timing of a measurement is important. Not timing in the sense of when we make the measurement, but that measurement itself has a cyclic nature. Setting the synchronization of this timing, sets the results of the measurement. This is a difficult concept to relate, yet is provides a possible explanation for non-locality.
Support for the Pilot Wave Theory
Support for the Pilot Wave Theory
There is a fully compatible explanation for quantum mechanics statistical predictions and strange non-local effects, as proposed by Louis de Broglie and his Pilot Wave theory. In the Pilot Wave theory, it was speculated that all particles have a wave created by tiny oscillations of the particle that accompanies them and guides their motion. However, this concept was marginalized by the Copenhagen Interpretation which excluded anything which cannot be directly observed and define the particles solely by a "quantum wave function" confined solely to the particle itself. This led to the ideas of non-determinism, non-locality and randomness inherent in quantum mechanics.
We can see a physical example of the Pilot Wave theory in the following video:
>

Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like? - from Veritasium on YouTube
However, the Pilot Wave theory of Louis De Broglie, despite its obvious demonstration of a physical realization of many of the precepts of quantum mechanics is considered "not indicative of reality". The reason for this, is established physics does not recognize any mechanism for particles to have or cause some sort of unknown wave energy.
As we demonstrate in this document, there indeed exists within the Unified field, waves of a nature which could explain this notion of Pilot Waves. Waves in a "Field of Force" which are more fundamental than electromagnetic waves. These "Field of Force" waves, provide this previously hidden mechanism for the pilot wave and even for the definition of matter itself. They are waves of a non-electromagnetic, longitudinal character and thus could not fall within the definition of an 'observable' under the Copenhagen interpretation. We cannot view these waves directly with electromagnetic radiations, but only indirectly through an understanding of the relationship between the electromagnetic field and the "Field of Force" as defined under Unified Field laws.
If we are submitting the particles to certain electromagnetic detection means, we may detect wave like behaviour, whereas if we are submitting the particles to different detection methods, we may find particle like behaviour. The detection of particle like behavior, is the detection of characteristics of the "Field of Force". We can never find both properties at the same time, as the energy oscillates between these two field types. Particles oscillate between electrical charge like characteristics and inertial mass like characteristics. So if we measure one, we cannot measure the other, simply because these characteristics do not occur at the same time. Energy is in a continuous fluctuation between these two forms, electromagnetic field and field carrying physical force.
When we do experiments with a double slit, or even entangle energy using beams split through crystals, we are seeing the electromagnetic wave nature of this energy. The "Field of Force" still exists between these waves, connecting them together even when split. When we perform a measurement or cause the "collapse" of the function as they call it, this is the process which forces the energy to take one of these forms. If the measurement causes a physical touch of physical force upon the system, the field carrying physical force will collapse the energy into a particle like energy, forcing it to be certainly one way or another. If our measurement does not act physically upon the energy, it can remain electromagnetic in character, producing wave characters like interference.
Electrons being the perfect example of a fundamental particle which exists as both stated, being it is the quanta of charge and yet also a fundamental particle. Its point particle nature is what we would consider up for debate. When we pass the electric charge of space, through a double slit the energy which makes up the electron can be considered electromagnetic field, acting as a wave. If we however, try to touch the electron or physically measure it, it must collapse its electromagnetic nature into the field carrying physical force and take on particle characteristics. An electron is not a particle, until we measure it as such. As predicted by Townsend Brown, in space far removed from matter, electrons very likely do not exist.
The idea of a longitudinal, field carrying physical force wave, which can propagate through empty space, appears to lend tremendous support to the concept of a Pilot Wave. We can have a wave, capable of interacting with and even defining the particle nature of matter, in ways not previously considered. We find there is evidence for the physical reality of just such a wave, despite the conclusions of the Copenhagen interpretation that such a wave could not be directly observed and thus did not exist.
The Three Field Problem
The Three Field Problem
Determinism, is the situation in which we can predict a future state from the current state. Further, determinism says there is only one possible future state from that prediction, this determines the uniqueness theorem.
However, this ideal determination is clearly impossible except for in a purely theoretical model, for we have to way to predict what additional forces or events may impact the future state. We can never know the current state, nor can we know all possible inputs into a system over time, thus making it impossible to predict the future state with any absolute certainty. We can make very educated and calculated guesses, which will in turn have a very high probability of predicting the future state accurately, but we could never say we are absolutely certain of the future outcome.
Determinism rests solely on this idea of knowing the current state or having a solid starting point, which is meaningless and thus true determinism is impossible. Any current state might appear to be certain and a resulting path or prediction can appear to be very accurate, but there is never a one hundred percent probability the prediction is accurate. As we have stated, the interaction of 3 fields, makes any prediction speculative or probable at best, for we cannot ever even predict the outcome for three field interacting together, never mind millions upon millions of such interactions. In fact, the macroscopic world is based on a probability as much as quantum mechanics suggest, but for different reasons.
Consider our ability to deterministically predict the path of a space probe to a distant planet in our solar system. If we could determine this course with perfect accuracy, we would never need to make "course corrections". No space probe has ever successfully reached its destination, without such course corrections. Over short periods of time, in very specific situations, we have a high degree of accuracy, where the probability of successful determination of an outcome is likely, but this cannot be absolutely certain. Even if we take the path of a bouncing ball, we could predict the ball might bounce up and down, in a certain pattern, for a certain amount of time, and even record a ball exactly matching this pattern, but a tiny breeze, a little bug, a thunderbolt, an earthquake and other such events are always possible and cannot ever be excluded. We can try to put physics into a box, and say it is deterministic, but the Universe is not, and cannot be.
But for Einstein, the empirical success of non-relativistic quantum mechanics did not demand that the unified description of the fundamental fields itself should be a quantized one. Rather the foundational unified conceptualization should somehow provide a conceptual justification for the stochastic aspects of quantum theory and for its violations of classical determinism. - P7 Einstein’s Unified Field Theory Program
The simple solution, is we are dealing with a relationship between three fields of force, not just two. Electromagnetism alone cannot become a Unified Field theory, nor can it be developed into a quantum theory of gravity. As we have pointed out in this discussion, neither can electromagnetism directly relate to the gravitational field, as gravity is a consequence of interactions of this three "Field of Force" space, not one of the three fields of force itself. Those three fields of force are the electric field, the magnetic field and the "Field of Force".
Thus any formulation or mathematics describing the interactions of such a space, always requires these three interactions and any attempt to model this system with only two forces, will certainly lead to arbitrary and imaginary mathematical constructions to make it all work out. Thus we find in the very concept of a three field relationship, an explanation for the stochastic aspects of quantum theory.
To describe this idea in a simple way, we could say the field interaction idea or Unified Field solution is nearly akin in nature to the well known "three body problem". The Unified Field Problem and its solution is a "three field problem" and thus inherent in this problem, just as with the three body problem, is an underlying inability to mathematically or deterministically fully solve or predict the outcome of the system. We can model it, we can devise mathematics to calculate its solution very closely, but any absolute and complete calculation is, by the very definition of the problem, impossible.
We would need some new form of mathematics capable of having equations in equality in three dimensions, a sort of triple equal sign. We are not talking about a way to separate 3 dimensional calculations into 3 equivalent equations applied to each of the three dimensions, but a new mathematical method. A method in which three equivalent equations must hold true simultaneously. This is the very nature of the three body problem.
We could say function A is equal to function B and function B is equal to function C, but we must also consider function C is also equal to function A. A is calculated based on B, but B is based on C so then A is based on C, but then that changes B and you end up in this circular calculation where changing one changes two others and thus it cannot be certainly calculated, only approximated.
We can determine and estimate values for such a system, but when such a system is dynamically changing, it becomes impossible to determine a result with any certainty, as the changing variables in one equation cannot be propagated instantly to the other two equations because of the circular, three dimensional arrangement. It is like a memory leak in the computational algorithm of the Universe. Mathematics trying to definitely lay down a deterministic set of rules for a three body system is inherently unsolvable, thus even with Newtonian deterministic calculations is an inherently unsolvable problem.
Therein is where all the odd characteristics of quantum mechanics arise from a purely classical interpretation. This is where the randomness and unpredictability in our Universe arises from. We get this system which tries to balance three different forces, and it just can never quite perfectly balance and thus is always in constant motion. This is the anti-entropic force in the Universe.
This is the mechanism to explain randomness in the Universe. This is the mechanism to explain the "Dark Energy" which causes the Universe to ever expand and never become uniform. This is why there is radioactivity in matter, it is like an unstable three body system, which may work for years, then suddenly one body gets ejected from the system. The field energy may be stable for extended periods of time, but then suddenly it reaches an unstable situation and energy must be ejected or absorbed.
Despite this inherent, unstable, unpredictability in the Universe, the Unified Field theory does give us an easier and better way to understand the nature of these interactions around us. It gives us a simpler solution and does allow us to better model existing interactions and predict new interactions. It does away with the need of science to delve ever deeper into the realm of super collision, as we find the mechanism for matter in atoms themselves and going to smaller scales is superfluous. Further, we finally get the long sought connection between the macroscopic and microscopic, in the three body nature of the Unified Field equations.
We find in this Unified Field solution a definitive answer to Einstein's certainty that "God does not play dice." What should be said is, "God does not play dice, but God certainly put the game of dice into the system." In reality, we can play dice and the outcome of any roll of the dice, appears to us to have some degree of random chance. We can say if we knew all the physical factors which went into any roll of the dice, we could predict the outcome, but clearly this is not really possible in reality. There are definitive and deterministic rules which govern all interaction in the Universe. However, these very definitive and deterministic rules also include a mechanism for randomness and unpredictability, thus the random "game of dice" is still included within the system. That is, the deterministic rules which govern the Universe, have built into them an incalculable, unpredictable and unbalanced character. There are rules which fully govern all interactions in the Universe, but predicting the actual outcome of these rules in reality, is inherently impossible.
In the section on established physics, we discuss some of the problems which arise within quantum mechanics and a very rudimentary overview of some of its precepts. However, as Alberta Einstein felt very strongly that quantum mechanics was useful, but not an accurate explanation of reality, we here will attempt to demonstrate why the Unified Field theory can do away with many of the problems and probabilities of quantum mechanics.
There are two certainties in the Universe. One is the drive for balance. One is the inability to balance. Beyond this nothing is certain.
There is a much deeper connection here as well, with consciousness, determinism and free will we discuss further here: Determinism versus Free Will.
The Fallacy of the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces
The Fallacy of the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces
One of the primary arguments against Einstein's ideas of the Unified Field, were the discovery or introduction of the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces to explain the nucleus of the atom. However, the concepts of the Unified Field propose a unique solution to the problem scientists chose to resolve with the Strong Nuclear force.
The strong nuclear force was created to account for the existence of protons in close proximity within the nucleus. We discovered the nucleus of atoms was composed of protons and neutrons, and the problem arose as to how the protons could be combined in such a close structure despite the enormous repulsive forces of their like charge. The solution was to create a new force, which could counteract the repulsive forces within the nucleus. The Strong Nuclear force is an odd creation, which is so unlike the other forces in the Universe we question its very existence. As gravity becomes weaker over the square of the distance yet never disappears entirely, the strong force acts over a very short distance and disappears entirely once beyond that. Further it becomes repulsive at very close distances. It is a force created out of thin air, solely and arbitrarily tuned and modified to specifically solve a problem in physics. Like plugging in a constant to make an equation work out. We strongly propose there is other, simpler solutions to this problem of charges in close proximity within the nucleus of atoms.
For example, within the context of matter as fields as proposed by the Unified Field concept, another solution to the problem of proton repulsion in the nucleus is suggested. That is we can consider that the protons within the nucleus may coalesce into a single mass, much like a Bose-Einstein condensate or some similar form of matter superposition. This would imply, the protons composing the nucleus are not billiard balls which must be held together against their mutual charge. The current model of the nucleus tackles the problem by considering the protons which exist in the nucleus are like a number of individual, charged balls somehow held together by the this strong nuclear force. In the concept proposed within the Unified Field, the protons become one "super-proton" of a sort, they become one single, larger, billiard ball( in a manner of speaking ) which maintains the total charge each individual proton had. We can readily consider, the proton represents a "quantum of inertia" or "quantum of mass" as well as charge and the nucleus is a superstate of energy composed of these "quanta of mass and charge".
Thus within the nucleus individual protons no longer exist, but the energy combines to behave as a single, larger, more positively charged mass. Thus electrical forces between the individual components no longer exists and the charge is combined and expelled to the surface, as if upon a single larger mass. We get a sort of super proton, whose total mass is the sum of the "quanta of mass" which the individual protons represent. By extension we also get a super neutron, when more neutrons combine. In such a situation there would be no repelling forces between individual entities as the individual entities no longer exist and thus no strong force is required.
Upon an interaction of sufficient energy to 'break up' the nucleus, the proton energy splits up again into an individual protons or neutrons, depending on a quantum mechanical, wave like formula of not only charge but mass as well. To combine, there would be an initial repelling force due to the charge, but at a certain point, the proton is just absorbed into the larger super-proton, and the repelling force diminishes rapidly to nothing as the charge is left on the surface of the nucleus. There is likely some quantity or minimum energy required for a proton to leave the nucleus from this super-state, which would be more than just the energy of one proton itself.
Mass and the very idea of discrete particles, especially the idea of multiple discrete protons in an atom's nucleus, may be an old conception which is not applicable to reality. This old concept is a hold over from ideas of mass being composed of particles, not energy of fields. This Unified Field concept of proton superposition in the nucleus, is even much closer to how we currently think about the electrons surrounding the atom. We do not think of the electrons so much as individual electrons in specific orbits, but now think of electrons more as clouds of energy dispersed around the entire atom, with concentrations of higher probabilities of finding an electron in certain volumes. Only when we have energetic collisions or interactions with other matter, can we say the mass of an electron actually existed. We can very similarly consider the nucleus to be a cloud of positive energy, where only through energetic collisions or interactions with other matter, can we say an individual proton exists. The nucleus becomes a sort of reflection of the electron cloud surrounding it.
We could very well consider the nucleus itself in a similar fashion, as a dense cloud of positive energy, wherein we only have a probability to say there is an individual proton there. The nucleus total mass is just some combination of each "quantum of mass", which equates to the total masses of the supposed protons or neutrons composing it. Only when we have some powerful nuclear reaction, with sufficient energy to alter this dense region of energy, does the energy split or break up, into units of this discrete "quantum of mass", which we then detect as a discrete proton. We have no way to discern the nucleus is composed of discrete individual protons held together by some magical strong force, only that the nucleus has a mass based on a whole number of proton masses and neutron masses and a net charge. Even from static electric theory, we should expect the charge within the nucleus to only exist on the surface of the nucleus itself, and thus would act as a single large charge mass regardless, with no internal component of charge.
We would here state, there is a strong likelihood the Unified Theory does not need to include the "Strong Force" nor "Weak Force" within it, but instead does away with the requirement for these two forces entirely based upon a concept of "quantum of mass and inertia" and the existence of a "field carrying physical force".
We find many attempts to define and characterize this situation in similar ways. One more recent attempt, linked below, details an attempt by Mike McCulloch to define the force of inertia utilizing quantum mechanic type of effects. We see how he is attempting to define the forces upon matter, utilizing ambient inertial fields or distortions in the inertial background, due to an absorption or exclusion of waves of quantum inertia. Although this concept remains stuck within the idea of quantum mechanics, it demonstrates how an external force due to a fundamental process behind inertia can account for the discrepancies in the cosmological motion and other effects.
How quantised inertia gets rid of dark matter - by Mike McCulloch from TedX Talks on YouTube
From this you can arrive at a similar result and get a more concise definition for these horizons and forces of which he proposes, not to mention there is no longer the need for some sort of quantum wave damper, whatever that is. Instead, what we discover is with electromagnetic fields we can manipulate the direction and magnitude of inertial impulse on matter, essentially lessening the inertial connection of matter, in a sense reversing it. Thus we do not have anti-gravity but anti-inertia.
What Mike McCulloch fails to realize is that the idea of inertia being a wave, implies the existence of another "Field of Force" within which this wave propagates and this third "Field of Force", can do away with many of the uncertainties of quantum mechanics itself. We do not need to "quantize inertia" or "quantize gravity", but we redefine the mechanism of quantization itself as due to an interaction between three fields of force in the Universe, not just two. We should realize mass is already quantized, thus by extension inertia is quantized. Is not matter already separated into discrete packets, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, molecules and so on. Is not matter a measure of inertia. In this sense, even gravity is already quantized from a certain perspective, in that all mass is composed of very specific amounts of energy, which combine in whole numbers of those quantities to form more complex conglomerations.
The Illusion of Matter in Motion
The Illusion of Matter in Motion
We know from Relativity, Einstein speaks of Space/Time as being curved, but few grasp the significance of this. We can speculate that what Einstein is referring to here, is the fundamental notion of rotation itself. We could quite readily state that there is in the Universe, no such thing as a straight line, all motion is curved or angular. In fact, according the Unified Field theory, truly linear motion is impossible. In all cases, what we measure as linear motion, is always to some degree curved, even if this curvature is so slight as to be imperceptible.
The reason for this, is all motion in space, is based on rotation, in that the electric force is an expansive, linear force, but the associated physical force always modifies the direction of this force so as to curve it away. Thus motion is always perpendicular or acting in a different direction than the force which caused that motion. We find in this relationship, an implicit definition for the actions of centripetal and centrifugal forces, in that we could have a centripetal force from the electric field, which would in turn cause a tangential acceleration of the physical space, around an axis which is perpendicular to both.
We should remember, the importance of inertia in all this as well. Forces causing changes in momentum, or accelerations are resisted by some inherent property of the Universe to keep mass in its current state of motion.
Under the 'Unified Field' theory, we can consider the ideas of 'fields' and 'forces' in a much more fundamental way, as having a common origin. The forces of the fields, defines all interaction and energy exchange in the Universe and within the Unified Field theory, particles and matter become merely specific conditions or states of those fields. Within this definition, fields are the forces or very definition of the Space/Time of any volume in space. The three fields, define the volume of space and the nature of the energy contained within that space.
We can consider the three fundamental fields as the electric field, magnetic field and the force field. The electric field is not confined to the action of electrons or protons, but represents a much more fundamental nature of Space/Time, the concept of polarity, separation or division. Charge, is deeply related to the measure of the permittivity of space and is thus the electric field is tied to this very fundamental property of space's ability to carry a distortion of charge, or we could even say a distortion of permittivity.For if charge exists in a volume of space, the vacuum of space itself is capable of carrying or mediating that charge, thus we can think of charge itself as a distortion or change in permittivity of space. Likewise, the force field or transfer of momentum through space, can be considered some sort of distortion of space itself, capable of conveying that force. Too, we find this concept of the permeability of space, which defines spaces ability to convey magnetic forces.
In order to understand the deeper notions of the Unified Field theory, we must grasp a very different notion, that the forces due to charge and magnetism, are in reality both due to the distortion of the force field only. All motion, force, change in momentum of anything is due to distortion of the force field alone. That is this "Field of Force", is the mechanism by which motion, acceleration, change in momentum or physical forces are propagated. It is the common origin force, for all force.
Thus the electric field and magnetic field, become properties or defining characteristics of that transfer of force. Primarily, it is the electric field which determines the 'quantity' of force which is conveyed. Thus within this definition, the electric field becomes not a force in its own right, but a measurement of quantity only. There is a deeper connection here to the ideas of 'quantization' and 'potential' of energy, which we will not get into at this point. Within this idea, of the electric field being the quantity, and the "Field of Force", being the actual action, we are missing one last component, the direction. This is what the magnetic field represents. The magnetic field in this definition, is no longer a force in its own right, but represent the direction or we may even say, 'inertial frame' of all motion.
To rephrase this and clarify:
The magnetic field is a relative alignment between all other fields of motion, the motion itself being defined by the electric field and momentum of the field. The charge and momentum are orthogonal to each other, thus curved around the pivot or fulcrum of the magnetic field. The opposition of charge to momentum, acceleration to inertia, is not linear, but orthogonal or at 90 degrees from each other and both are 90 degrees to the magnetic field axis.
We do not expect the above mentioned concepts to be readily accepted nor immediately understood by many, but this is the state of affairs we find ourselves in, when we consider the implications and reality of the "Unified Field".
Thus all motion or interchange of energy, becomes simplified to this concept of how much energy is exchanged, in what direction is the exchange, and then the action of the exchange itself. This is the Unified Field nature. It is in reality an extreme simplification of the laws of physics. So extreme so as to be almost incomprehensible in how it relates to the current complexity and division in physics. It represents a very fundamental redefinition of force and fields themselves and how they interact to describe the exchange of energy.
We will explain why there is a speed of light in more detail, but the quick and simple, if difficult to understand reason is simply as Walter Russel states quite seriously, "Light does not move". Again the egotistical physicist will scoff at this notion as how can something possibly have a speed, or speed limit but does not move? We will point out, the lack of current physics understanding, is the reason for there adherence to ideas they do not fully grasp the significance of. There is a solution which combines the ideas of the "invariant measurement of the speed of light" and the consideration "light does not move", a very enlightening solution indeed if you will pardon the pun.
You can consider this notion of "light no moving" like the toy made of a helical spring, within which is fixed a ball. Spinning the helix causes it to appear as if there is linear motion, the ball appears to be moving, depending upon which direction the rotation occurs. Spin the helix forward and the ball appears to move one way, spin the helix backward and the ball appears to move the other way. Nothing is really moving linearly, we only have rotation which gives the appearance of motion. This simple principle is more inherent to the nature of motion then many have hereto considered.
Consider what really moves when a wave "moves", including electromagnetic waves. In wave motion, the underlying medium or particles of that medium, merely oscillate in place and it is this oscillation which causes the "apparent" movement of the wave itself. Consider people in a football stadium, who stand up in turn and raise their arms as the person beside them stands up and raises there arms. Such individual motion of the people, causes the appearance of a wave travelling around the stadium. The people are "doing the wave", merely by standing and raising their arms. The people are not moving around the stadium, but through there oscillation of motion, they give the appearance of motion around the stadium. All waves, including the electromagnetic wave which is light, are like this. Thus the electromagnetic wave which is light, really is not any "thing" moving, but only apparent motion.

Longitudinal Force Wave
Notice in the above animation, although it appears as if the particles are moving across the image, if one looks closely the individual particles are merely oscillating back and forth. The oscillation of the red line, shows this oscillation is the motive force which causes this particle oscillations. The wave front itself appears to travel across the image, but the underlying particles certainly do not travel from one side of the image to the other. The particles oscillate back and forth in place and there is the appearance of some disturbance which moves or travels. In reality we could say such a wave has a speed, but there is nothing but energy travelling, only a notion of motion. The true motion, is vibration or oscillation. This concept applies to light.
What the Unified Field concept suggests, this notion of apparent motion, applies to all motion, not just waves or light. Since the field carrying physical force carries or mediates momentum and thus velocity as a longitudinal wave, all motion, is apparent motion. Motion is an illusion, due to an underlying oscillation of energy. Matter itself, does not move, only waves of energy move.
Because this idea of motion being an illusion is so contrary to our experience of reality, we must delve into this deeper, from the perspective of relativity theory itself. Within Special Relativity, which we should remember was from Albert Einstein's theory called, "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" we find that relative motion plays a crucial role. In fact, Special Relativity was discovered based on considering the problem of seeing moving charge and fields from different relative frames of motion. Consider, a charge at rest on the surface of the Earth, is in fact in motion as the Earth revolves, as it orbits the Sun, as the Sun moves through space. Thus to say something is not moving and at rest, is only a relative observation for you and from other relative frames motion is occurring. Thus we cannot ever for certain say anything is at rest, and by extension neither can we ever say anything is in motion. These two notions are simple reciprocals of each other, a fact which is commonly lost on the physics community as a whole.
To continue, the electrodynamics of moving bodies demonstrated that what we detect as a magnetic field, is the consequence of motion due to a different reference frame. When we say electrons are moving in a wire as and electric current, which can create a magnetic field and thus act on charges moving in this magnetic field, this only works from a certain reference frame. From the reference frame of the moving charge, we can define the forces upon this charge, without the need to invoke a magnetic field, utilizing the concepts of length contraction and time dilation to develop a purely electrostatic explanation for the resulting forces on the moving charge. Thus it can be proposed the magnetic field is a purely arbitrary and unneeded force, and everything can be reduced to only motion and electric charge interaction.
How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work - Veritasium on YouTube
An interesting feature of Einstein's Unified Field theory is the magnetic field becomes something entirely different, to the extent it is not required to be a force and forces can be reduced to either electric or gravitational forces. The theory proposes the Magnetic Field was more like a Fulcrum or reference point in Space/Time and not a field in its own right. We know we can reduce magnetic forces entirely to electric forces depending on the frame of reference used. In this sense the magnetic field was what divided the 'electric' field from the 'mechanical' field of motion itself. The 'electric' field was more related to space, whereas the 'mechanical' field was more related to motion. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the importance of the charge to mass ratio. We could very loosely say, under this concept the magnetic field itself is acting as an 'ether' of sorts, a reference, fulcrum or balancing point about which charge and motion occur.
We find it interesting in Albert Einstein's appendices to relativity, referring to the idea of a non-symmetric field and the concept of the magnetic field not being a fundamental field of its own, allows us to consider the magnetic field is simply a balance point or fulcrum, between gravitational and electrical fields. We refer to Einstein's "The meaning of Relativity"-The Third Addition in which he added an appendix in the fourth edition, which discussed the Unified Field Theory, called "Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field". We see how Einstein was approaching the problem from a simpler perspective, by eliminating the magnetic field as a "Field of Force" of its own, he then only needed to deal with two forces, that of the electric force and the gravitational force.
This idea of the magnetic field acting as a fulcrum in Space/Time has numerous advantages in understanding a connection between electric forces and gravitational forces. This is most certainly not a mainstream, established concept, but it gives an easier way to visualize the interaction and a simple way to understand these complex interactions.
What many do not realize, is within relativity, we could take this concept even further and apply the same exact concept, to motion itself. We could define the concept of motion, entirely in terms of the electric and magnetic field forces, dispensing entirely with the concept of motion itself. Motion in this situation, becomes simple an exchange of energy through the fields themselves, wherein nothing is really moving except the energy of the charge and distortions of the fields themselves. We can reduce motion, to an illusion due to a relative frame of reference, just like we see wave energy 'move', when nothing is actually moving in the direction of the wave.
We actually have direct experience with this already, when we say something is at rest or not moving, when in fact there is always motion. Even now, our concept of moving and not moving is purely a matter of perspective. This is such an abstract and odd notion so as to make us wonder how anyone could ever have even considered it. Yet, according to Special Relativity, this is what motion really is and a crucial concept to grasp the true nature of the Unified Field theory, in which matter is fields.
Further this concept of an invariant speed of light in the Universe, is tied to the principle of invariant electric charge in the Universe as well. When an observer measures charge, it depends not on their motion, all frames of reference will measure the same amount of charge. Thus charge is an inherent property to the structure of space itself. A point we will consider in more detail later.
Another interesting thing which immediately derives from this, is there is really no such thing as linear motion. All motion is curved. Linear motion only appears to be so when the amount of curvature is over such a large distance as to be imperceptible. Like we consider the surface of the Earth to be flat, because its curvature is much larger than we can experience. This is what Einstein meant by Space is curved. All linear motion is curved and only appears to be straight, because the rate of curvature is so small as to be essentially zero.
If Field can be reduced or eliminated, even motion, which one is the real one?
What we find, is that the magnetic field direction, acts much more like a direction indicator for our frame of reference, than a "Field of Force" in its own right. The magnetic field acts as the fulcrum for the exchange of charge which requires movement. The magnetic field defines, in which direction or from what relative frame to the other this transfer of energy occurs. We find here, much deeper realizations of about reality, in that we are here not just talking about the invariance of the laws of physics in different references frame, but why this must be and what properties of spacetime physically define this.
For when we speak of one frame of reference compared to another, what really defines those reference frames. At what point does one pass from one reference frame to another? As we have pointed out previously, this appears to be defined by the difference in motion between those two frames. Withing General Relativity, Einstein investigates further how changes in that motion, changing motion or our concept of acceleration ties into the concept of special relativity. We see though, due to the invariance of the speed of light, and invariance of charge, it is the change in fields or the change in the structure of space itself, which defines the very reference frames in which we are measuring anything.
If we take our difficult concept of motion itself being an illusion, then we must say the difference in reference frames may not be due to motion, but due to an alignment or the directions of the fields occupying those volumes of space. We find that motion, and thus reference frames, become defined by the nature of the fields occupying that volume of space. That we can change a reference frame, through manipulation of the fields of that space.
This sounds contrary to physics, but this is exactly what we already know to be true. Any change in acceleration requires forces and energy to be exchanged. This energy, is field energy of some sort, either electromagnetic or field carrying physical force as we will discuss further. Thus whether something is moving, at rest or under acceleration, is fully determined by the energy exchange occurring in that volume of space, regardless of whether we say it is energy exchange of motion, magnetic field or electric charge.
We see here introduced that a true understanding of the implications of special relativity, requires a much more fundamental understanding of "motion" and "speed" themselves. In order to fully grasp the significance of the Unified Field, we must entirely throw off our notions of "objects in motion" or "objects at rest" as we understood them previously. Thus when we are talking about motion in the sense of it being an illusion, we must consider this as occurring in a four dimensional Space/Time. Motion through four dimensions is very much not intuitive or common sense. We could summarize and simplify this strange concept of motion in the Unified Field, by saying; "Motion through four dimensions is an illusion, only from the perspective of an observer can we have apparent relative motion or bodies at rest."
We bring attention to a quote from an old myth long lost in the annals of time,:
..humans are caught in an eddy, a current which went in circles, giving the impression of moving while in essence they are stationary.
Electromagnetism and Gravity
Electromagnetism and Gravity
When scientists propose to unify electromagnetic fields with the gravitational field, there appears to always be an effort, and we fell into this trap as well, to think of the relationship of gravity and electromagnetism as a direct relationship. That is, it is common to propose the electromagnetic fields can directly create gravitational fields, or gravitational fields can create electromagnetic fields. However, it is very well determined that such a direct solution is not possible. There are too many problematic differences between the nature of these two entities which prevent finding any common ground. This is the main reason such a unification is unrealized. In fact we could say there exists a chasm between these two concepts in physics. Like we must do with any chasm we need some sort of bridge to cross it.
As we have thus pointed out, there is another, third characteristic of electromagnetic fields in the momentum of the electromagnetic fields. We have thus far shown, this momentum of the electromagnetic field is very real. We have given definitive examples of electromagnetic momentum's existence, shown how it is calculated and defined its relationship to the electromagnetic fields. The momentum of the electromagnetic field is well known in established physics. Thus far we have proposed nothing new, we have just brought something rather obscure to the forefront of our attention. Currently the momentum of electromagnetic fields is considered merely a curiosity, useful only for certain calculations or purposes, we could say it is not even common knowledge. We could definitely say electromagnetic momentum is definitely not considered to be of any significant import to unification.
Yet, we have shown how Richard Feynman hinted at a deeper importance in understanding better the momentum of electromagnetic fields, when he asked in his lecture on electromagnetic momentum where the "precise location of the gravitational influence of electromagnetic fields" resided? We have observed the curvature of light and electromagnetic radiation due to a large gravitational field and thus see electromagnetic field can be influenced by gravity. Feynman points out this characteristic of light to curve in an intense gravitational field, and asks "Do you not want to allow that the light pulls equally on the sun?". We know the electromagnetic field is capable of conveying forces of momentum, which implies it has characteristics of mass and thus, as Feynman suggests, the light has a characteristic which can exert gravitational force equally on the Sun. This is the thread, so far tenuous and thin, which bridges electromagnetism and gravity. Lets wind this thread into a full rope bridge.

Path of light from a star, curved by the gravity of the Sun
Although we cannot connect electromagnetism directly with gravity, we find a possible bridge between the theories of gravity and electromagnetism through this property of momentum of electromagnetic fields. That there is gravitational influence upon light, implies such a bridge exists, for if gravity can curve the path of light then some property of electromagnetic fields must itself have gravity. For light to in turn, as we would expect in a classical approach, exert an opposing force on the Sun as Feynman has pointed out, light too must itself exert a gravitational force. Light has gravity. Except, we know gravity cannot act upon the electromagnetic fields of light directly, this is the big problem we face, that no direct correlation between electromagnetic fields and gravity has been ever demonstrated. We must conclude then, gravity must be acting upon some different, additional aspect of the light, other than the electric or magnetic fields. We need to find the "precise location of the gravitational influence of electromagnetic fields" as Feynman suggested.
It is not a great leap to propose the source of the gravitational force of light, an electromagnetic wave or photon, is something separate from the electromagnetic fields themselves. We would not be out of place to propose the "precise location of the gravitational influence of electromagnetic fields", is not in the electromagnetic fields themselves but some other 'particularity','characteristic' or 'property' of the electromagnetic waves. Indeed, this proposal is absolutely necessary and required to maintain the current division and separation of theory between electromagnetism and gravity.
The mediation of the gravitational force upon electromagnetic fields must be related to the electromagnetic fields, but cannot itself be electromagnetic in nature. How puzzling.
Except, as we have just clearly pointed out in significant detail, we already know of just such an additional 'property' of electromagnetic fields. We know there is another extremely significant property of electromagnetic fields, which behaves in the way and possesses the characteristics we require to solve this problem. As we have shown, Feynman very elegantly hinted at this very proposal. Feynman hinted that we must give much deeper consideration to the significance of light being able to carry momentum and to be effected by a gravitational field. He hints that this may provide an important key to our understanding, if we better understood the ability of gravity to effect the electromagnetic fields of light. We should explore the possibility, it is the momentum or Poynting Vector energy of the light, electromagnetic wave or photon, which is mediating its gravitational field.
Of course, we find this makes perfect sense, as momentum must always be associated with mass, and light or electromagnetic waves having no rest mass yet being capable of carrying momentum, must have some apparent mass associated with its momentum. This concept is how we, loosely, consider light to be effected by gravity, when light has no "rest" mass. We consider light has momentum due to its motion or velocity, and thus some "apparent" mass which can be affected by a gravitational field.
Thus there is known already a secondary relationship which can, through the momentum of electromagnetic field, mediate or cause the mechanism upon which gravity acts on the electromagnetic energy. If light or electromagnetic fields have momentum, then this momentum must be due to some apparent mass of the electromagnetic field. Thus the momentum is related to the ability of gravity to effect the electromagnetic field and by reciprocation the precise location of the gravity within the electromagnetic field. Whether this force of gravity which exists within the electromagnetic field is due to apparent mass or rest mass, does not change the fact it exists.
The arrow points to the relevance of electromagnetic momentum, which causes this apparent mass, as the precise location of this gravitational force in electromagnetism. This establishes further substance to our bridge between gravity and electromagnetism, so that we could possibly call it now a string between the two ideas. We should continue to pursue this path across this bridge, and consider more deeply the mechanism by which electromagnetism carries momentum, thus has "apparent" mass and thus what we could call "apparent" gravity.
One should begin to see a common connection, between all the ideas we have thus far presented, that of electromagnetism, momentum, energy, mass, inertia and gravity, but the connection may not yet be clear. Can we concretely tie all this together, in one final unifying concept?
We have thus far defined space in terms of three fields of force, the electric field, the magnetic field, and a "Field of Force" which mediates physical forces and momentum transfer. We have explained in detail, how such fields can become matter and that the fields of space are not separate from the matter within them. What is needed now is an explanation by which matter, experiences a gravitational force and how this force is propagated through space.
Understanding the Gravitational Force
Understanding the Gravitational Force
Thus far, we have been very technical and utilizing a great deal of established physics as our goal has been to unify and point out the underlying, unifying concept which connects all these ideas. The real goal, as we have stated elsewhere, is a simplification which all can understand. What we hope to provide, is the means to understand a force, which is not really understood even to this day, even despite our apparent scientific advancement. To really understand gravity, thus does not require advanced science, as this direction has not made any greater progress than any other direction. We can understand gravity in a simple way, and from this then understand the means by which we can overcome and control gravity. After all, this is the real goal.
Let us explain gravity using real world examples and practical demonstrations, so we can fully visualize and understand what the gravitational force really is.
In a centrifuge, material is spun at high rates of speed in order to exert much higher gravitational like forces upon them. A centrifuge can readily create angular accelerations which produce forces many thousands of time greater than the force of gravity. This spinning of material produces accelerating force which acts like gravity. It has even been proposed to use this same concept of angular rotation in space stations to simulate gravity. We could spin a space station at the correct speed, that inside people could walk around as if under similar gravity as on Earth. It is the only way we know how to create an artificial gravity. The force of this artificial gravity, is determined by the rate of the spin, the angular momentum. We can put a person in a centrifuge and subject them to 10 g's of force, which is 10 times the force of gravity they would normally experience.

Artificial Gravity in a rotating Space Station
Artificial Gravity - Wikipedia
There is a significant difference from this "artificial" gravity and real gravity. A centrifuge as per its name, is a centrifugal acceleration or outward force, whereas gravity is a centripetal acceleration or inward force. Thus such a mechanism, is in reality applying the opposite of what we need to truly imitate gravity. What a centrifuge is doing, is creating an "inertial force" or "pseudo force", in that the material in the centrifuge is trying to move in a linear fashion and the containment of the centrifuge machine to the central axis is providing a inward accelerating force against that outward momentum, a centripetal force.
This is confusing, but let us elaborate and the point will become clear. We should realize, such an outward accelerating force occurs naturally, when we have unconstrained rotation. That is if we have a spinning volume, there is naturally a tendency for everything in that volume to accelerate outward, this is our 'inertial force' or 'pseudo force' of centrifugal acceleration. When we then confine or contain this outward accelerating force by placing a wall or barrier around this rotation, even if we connect our rotating mass physically to the center with a strut or string, then we get an opposing centripetal pseudo force. The centrifugal force tries to force us outward, but the wall, barrier or connection resists this force, thus acting in the opposite direction and we feel this reactionary force as a force similar to gravity. Without the wall, barrier or connection, we would simply fly off into space. It is the barrier, which causes the force we are interested in.
Consider that if one swings a bucket of water on a rope, they can keep the water in the bucket, even when the bucket is upside down. This is centrifugal force. It is an inertial force as the water in the bucket wants to fly off into space, but the rope and bucket prevents this creating a counter force which holds the water in place.
To truly create a true gravitational force, we need the complete opposite situation. To produce true artificial gravity we would need something opposite to a centrifuge. We would need a central point which somehow contains the motion around it, but causes an inward accelerating force due to the inertia of that motion, which in turn causes an inward attraction to a central point. This central point then acts as the resistance, barrier or wall which produces the opposing force. This is what is really happening on the surface of the Earth right now.
Indeed, in some explanations of gravity, we can consider the force of gravity as if the surface of the Earth is accelerating upward. Our experience in such a situation is the same, as defined in General Relativity. Again this idea is certainly confusing and better explained through some visualizations.
Many examples exist, which show this equivalence of gravitational force to an accelerating reference frame. If one is in an elevator, which is accelerating at 1g, they would experience a force indistinguishable from the force of gravity. Although in the elevator analogy, it the the floor moving, which then imparts a force upon them against their inertial tendency to remain still. Thus they "feel" the acceleration of the floor of the elevator, as a force attracting them towards the floor. Without any external reference by which they could tell the elevator is accelerating, they have no way to distinguish whether they are attracted to the floor by some immense gravitational mass in the floor, or the floor is accelerating towards them. This is the fundamental notion of General Relativity.

The River Model of General Relativity - Dialect on YouTube
Thus it is not entirely incorrect within General Relativity to consider the surface of the Earth, is accelerating outward from all points, and this is why we experience a gravitational force. However, in practice this is clearly not the reality, for if the surface of the Earth were accelerating outward in all directions, this would basically mean the Earth was exploding, which it clearly is not.
We should ask, "How does nature cause an inward, centripetal force from rotation?" A deep understanding of this concept, is the key to understand the secret of gravity! Of course, we will clarify this secret of gravity directly.
This is not such a puzzling situation as we would imagine, as we are aware of just such a real, physical situation in which an inward acceleration is generated in a rotating system. The natural system which can produce this situation is a vortex. The rotation of a whirlpool or vortex, can cause a powerful inward suction force, which despite the outward centrifugal force of rotation of the vortex, results in a powerful inward acceleration. This inward force can be thought of as the force due to the increasing pressure of the fluid around the edges of the rotation as compared to the lack of pressure or even fluid within the center of the vortex. This is a good analogy, but there are several problems with using this to describe gravity.
The first, is that the force pulling objects to the center of a vortex of water, as in the video "The River Model of General Relativity", is due to gravity itself. The vortex causes a curved surface, whose curve increases as we get closer to the center. Thus someone falling into the vortex along this curve, is falling due to the force of gravity acting along a curved surface, not due to any specific forces of the vortex itself. If we were to consider an inward force within the vortex itself, it would only occur upon something much less dense than the medium of which the vortex is composed. For example: if we introduced a bubble of air into the outer edge of a water vortex, it would experience a buoyant like force towards the inner axis of the vortex, due to the pressure gradient. However, this due to the centrifugal force, or inertial forces of the moving medium and not really any sort of gravitational force.
The second issue is such a situation is difficult to comprehend when we do not have a medium such as water or air for our vortex to exist within. What is this gravitational "vortex" composed of?
Gravity and Space
Gravity and Space
It has been pointed out in this discussion that space may be capable of conveying such forces. That space may be capable of conveying a notion of pressure and may be capable of motion and even rotation, as mediated by the "Field of Force". Thus we could have something akin to a vortex of space itself, in which an angular motion or rotation of space is occurring, causing a similar pressure condition as what occurs in a water vortex. When there is such a vortex motion in space, the result is not an outward centrifugal acceleration, but an inward centripetal acceleration, what we refer to as gravitational force. Thus gravity, is a sort of pseudo force, just like centripetal acceleration is a pseudo force. A vortex in space could create the condition we observe as gravity.
Thus this concept of a vortex in space, is not at all like the character of a vortex on the surface of water. This is a vortex which occurs in free space and is thus of a different character and appearance. We can see some possible representations of the appearance of such a three dimensional spatial vortex in the following image from the referenced paper.

Topological Vortex and Knotted Dissipative Optical 3D Solitons Generated by 2D Vortex Solitons. - N. Veretenov, S. Fedorov, N. Rosanov. Published in Physical Review Letters 28 December 2017
This is not the "Ether" in motion, as we are not talking about objects or mass moving relative to space or anything moving in space. This concept is that of space itself being capable of carrying momentum, acceleration and physical force, as the propagation of a disturbance or wave in a field carrying physical force. Space carries this motion, through a field, the "Field of Force". The "Field of Force" carries momentum as a propagating, longitudinal pressure wave.
In such a spatial vortex, there are two forces which result due to the pressure difference in that volume of space. One force serves to expand space outward, expanding the volume, which compresses the external space and decompresses the internal space. The other force contracts space inward, decreasing the volume, compressing the internal space and relieves the pressure of the external space. It is the area of the surface or boundary of this volume, and the relative position of this boundary, which determines the apparent magnitude of the resulting forces and in which direction they act.
The key to understanding the force of gravity, is to understand space as these fields. That is matter and space are not separate entities of entirely different character, but they are both defined and composed of fields of energy, fields defining the motion of space. These fields have specific properties and relationships. It is the interactions between these fields which ultimately give rise to the force we call gravity.
In this concept, space and matter are related and opposite characters of the same underlying fields. A high pressure of space, is a low density of energy and mass. A low pressure space is a high density of energy and mass.
Consider again Nikola Tesla's proposal of a "Dynamic Gravity" where he states, "It is not the ether that is aero - form (gaseous) but the material world is an aero - form to the ether!" That is mass appears as a low density region of space. This is such an opposite view of how we consider things today, but it does explain the reality of the situation rather well. We could say in such a system, matter is the opposite of space. The more space or the higher the pressure of space, the less matter can exist in that space. When there is low pressure of space, we find more matter. The high pressure and large volume of space, exerts a force on the lower pressure and smaller volumes of matter. The space pushes the matter out and together. The gravity is not entirely within the matter, per say, but the force of gravity also comes from the space surrounding the matter.
We can very loosely consider an analogy of the gravitational force, as a condition between two vortices in water. If we create in water, a vortex or swirl, there is within the center of such a swirl a void or region of lower water pressure. We see this as a depression in the water, and thusly the water surrounding this vortex must have been raised and increased in pressure. Due to the vast difference in surface area between the water surrounding the vortex and the area contained within the vortex, the depression will be much deeper or lower than the amount the surrounding water is raised or increased in pressure. The point here being made, is we have created regions of high pressure and lower pressure in the water, only through some motion within the water. All we have done, is rotate or swirl the water, the motion of the water has introduced this new character of division or pressure difference.
If there exists in the water, two such vortices or swirls, due to their lower pressures, they will experience a weak attractive force. This is not so much due to an attraction between them, but due to the forces of the surrounding higher pressure in the water around them. Like a low pressure air bubble in water will rise to the top, both these vortices will seek the region of least pressure together. The increased pressure in the water surrounding the vortices, serves to exert a force upon them, forcing them together. The lowest pressure region will be where both vortices are in contact or even combined together. If the two vortices combine into one, the resulting rotational pressure is reduced slightly, the entropy increases slightly, and thus a lower total energy state is achieved. The entire system is more stable and in better balance, when all the lower pressure regions are forced together, or rise to the top. Although in the case, it is the lower pressure regions themselves which define the top. It is this difference in pressure between the moving space and the space lacking motion, which leads to additional forces which did not exist before. It is only this motion which leads to the different character and forces.
Of course the situation in water, is much different than the situation in fields of Space, but the analogy of the creation of a new "force" due to only a motion or rotation of the medium is entirely valid.
When we have a situation where momentum is angular or the field carrying physical force is circular, or in rotation, then we have a sort of space "Bernoulli" effect. The Bernoulli effect refers to the principle in fluid dynamics that states that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or potential energy. The field carrying physical force defines space and gives space the character of a fluid or medium capable of conveying pressure and thus motion. The motion of the space, especially when it an angular or circular motion, or curved, represents a reduced spatial pressure, a lower potential, due to this motion. As the radius decreases and velocity increases, we have a further decrease in the pressure. If the radius increases and velocity decreases, we have an increase in pressure.
Thus a region of rapidly rotating space, represents a region of greatly reduced pressure of space itself. This is a similar case as that inside any vortex. As we go further and further inside the vortex, the speed of rotation increases further and further, thus we have less and less pressure. Any region of space in motion, represents a reduced region of spatial pressure, very much like in air. Thus the surrounding higher Spatial pressure exerts a force, upon any region of lower pressure, forcing them together. It is a case of like attracts like.
This spatial pressure "Bernoulli " effect, can be defined by a constant of the ability of space to undergo this spatial pressure change due to the motion of Space itself, which would be related to the Gravitational constant. Thus the Gravitational constant, should be related to or may even be, the Impetivitty of space we have proposed earlier. There is a maximum speed which space can flow or distribute pressure changes, but this speed is not constant, and changes depending on this pressure, which is why the gravitational force of acceleration changes depending on the amount of mass present or the degree of pressure variation. This is why the speed of light and flow of time themselves change in a gravitational field. The pressure or even we might say, density of space itself has changed.
We can propose:
A gravitational force exists between two regions of space undergoing motion, due to a reduction in spatial pressure. Gravity is a attractive force between one field of momentum and another field of momentum. The magnitude of this force, depends upon the magnitude of the momentum fields, which is also related to a measure of energy of the system we can associate with a pressure of space itself.
This force would even occur between photons of light, although the resulting force would be exceedingly weak. This force would also occur between case where the momentum field or force field is in rotation. In matter we have a significant energy of angular momentum, and thus mass possesses a fairly strong gravitational field. When that angular momentum is greatly increased, in greater and greater amounts of mass, we have higher gravitational field. Thus an increased rotational speed of any specific amount of mass, increases the gravitational attraction of that mass, as well as increasing the internal centrifugal forces upon that mass.
The attraction of a spatial vortex to another spatial vortex, is a balancing force in the Universe. This is an entropic force seeking to put space back to a balanced pressure or neutrality of pressure, which is space without motion, without any momentum. Recall, though space without motion, has no fields and thus no longer really exists. It is the fields which define the motion of space and thus the forces which occur in and between these spaces. This is very much akin to the force of buoyancy, but in reverse. Gravity is a reverse of buoyancy. Gravity is a force trying to restore an equalization of space, when space is imparted with a difference in pressure, due any angular acceleration or linear acceleration. Gravity comes from the tendency of space to equalize spatial pressure and cease its motion. Gravity comes from the tendency of waves in the field carrying physical force to dissipate and lose their energy.
Thus there is a physical analogy to the forces of gravity, if we consider space as being able to convey pressure and move to balance changes in this pressure. We can consider this concept more deeply by analyzing how the fields defining space, relate to this force of gravity.
The Connection between Electricity and Gravity
The Connection between Electricity and Gravity
We see in some of Einstein's later papers, he chose to speak of his unification in terms of gravity and electricity only, and the reason for this should be explained.
When Einstein wrote his final papers on the Unified Field theory, he spoke of the theory in terms of Electricity and Gravity. This appears an odd choice of words for the title of a theory which describes a unification between electromagnetism and gravitational field. Why did he not use the terms, "Electric Charge", "Electric Field" or "Electromagnetism" and instead chose to say "Electricity". Why not name his theory "The unification of electromagnetism and gravity"? We could claim Einstein's choice of words was not critically important and that one should not over think this, but we know Einstein was highly intelligent and surely made this word choice consciously. We should consider this further and look into the possible connection between "Electricity and Gravity".
The best interpretation of this relationship, in the work of Townsend Brown and his ideas of "Electro-Gravity". Although dismissed by the establishments, who seem to be blindly focused on Townsend Brown's work as being only ion-wind devices, Townsend Brown performed many remarkable experiments which demonstrated the reality of some sort of connection between gravity and electricity. We would be remiss not to discuss Townsend Brown's discoveries and his conjectures on a possible explanation for what he was observing and detecting. You can read more about Townsend Browns discoveries here: The Townsend Brown Battery
In reality, there is an interesting correlation between the direction of the gravitational force and a powerful electric force. There is a very high electric charge surrounding the surface of the Earth and out into space. This phenomenon is known as Atmospheric Electricity. The explanation is this arises due to electric charge released from thunderstorms. However, we find it interesting this electrical gradient just so happens to extend from the surface of the Earth, into space, which is the exact same direction the gravitational field happens to act. It is not illogical to consider that electric charge has some connection to the force of gravity itself, however there are characteristics of both, which prevent any simple direct association. The most obvious difference between these two forces is, gravity cannot be shielded, whereas electric charge can be. Thus if gravity were directly related to electric charge, we could simply shield objects from gravitational effect through the same methods we shield electric effect, such as Faraday cages or metal containers.
The easiest way to explain and approach this discrepancy is to consider the direction Townsend Brown came at the problem, as through his experimental researches he came very close to the answer. We can call such a static electric field, as Townsend Brown did, a "stress in dielectrics", for any insulating medium is stressed or distorted in order to carry such an electric field or potential. When we charge a physical capacitor and that capacitor then holds that electric charge, it is the insulating dielectric between the conducting plates of the capacitor, which holds that charge. The dielectric holds that charge as an electrical stress within the mass composing the insulator. We can think of this stress as the atoms of the insulating dielectric being distorted, into an egg shape, versus being spherical. If we then reconnect that capacitor, we can release that stress back into an electric current.
What Townsend Brown was very aware of is even empty space has such dielectric properties, thus "stress in dielectrics" exists even when mass does not. It is important to understand this concept of empty space being capable of carrying electrical stress or charge. In fact, this property of space has been well defined and is not disputed. Clearly electromagnetic waves are capable of propagating and passing through empty space, for the light from far off stars does reach us across the intervening vacuum of space between. This property of space to mediate electric waves has been associated with the Permittivity of space, which is related to the "Dielectric Constant" of Space and thus this idea of "dielectric stress in empty space" of which we are interested in understanding.
Permittivity is the ability of a material to store an electric field in the polarization of the medium. There is another name for this property of a substance or material to carry an electric field, we call its dielectric constant. The Dielectric Constant is the permittivity of a material compared to the permittivity of vacuum. Remarkably, even the vacuum of empty space has a dielectric constant and what we consider the space vacuum or empty space can be polarized by an electric field. The Dielectric Constant of vacuum is 1. The Dielectric Constant of Air is about 1.00059. Thus air and the space vacuum are considered to have nearly identical Dielectric Constants. This is an important thing to understand when considering the significance of Townsend Brown's discovery.
That is when an electric field oscillates in space, there is a contrary force or resistance against that change of electric field, almost like an elastic property, which resists the formation of the electric field, and upon the electric field reaching its maximum energy, pushes back against that energy, returning space to its neutral, uncharged character. This property of space to resist the electric field, is called its Dielectric Constant, or today is most often referred to as the "Permittivity" of space. This constant is related to the speed of light limitation. It is a property of space itself which limits how fast electric field waves can propagate. This is important, for we must consider where in empty space this stress could resides.
If we alter the "Permittivity" of space, we are not altering the electric field or altering charge. If we alter the Permittivity of space, we are not dealing with one or another pole or charge of electricity, this is very important to grasp. If we alter permittivity of space, we are altering the ability of space itself to convey the charge, regardless of its polarity. The resistance to electric field perturbation, acts equally upon both positive and negative charge. Permittivity represents the resistance of space to transfer electric charge. This understanding of what permittivity really represents is what Townsend Brown proposed connected the electric forces to the gravitational force. It was not the Electric field itself which was related to gravity, but the Permittivity of space. This "stress in dielectrics" or "electrical stress" is occurring in all mass, even the mass composing the Earth itself. Thus not only is there an electrical charge from the surface of the Earth into space, it extends deep within the Earth as well as too far out in space surrounding the Earth. Even into space in which mass no longer exists. This very real concept is what made Townsend Brown consider a relationship between this "dielectric stress" and the gravitational field.
Townsend Brown speculated on the structure of Space and Gravity, based off of his experimental researches. You can read his concepts of gravity and its relation to charge here:
The Structure of Space - Townsend Brown and there is an entire section devoted to the work of Townsend Brown here: The Townsend Brown Battery
Of specific interest from Townsend Browns writings on The Structure of Space, are the following points he proposes:
- Gravity is the first derivative of electric field. That is gravitational force is directly related to the K and magnetic permeability of space.
- Electrons cannot exist in empty extra-galactic space. Positrons cannot exist in the most dense mass within Stars.
- Perhaps one could call such space a "completely negatively charged continuum.
To explain the results of his experiments, Townsend Brown considered the idea of waves in the Dielectric Constant of space, which propagated throughout the Universe. Townsend Brown thus proposed space had properties which allowed it to transfer energy as a wave, of some other character than the electric field itself. We today call this property, the Dielectric Constant of space or the permittivity of space. Rather than claiming it was the electric dipole field of charge itself which was the carrier of gravity, which cannot work as we can shield electrical dipole effects whereas we cannot shield gravity, what Townsend Brown was suggested is the electric field and gravity altered some similar property of space itself. That is for an electric wave to exist in space, there must be some restoring force contrary to the wave motion and this restoring force cannot reside within the wave itself. The restoring force opposes the wave motion. Townsend thought it was this property of space, this property contrary to the electric field stress, could also be responsible for gravity.
Townsend Brown uses the concept of "Empty Space" and the term "Extra-Galactic" space and ascribes such a region of space with high potential of space pressure. In this context, there is a relationship established between the space surrounding matter, as being in a higher potential space pressure or a high negative charge and that the Mass itself could be considered a lower spatial pressure, positive charge or hole in space. The notion was that electric charge was somehow related to this notion of "space pressure" or that charge was a character of the continuum of space.
The concept proposed here by Townsend Brown is not at all unlike what has been proposed here is this discussion as well as what has been proposed as the mechanism of the gravitational force. Indeed, a concept of electrical stress carried or mediated in the permittivity or "dielectric stress" of space, is not entirely unlike the concept of space being able to curve or distort as proposed in Einstein's Relativity theory. The concepts are even similar with the theories of Ernest Mach, who suggested that inertial reactance is due to all the masses of the Universe outside the motion, resisting the motion. Thus even the inertia is some property or characteristic, carried through space. We can consider the mass and thus its gravitational field, is not only due to the mass itself, but due also to forces from all the "extra-galactic" space surrounding that mass.
Remarkably, we find another correlation too in Nikola Tesla's ideas regarding the force of gravity. Nikola Tesla considered matter or mass as being a lower pressure state of space and empty space to be a high pressure state of space. The surrounding empty space will then accordingly exert a pressure on those regions of lower pressure, forcing them together. Nikola Tesla proposed that gravity is not a force as we think, but that gravity should be named a Universal Compression and it does not truly arise from within matter, but from without due to matter being less dense than space. Nikola Tesla brilliantly proposes it is the action of electric charge, which obstructs or counters this Universal Compression or we would say pressure in space.
We could readily discount such an idea, as it is quite contrary and opposite to our ideas of mass and matter being solid, dense and heavy. This concept though is just approaching the problem from a different perspective. Nikola Tesla is saying these concepts of density, solidity and mass are due to this effect of matter to resist the compressing forces of space. It is not in violation of existing physics concepts, it is just mirroring the idea, flipping the forces around in a sense and the physical laws are really unchanged by considering it like this. By considering it like this we get a better understanding of gravity itself and how it is related to the electric field.
As Einstein proved with Relativity theory, we can consider gravity to be a "curvature", "distortion" or "stress" in Space/Time. However we should ask, "Where in Space does that stress lay?" or more specifically "How does space actually convey, carry, mediate or propagate this stress?" Townsend Brown proposed this stress occurred in the Dielectric Constant of space, and we do know that electrical stress, or electric field waves are mediated through the Permittivity of space. We see Nikola Tesla discussing this very same concept, of the electric field being the force which opposes the compression of space or pressure of space. As Nikola Tesla says, "The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within the material world substance obstructs this.
We should understand that these great minds are not talking about the "electric field" itself, but the property of space which resists the propagation of the electric field. There is the stressor, the electric field, and that which is stressed, the Dielectric property of space or the permittivity of space. In order for there to be stress or curvature, there is that which is stressed or curved, and that force which causes the stress or curvature. Gravity is the stressor or the force that causes the curvature, it is not the curvature itself. Space is what is curved or stressed.
Both the electric and gravitational fields, represent a similar but opposing condition of "stress","curvature" or "distortion" of empty space itself. The field carrying physical force, is a force or a bridge between the forces of electric charge and the forces of gravity. Where the electric field exists, there is always an associated gravitational field. The two fields represent opposing forces in space, mediated by the field carrying physical force. The dynamic component of an electromagnetic field, as we have pointed out previously, is itself non-electromagnetic in character. Thus this third field component, cannot be shielded in the same way electromagnetic fields can be shielded. The third component although related to electric stress and charge, is not electric stress or charge. It is a different character of stress in space, which is related to the permittivity or "dielectric stress" but is stress of a different nature. We see how only specific arrangements and application of electric and magnetic fields can give rise to this dynamic, physical stress component and it is this additional, more fundamental dynamic stress component of space, which gives rise to what we call gravity.
Thus we find this interplay of forces, of which gravity is only one part, one special case.
"Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena. - Nikola Tesla
As previously mentioned, we cannot admit the idea of a 'material' ether as Nikola Tesla and Townsend Brown proposed. Further, we cannot really consider it is only the permittivity of space which is responsible for the gravitational force. In such an explanation, there are issues. We can resolve those issues, as we have extensively discussed, by considering the existence of an additional field and additional properties of space. Such a field can have the characteristics of a physical material, in that it is capable of exhibiting properties of extreme density through which electromagnetic wave motion can occur with extreme rapidity, but is not truly physical. Such a "Field of Force" can posses a character which allows regions to form of greater or lesser density of field, like air pockets or bubbles in water, which we measure as increased energy and mass. Such a field can be described as a measure of pressure in space or a state of Universal spatial compression, as Nikola Tesla envisioned.
What we find, is we require some additional property of space, which is not itself electric nor magnetic. Space needs a property which can be related to the electric field, but is not itself electric in nature. As Nikola Tesla and Townsend Brown suggest, we can consider electric charge as due to a higher density of spatial pressure and gravitational mass as a lower density of spatial pressure. The resulting forces upon the space being a result of an unbalance in this spatial pressure. Both electric charge and and the gravitational field are measures of spatial pressure. Thus we need a "Field of Force" which carries this notion of spatial pressure, for both the electric charge and the gravitational field. It is a common element, a property of space common to both gravity and electricity.
What we need to explain gravity in terms of electricity, is to introduce a constant, which represents the ability of Free Space to convey this spatial pressure. What we have proposed and what is introduced in the "Unified Field" is the idea of a third "Field of Force", which mediates a concept of spatial pressure. Like Permeability, Bu, represents the ability of Free Space to convey magnetic field forces and Permittivity, Eu, represents the ability of Free Space to convey electric field forces, we can introduce another constant, which represents the ability of Free Space to convey momentum waves, or physical force waves in the field carrying physical force. We could suggest a name for this additional third constant, calling it the Impettivity of Free Space. We chose "Impettivity" based on the notion this is the ability of Free Space to carry a physical impulse of momentum.
The nature of this interaction and balance, is non-symmetric. That is the amount of force required to maintain the balance between the permittivity stress and the "impettivity" stress, is not equal. The outside surface area of a sphere is many times greater than the surface area of any interior point. Thus forces over the entire surface of a sphere, must be greater than that which is required to counteract this expansion. Thus we need a much greater "force" of expansion, the electrical force, versus the force of contraction, the gravitational force. The outward force, must in a sense, push out again all the pressure of space around it. The inward force is simply that space trying to equalize that outward pressure and collapse. It is like a lever, in which the outward force is on the long side of the fulcrum and the inward force is on the short side of the lever. The long side of the lever, spreads the force over a much longer range and thus tiny movements on the short end, can cause very powerful, large movements on the long end.
This mechanism is the explanation for the huge difference in magnitude between the gravitational force when compared to the electric force. The electric force acts against the entire outside environment from a small internal volume, but the gravitational force acts externally over a very large volume. Yet the small forces in the small volume, due to the lever like action, can counter the much larger force acting over a vast volume. Gravity is weak, but acts over a very large volume. Charge is strong, but acts over a small volume only in a specific direction.
The most important concept to understand when we are considering the existence of this third "Field of Force" in the Universe, is that this third field, although existing as a field with wave like properties, it plays a fundamental role in wave propagation itself. This idea of a "Field of Force", mediating the concept of pressure through space, acts as the elusive 'ether'. We find in this definition of the 'ether' as a field, a solution to the many problems, dual characteristics and difficulties with the proposals of any kind of a 'physical ether'. We find in the field nature of this third "Field of Force", a field whose properties themselves vary over time and thus posses wave like behaviour. Thus we define a sort of medium, which is dynamic, not in the sense it is in motion, but in the sense it has a variable character which changes over time, depending upon the energy and state which resides within it. We find a sort of 'ether' which is intimately connected with and defined by the waves of energy which it mediates.
Thus we do not have a physical medium as many presumed, but another field. It is a "Field of Force" which mediates this concept of spatial pressure. The field carrying physical force mediates the transfer of momentum and by extension, acceleration. This "Field of Force", is not gravity and it is not electric field, but it mediates the forces of both, as it mediated acceleration. It is the intermediary between the two, it is the common element which connects them.
We cannot connect electromagnetism to gravity, but we can most certainly connect electromagnetodynamics to gravity. It is the dynamic, momentum aspect of electromagnetic fields which provide the connection which can be more readily understood and utilized practically. This is the reason why the connection between gravity and electromagnetism was so elusive.
Now, the dynamic component of electromagnetic fields, is not gravity, this too is important to grasp. We can create a physical force through this dynamic component, but it is not correct to say this physical force is always a gravitational force, it is merely a physical acceleration due to electromagnetic field. However, we know that gravity results in a physical acceleration. Thus the connection is, that only certain collections, concentrations or configurations of field energy, which orientate this physical dynamic force in certain directions, gives rise to the force we call gravity. Gravity is a special case of this physical force, where we have a concentration of field in specific directions. Most specifically when the dynamic component of an electromagnetic field is angular or in rotation. Thus the force of gravity is due to a dynamic force in space, which is occurring in a contained or circular manner. What we have with gravity is a sort of "Bernoulli" effect due to the motion of space itself.
We have proposed that because Space is three dimensional, there are three field constants in Space, Permittivity which is the resistance to charge, Permeability which is the resistance to magnetic field and Impettivity, which is the resistance to changes in momentum. What the Unified Field Proposes, is the unified concept of Permittivity and Impettivity, by which space mediates an interaction between the electric field and the gravitational field. This is why both electric field and gravitational field, are calculated by an inverse square law, because they are both mediated by a common field property.
The relationship between the electric field and the field carrying physical force, is defined by the Unified Field Laws. These same relationships define how Gravity is related to the field carrying physical force. Thus the electric field, through special cases of the field carrying physical force, can cause gravitational field. Not directly but only through this intermediary. Likewise, gravitational field through special cases of the "Field of Force", can cause electric field. Through an understanding of the relationship between electric field and the "Field of Force", we can define how a gravitational field arises. The relationship between the electric field and the "Field of Force", is known, it is the Lorentz force or Poynting Vector.
When we have an electric field orientation, which causes the Lorentz force or Poynting Vector to be circular, we have the potential to alter the spatial pressure in a region of space. The forces produces in such special cases, cause a difference in spatial pressure, a spatial gradient in pressure, where we can have a region in space of reduced pressure or increased pressure. It is the forces between such regions of contained pressure variation, which give rise to gravity. Thus gravity is not directly due to the "Field of Force", but is due to the "Field of Force" changing the local spatial pressure. It is an indirect, tri-nary, relationship.
Stated again:
Specific arrangements and application of electric and magnetic fields can give rise to an additional dynamic field, a field carrying physical force and it is this dynamic field which in specific circumstances, gives rise to the force of attraction between mass, which is gravity.
Knowing this relationship, we can then develop means to experiment and apply this understanding, so that we may utilize electric fields to alter gravity or alternatively convert gravitational fields into electric fields. This is what Townsend Brown's experiments demonstrated was possible, but he failed to grasp the relationship which explained this result. Nikola Tesla clearly understood the relationship and proposed "An Electric Flying machine", with no wings, propellers or other such mechanisms associated with airplanes. Thus the idea of a connection between electricity and gravity was not so much proposed by Townsend Brown and Nikola Tesla, but applied!. They spoke of this concept of electricity and gravity being connected, not as a theoretical musing, but as an explanation for experimental results they had observed. We should keep this in mind.
Previous considerations of gravity being the third side of a relationship triangle with electromagnetism, is wholly incorrect. Instead, what we find is the third side of the triangle is occupied by this field carrying physical force and the gravitational force does not necessarily appear on the triangle at all. The gravitational force becomes a secondary reaction or special case of the field carrying physical force, when matter is involved. Gravitational force can be related to acceleration and acceleration is mediated by the "Field of Force", thus there is a connection but gravitational force cannot be directly related to electromagnetism.
Matter slows Light
The presence of matter and thus gravitational fields, slows light and even effects the passage of time( relative to outside observers) and we should address why this is so.
The primary reason appears to be that matter and gravity distorts space, changing the electromagnetic properties of space. This is inline with what Townsend and Tesla considered, that gravity is either a change in the Dielectric character of space or a change in the pressure of space, both of which would have an impact on electromagnetic fields passing through that space.
These changes in the permittivity of space or pressure of space, imply the existence of a density of space. Another dimensions of space besides just the 3-dimensional fields which define the structure of that space. Thus we see here the necessity of utilizing five dimensions to describe space, where the fifth dimensions denotes the energy density of space. This density of energy, is directly mediated by momentum exchange between regions of space and related to the torsion, rotation or spin existing in that space. Density is related to angular momentum, as angular momentum defines the volume to which that density applies.
The Possible Unified Field Laws
The Possible Unified Field Laws
As a unifying concept, we would expect to be able to lay down similar laws for its relationships, as we have had laid down in the laws of Maxwell for electromagnetic fields. These laws determining the relationship between electromagnetism and this "Field of Force", would take a form similar to the following. We leave it to the physicists and mathematicians to formalize this relationship.
What we find, is we can define a new sort of unification, between electromagnetism and momentum or the mediation of mechanical impulses, as a third type of wave or field through free space. Thus we arrive at a deeper and more fundamental extension of Maxwell's laws, in which the concept of "change","motion","momentum" and "force" themselves are more rigorously defined.
We could define the relationship of the '"Field of Force"' to electromagnetism in something like the following form:
- There is another type of Field in the Universe, a "Field of Force"
- The energy of this "Field of Force" is propagated as longitudinal waveforms and is responsible for conveying momentum and physical accelerating forces throughout Space/Time.
- An electromagnetic wave must always have a corresponding longitudinal wave in the "Field of Force", but a longitudinal wave in the "Field of Force" need not generate an electromagnetic wave.
- The "Field of Force" longitudinal waveforms are not themselves electromagnetic in composition, but are related to the electromagnetic waves.
- The "Field of Force" longitudinal waveforms are in relation too but ninety degrees out of phase with both the electric and magnetic components of the electromagnetic wave.
Further, there appears to be some fundamental characters or dimensions to the Universe, which lead to its holographic, recursive nature
- Space has a "apparent" density or "apparent" pressure value.
- This "apparent" density of space is not material per say, but exists as a longitudinal wave.
- The "apparent" density of space is in balance. If there is no wave, there is no space.
- A volume in space is defined by three forces, one force for each dimension, we call these the electric, magnetic and force field.
- These forces define how space changes, how energy interacts through space.
- These forces are in opposition and constant interchange as they attempt to balance, but since it is a 3 field situation it is non-symmetric and always unbalanced.
Physics has what is very close to a Unified Field in the idea of the "Principle of Least Action". This is the defining principle which can describe all motion and energy in the Universe, as the Universe attempts to balance. What the Unified Field does, is takes this idea of "least action" and gives it a physical representation in a primary field, a field of spatial density. We end up with a very simple definition, in which there is unbalancing forces, balancing forces and a mechanism for both to coexist.
Of course we do not present this as any formal attempt to define these mathematical relationship, only as an example of the sort of form they might take. These properties do seem to be how the relationship works, but there is obviously more formal and mathematical treatments to this problem we can apply.
The Problem of Controlling Gravity
The Problem of Controlling Gravity
Just as we can use a picture to represent a thousand words, a physical experiment can represent a thousand theories. As we have mentioned previously, our ultimate goal is simplification and most importantly, application. If this is all true, how can we apply this knowledge. If this is all true, how can we build a device which can utilize this interaction between electricity and gravity. Can we control gravity using electromagnetism? One of the goals of this investigation of the Unified Field concept is to provide an interpretation of gravity which allows us to create or control gravity. Does everything proposed thus far provide such a practical interpretation?
This is a lengthy and complex discussion, which may have been difficult to grasp and comprehend. The presentation of a practical mode to apply this understanding, provides a real case in which the mechanism and relationship can be understand. What does this concept suggest as a mechanism or demonstration for utilizing electric, magnetic fields or a combination of both to alter or control the gravitational field? How do you control or create gravity from an electromagnetic field?
First, this explanation shows why such a demonstration of electromagnetic control over gravity, has been so exceedingly elusive and difficult to demonstrate. There is, as we have explained, no direct connection between electromagnetism and gravity, but that they act through a common element, they act across a bridge. Without understanding the nature of this bridge and how to cross it, no solution would ever be apparent. The connection between the two is across this bridge and utilizing the electromagnetic field we can only effect the bridge, which may or may not result in any effect upon gravity. It is only through specific or special cases that the electromagnetic field can effect this bridge in a way which can cause a gravitational field. Likewise, the gravitational field only reacts with electromagnetic field across this same bridge.
The concept of this bridge should be briefly summarized and repeated here, so there is a clear idea of what exactly we are dealing with.
As presented at length, the bridge between the two is momentum, mediated by the field carrying physical force. Momentum is a function of mass and thus gravity. Momentum exists in all electromagnetic field. It is the common element or bridge between the two fields. Momentum is not an abstract mathematical construct, but is carried or mediated by another "Field of Force" in the Universe, the field carrying physical force. This is a real field, as much as the electric field or magnetic field are real. This field carrying physical force can impart momentum, thus is can impart motion, can impart acceleration and can impart velocity. The field carrying physical force is the component of space, which carries the curvature of space. The curvature of space, the field carrying physical force can be equated to a pressure of space, a spatial pressure, which can cause a flow of space between regions of different pressure. This flow of space, will carry or accelerate mass along with it, it defines the nature of the inertial reference frame and is fundamental to the very nature of motion itself.
What we find, is utilizing electromagnetic fields to create some sort of spatial vortex or an anti-vortex in space against the force of gravity, is actually quite complex. This difficulty and complexity, is exactly what we would expect and require, as if the solution had been simple we would have rediscovered it many times. If it were easy and simple, we would have figured it out easily. The complexity of the application, is why we cannot just throw together some electromagnetic field generators and create anti-gravity. Complex however, does not mean impossible.
There are two significant problems to using electromagnetic fields to alter gravity.
The first problem is this: A rotating electromagnetic field, as we have pointed out previously, produces a unidirectional, pulsing wave in the "Field of Force". No matter how we manipulate electromagnetic fields, pulsing them, alternating them, oscillating them, we will always get the same result, a unidirectional pressure wave. These pressure waves, are normally always attractive. That is the gravitational force produced from an electromagnetic field, is always in one direction and attractive. There is no obvious way to cause a repulsive pressure wave. State another way, This is akin to creating a vacuum wave, rather than a pressure wave. It is akin to creating a rapidly imploding space, rather than an exploding space. It is a counter intuitive requirement.
The second problem is this. When utilizing electromagnetism to alter gravity, increasing the electromagnetic field strength always serves to increase mass, to increase the external pressure, thus always we increase gravity with any normal electromagnetic field. Adding electromagnetic energy to a system, increases the mass, inertia and gravitational field of that system. What we would need to use electromagnetic field to counter gravity is a way to reduce the electromagnetic field, not increase it. We need a way to decrease the energy of a system, therefor decreasing the mass of system, by inputting energy which normally would always just increase the mass. In established physics, this concept is considered to be the requirement for "negative energy".
We can repeat these issues in a very simple manner. The first problem is how do you reverse something which always goes in the same direction? The second problem is how do you reduce energy, by adding energy? These two problems explain very clearly why engineering anti-gravity has remained elusive and difficult. Again this is difficult, but not impossible.
What is now known, is the fundamental nature of the problem we face. This is the most important step to overcoming any problem. One must very clearly understand the problem at hand, before one can propose solutions to overcome the problem. Up till now, we did not even really understand what gravity was, how it propagated, what carried it and what the relationship was between gravity and electricity. Now that we have defined the relationship, now that we more clearly understand the underlying nature of gravity, we understand the nature of the problem. Knowing the real nature of the problem, allows us to see potential solutions to the problem.
A Potential Electromagnetic Gravity Device
A Potential Electromagnetic Gravity Device
What potential solutions do we have to the problem of gravity control?
Remarkably, we already have a physical example of a sort of "anti-gravity" device, which gives important clues as to how we can potentially construct an electromagnetic gravity device. We already utilize a system which turns gravity upon itself in order to overcome its gravitational forces to float in the air. This device is a Hot Air Balloon. A Hot Air balloon is capable of levitating a significant amount of mass, silently, effortlessly in the air against the force of gravity. Although this is not "true" anti-gravity, it is a very similar case which is absolutely applicable to an electromagnetic gravity device. It is the closest existing method to what we want to achieve. We can consider the Hot Air Balloon as a very useful analogy for a mechanism to control gravity using electromagnetic fields.

A Hot Air Balloon over Teotihuacan
Knowing that it is not the electromagnetic fields, but their effect upon space which gives rise to the gravitational forces they produce, suggests the Hot Air Balloon and principles of buoyancy may be entirely applicable to gravity control. Since increasing an electromagnetic field, only serves to increase the energy, which in turn increases the mass, it is not at first apparent how we could utilize electromagnetic fields to counter gravity. It has been attempted many times, to use different types of electromagnetic fields, different arrangements and combinations of fields, different strengths of fields and no such gravitational affect has ever been produced, detected or at least accepted. However, all these methods did not understand gravity or the nature of the problem as has just been described. Knowing clearly the nature of gravity and the nature of the problem, gives us reason to consider the mechanism of a hot air balloon to very simply and efficiently counter the force of gravity using electromagnetic fields.
We must understand clearly how a hot air balloon works. A hot air balloon gets its force of lift, not really from the hot air inside it, but more so from the force of the colder air surrounding the balloon. It is the pressure of the dense cool air around the hot air balloon, which forces the balloon's lighter volume of hot air, upwards against the force of gravity. This is termed the force of buoyancy. The hot air balloon displaces a volume of cooler air, greater in weight than that of the hot air balloon itself. Similarly, a heavy metal ship floats, because it displaces an amount of water which equals the weight of the ship. The amount of cooler air displaced by the hot air balloon, weighs more than the hot air balloon, thus it rises and does not just float. If the weight of the colder air displaced was exactly equal to the weight of the hot air balloon, it would float in place. Thus the gravitational force pushing the cool, denser air down, serves to push up and out the lighter, less dense region occupied by the hot air balloon. In a very real sense, a hot air balloon is using the force of gravity for its lift. A Hot Air Balloon is a form of gravity propulsion system, contrary to what many may think.
A hot air balloon does not need a powerful engine or a large output of great energy to levitate. The volume of hot air is built up and heated over time, contained within the balloon, maintained with small inputs of heat. Thus it is a very efficient and natural means of levitation, completely silent, no moving parts, no exhausts or intakes producing a thrust or motion of the air. It is a remarkably simple and effective means to overcome the force of gravity, by using the force of gravity itself.
As stated, in order for a hot air balloon to levitate or float, it must displace an amount of cold air whose weight, is equal to or greater than the total weight of the balloon and hot air within it. This difference in weight between some hot air and some cool air, is not a large difference, but when added up over the large volume of the balloon this difference in weight can become enough to counter the entire balloons weight. Thus, small changes in air density, when applied over large volumes, are capable of lifting significant weights of mass.
Normal air at sea level at a normal temperature is about 1.2 kg/m^3, when heated this drops to about 0.90 -0.94 kg/m^3. A standard hot air balloon has a envelope volume of about 2800 cubic meters. Thus the hot air balloon can produce a lifting force of about 750 kg.
If we consider the hot air balloon, in light of all we have proposed thus far concerning gravity and electromagnetism, we find something interesting and remarkable. When we consider the energy of a hot air balloon, the hot air balloon works oppositely to how we might think. In terms of air pressure, we are correct, the cold air is a higher pressure, more dense, and the hot air is a lower pressure and less dense. Thus the cold air under higher pressure, serves to push or lift the balloon to a region of lower pressure.
Now if we consider this in light of our introduced explanations of gravity as a sort of spatial pressure, what we find is the opposite is occurring. Matter, we have stated, is a sort of vortex or low spatial pressure, a sort of suction like vortex in space itself. A region of high air pressure, which is more dense, with more mass, is thus a region of low spatial pressure, with higher energy and high gravity. The hot air in the balloon, represents a region of lower air pressure, which is less dense, with less mass and thus represents a region of higher spatial pressure, with lower energy and less gravity.
This is not contrary to any established physics, we are just looking at the forces in a deeper way. The resulting forces are the same, we are just considering the result from a deeper more fundamental perspective. Why do we need to think of it like this? Very simply, because a hot air balloon relies upon air. If we truly want anti-gravity, the concept must work without air, even outside the atmosphere. Thus we need to understand the mechanism of the hot air balloon, from a deeper perspective beyond that of simple air pressure. We are taking the concept further and considering from the view of the underlying spatial pressure of the fields themselves, rather than from the view of the pressure of air.
We can speculate on ways of using electromagnetic fields to cause a similar situation as to what occurs in a hot air balloon. We could readily consider methods in which we utilize electromagnetic fields to reduce the density of air, rather than temperature. We could simply think of a process, by which the air in a balloon is not heated electromagnetically, but ionized to a high degree. We here give credit to Tony Cuthbert who has demonstrated just such an electrostatic balloon, which uses charged ions rather than hot air for its buoyant lift. Charged Balloon Lifting System - Tony Cuthbert. Cuthbert Innovations.
The ions, due to their similar charge are strongly repelled from each other and would thus take up less volume than non-ionized air. Thus we, with such a simple apparatus, can demonstrate a means to electrically generate a force against gravity. However, by using air we are just altering the methodology of the hot air balloon and still relying on air pressure for our forces. Such an ion powered balloon, is still a balloon. We would like to consider that there may be some much more fundamental process by which electromagnetic fields could reduce the "pressure of space' surrounding or entrained by the fields.
In theory, we could utilize a very similar principle to the hot air balloon, but applying it directly to the fundamental underlying spatial pressure of the fields themselves, rather than through the intermediary of the air. Perhaps with electromagnetic fields, we can cause a reduction in spatial pressure within a volume of field, somehow expelling mass or energy from that volume. This would be a true anti-gravity propulsion system where we are not just effecting and utilizing air, but are utilizing fields in space itself for our forces. This is indeed even similar to some current mechanisms proposed for anti-gravity which suggest the requirement for using negative energy to distort space/time in a way which causes an anti-gravitational force. It is interesting to realize a hot air balloon does in fact produce negative energy, from a certain perspective.
A hot air balloon, due to the hot air being less dense, does in reality create a region of lower energy within its volume. A hot air balloon, reduces its energy, it negates its energy. Despite the fact they are adding heat energy to the system, the result is the hot air balloon has lower energy than its surroundings. Lets explain how this is possible.
The hot air, because it is more energetic, takes up a larger volume. What we forget to take into account is the hot air balloon is not closed, there is a large opening at the bottom. Thus as the air is heated and expands some of the air escapes out the bottom of the balloon, leaving the system. Thus the total amount of air in the balloon is greatly reduced when compared to if it were full of cooler air molecules in the same volume. Despite the added heat, the total energy within the hot air balloon, due to the expulsion of a large mass of air, is greatly reduced. Thus the balloon floats. The balloon has applied a means to negate its energy. We could very well say the hot air balloon created negative energy, because after heating and expanding the air and some of the air left the balloon, the balloon actually has less energy than when it started.

Gravity Drive from Space Pressure
Thus if we want to use an electromagnetic field to reduce energy, or negate energy, our electromagnetic field must somehow reduce the mass within its effective system. The easiest way to do this is by removing energy from the system, expelling energy, expelling mass or as the hot air balloon does, altering the effected volume of a mass. We should see, there are various means to achieve this, so this idea of negative energy is not so odd as it first seems. We do have means of utilizing electromagnetic fields to control the energy in an effective volume and could use electromagnetic fields to expel mass from that volume, reduce the density of mass within that volume and/or reduce the total energy within that volume. There are numerous possibly ways we could achieve this result, not just one. The real problem was understanding what result we needed to achieve.
Thus if there is a mechanism by which we can electromagnetically, alter the volume of mass, then we are in effect changing the density of that effected area. This is akin to the heating of the air, to change the density of the air, except utilizing an electromagnetic process. We should realize that the volume of a mass as we understand it today, is defined by a sort of electrostatic barrier around that mass. That is an atom is a positive nucleus surrounded by a negative electron cloud. This electron cloud defines the volume of the atom. When two atoms collide or interact, it is due to this electrostatic barrier around the atoms, not due to any direct physical contact between two solid particles per say. We can alter this electrostatic boundary with electromagnetic fields.
Thus the first and most obvious method suggested is to cause a great increase in this electrostatic boundary surrounding mass. Perhaps we can not only effect the atoms themselves, but can employ a similar principle to an entire vehicle or craft. Thus we are creating a region of less dense mass, utilizing electromagnetic fields, which causes a buoyancy effect just like a hot air balloon.
There are other features and advantages to this method. Since electromagnetic fields can extend for some distance from their source, we could effectively control much larger volumes of space, than we ever could contain using a physical membrane around that volume, like in a hot air balloon. Thus if we can effect only a very small changes in energy content through our mechanism, we can potentially apply this effect over a very large volume. Thus this method is capable of much higher lifting forces, than could ever be achieved with a simple hot air balloon. Further, due to the rapid effects of an electromagnetic field, such a changes in energy could be accomplished very quickly and under full and immediate control, even to the point of being instantly reversible. Such a process could also be modified to not only provide lifting forces, but forces in any direction. This capability provides excellent directional control, rather then being at the mercy of the wind like a regular hot air balloon. Further, just like a hot air balloon, little energy input is required to maintain this state, it can have no moving parts, no intakes or exhausts and can operate completely silently.
We need a mechanism by which electromagnetic fields can cause energy to be pulled into a volume, which in turn causes an expansion of space surrounding and within the effected region. This would act in effect as a cooling rather than heating. If we remove energy from the space within which our electromagnetic fields act, yet the volume remains the same, then we are reducing the energy of that space, which cools that space, causes a greater contracting force upon that space. This is in principle the same as what a hot air balloon does, as we have less total energy than when we started. Cold air is denser, yes, but also the volume of cold air is reduced as well. If we cool air, but maintain the same volume, we create a vacuum. This is why a bottle filled with hot air and sealed, will compress and contract once it cools. If the volume cannot compress, then the energy within is reduced, a vacuum force results and we have a different situation entirely. This is what we seek to achieve to create an opposition to gravity, a vacuum force in space itself. This is a different way of looking at the problem of gravitational control.
The energy removed must go somewhere, so rather then keeping this energy which is pulled in, it must be ejected or released. We can do this in a unique and useful way, by sending this energy out in a singular direction. It is useful because we can do this in a direction which also opposes the local force of gravity. Since the inward, suction force is from all directions, it does not equal or oppose the singular outward force in one direction. There is an unbalanced force as well as a reduction in mass and gravity. This is the mechanism and process which is required to produce a true, "anti-gravitational force" from electromagnetic fields. It has the appearance of a cooling, vacuum expansion like effect, but into a central volume, with a means to send that energy out as a force in a singular direction. There is more than one way this effect could be achieved.
Knowing the problem allows us to clearly define a process by which the problem is solved. We see the solution is relatively simple, once you understand the real nature of the problem. How the solution is applied is now open to further experiment and interpretation. As we have pointed out many potential solutions will exist and there are tremendous implications for this knowledge. We find this understanding is something which was extremely likely to have been understood and applied in ancient times for the manipulation of megaliths of heavy stone. We will further provided multiple, experimental examples, which can demonstrate and prove the existence of this "field of force", the means to detect it, means to apply it, and means to utilize it for the control of gravity.
These concepts are further expanded upon in much more detail in the following other sections of this document:
There mare multiple different demonstrations of the possibility to control gravity or demonstrate this connection between gravity and electricity, many of which are consistently disregarded or blatantly ignored or suppressed by established physics. Experimental Evidence for the Unified Field
A deeper analysis of the means to use electromagnetic fields for gravity control and propulsion. Force Field Propulsion
Despite peoples disdain and ridicule of the subject, the phenomenon of UFO/UAP appears to demonstrate this exact possibility of means to control gravity with electromagnetic fields. Unidentified Flying Objects and Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon
Outstanding Questions and Problems
Outstanding Questions and Problems
We most certainly would not claim this document is the ultimate and final solution and nor does it claim to solve all the problems in physics. We present this information as it is a good direction of investigation and does resolve and apply to a great number of existing problems. It is a simple solution which resolves a great number of problems. It is a solution which connects and touches upon many different subjects, not only gravity control but many other unanswered questions, as discussed in the Implications of the Unified Field.
The Unified Field concept suggests the development of multiple experiments, is not contrary to any known laws of physics( except the strong and weak forces ). Instead it serves to greatly, simplify and unify many disparate physics concepts. Of critical importance, it provides a logical explanation which we can actually visualize and understand easily. This above all else is the reason we think there is merit in this concept as presented.
However, there are many unanswered questions which remain and clearly no formal mathematical treatment of the concept presented. We have only opened a door which was hidden and closed. Now that the door is open, we must step out and explore. Much work remains.
The following are known concepts which should be explainable using the "Unified "Field of Force"" concept, yet have not been discussed or developed yet under this concept.
It would make sense to pursue Einstein's mathematical approaches further, and demonstrate how the Einstein's idea of "teleparallelism" exists within the presented ideas of a Unified "Field of Force". Although we have proposed some possibly structural shapes for space composed of fields, we have not determined the true "shape" of the Universe. The solution seems at hand from the results achieved so far, but unfortunately the geometry itself is elusive. How exactly does such a concept allow "continua with a Riemannian metric and distant parallelism which nevertheless are not Euclidean". What is the visualization of such a continuum?
There are various features of gravity, which should be formally touched open. The force of gravity is always attractive as far as we have determined. Further it is considered that gravity is spin 2. We speak of electromagnetism as being either attractive or repulsive and spin 1. Further like charges repel, opposite charges attract and with magnetic poles, like poles repel and opposite poles attract, yet gravity is always attractive. Current carrying wires attract when currents flow in the same direction, they repel when the direction of the currents are opposed, which is due to the resulting magnetic fields surrounding those currents.
Spin in quantum mechanics is a puzzling feature of quantum mechanics which deserves a much deeper explanation. When something is spin 1, you can rotate it 360 degrees and it will be the same, like an arrow. --> When something is spin 2, you can rotate it 180 degrees and it will be the same, like a double sided arrow. <---> However, the most puzzling is spin 1/2. Spin 1/2 has to rotate 720 degrees to be the same. We cannot draw a simple arrow to represent this situation, but consider it would be something like a bent, helical, spiral or curved arrow. |_> We should also note that a scalar field is spin 0, which we would say is no spin, we would say this is a non-directional field, thus either is no arrow, or is an arrow in all directions at once.
Knowing the three "Field of Force" nature of the Universe, what is the true mechanisms by which we explain all forces, as due to one Unified "Field of Force", thereby demonstrating all these forces arise from one and the same fundamental, common force? This has been touched upon, but the formal connection has not been established.
The physical force wave associated with an electromagnetic wave, is a unidirectional oscillation. This implies the wave velocity is not constant over the duration of 1/2 the wavelength. It also implies an important relationship between the energy of the wave and its frequency, in that a wave of higher frequency has a high frequency impulse, whereas a wave of lower frequency will have a much longer, slower duration impulse. We could suggest that measurements of the speed of light, if done over a single wavelength of light, would find a variable speed of light. Due to the speed of light being exceedingly high, measuring or observing such a variation in the speed of light over such a small distance would be exceedingly difficult to determine, but suggests an experimental test for such a variation.
This variation in the speed of light, over its wavelength, is predicted by this theory. We should speculate on a means to measure this discrepancy, or determine if the velocity of the wave is constant because the impulse of the physical wave, travels at a different velocity than C? We need to determined if a unidirectional high frequency impulse wave, will travel the same velocity and take the same time as a lower frequency wave. We assume and determine it does, but this is not certain. If such a variation is not detected, then the possible explanation would be that the physical field waves, can travel faster than the speed of light.
We should also speculate on what the maximum frequency is for such a physical field wave, as there must be some point at which the frequency and thus the physical impulse, becomes so high as to approach constancy. Is this the point at which a wave can become solid. We could have an angular impulse frequency, at C? Is this related to the Plank conditions? There is definitely potential to explain many features of quantum mechanics using the Unified Field concept, but such explorations have yet to be undertaken.
Unified Field Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Unified Field Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy
This concept of gravity and electricity may seem abstract and yet it provides a solution to the current cosmological problems astronomer's are struggling with. We can demonstrate how such an understanding of electricity and gravity and resolved the cosmological problem for which they have proposed the ideas of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter". The concept of a Unified Field and a field carrying physical force provides a simple and readily understood explanation for the problems which led to the proposal of the concepts of "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy".
We would here repeat and refer back to our discussion on the momentum of electromagnetic radiation, and Feynman's suggestive question, "Do you not want to allow that the light pulls equally on the sun?" and his further elaboration on the existence of electromagnetic information and waves existing everywhere in space and as he emphasizes, it is all really there!. If you did not think the space around you contained information, he points out you could just take a wire, set it up as a radio circuit, and you are going to detect the radio waves. They were always there, the whole time, but you need a radio to detect them. Not only are the radio waves there, but the light your eyes see, the x-rays, ultraviolet rays, the entire electromagnetic spectrum is potentially passing through any region of space at any given time.
Richard Feynman talks about light - from sdfhsfh on YouTube
The point is, space is a sea of energy and there is no region of space, devoid of this energy. If we consider that this light, this electromagnetic energy, which is all really there all pulls equally on the sun, then we begin to see a notion of where dark matter and dark energy lie. Consider the following diagram, showing the bending of a light ray from a far off star as it passes by the Sun.

Path of light from a star, curved by the gravity of the Sun
Now consider this light ray as Feynman explains is significantly effected by the gravitational field of the Sun and the light's path curves, but the light, despite its small size and extremely small mass, also has itself a slight gravitational effect upon the Sun. We refer to a simple analogy to clarify this concept. When you jump upwards off the ground, you exert a force into the ground and that force moves the Earth. Since the Earth is so massively large compared to your body, the effect of this force on the Earth could only move it a tiny imperceptible amount, so small as to be essentially nothing. Yet this tiny force cannot be entirely discounted, for if all people of the Earth jumped at the same time the combined force would not be entirely insignificant, but 10 billion times stronger. The same is true of the gravitational attraction of this tiny beam of light as it passes the Sun. The tiny beam of light, still exerts a tiny force on the Sun, and although this force is exceptionally small this opposing force exists. For every force, there is an equal and opposite reactionary force.
Such an image of a single ray of light from a far off star passing by the Sun allows us to readily dismiss this tiny force and its effect on the Sun, like we can discount the force of a single person jumping on the Earth. However, is there really only a single ray of light passing by the Sun at any given moment? This image is highly misleading, as it only shows this one tiny little ray of light from this one far off star. As per our other point, the space surrounding the Sun is teaming with light, teaming with electromagnetic energy. There is electromagnetic light passing the Sun from all other stars, from all other directions and of many different frequencies and energies. The Sun is entirely surrounded by a complete field of light. One tiny light beam may not exert much force, but there is not just one tiny light beam, there is an innumerable, multitude of light beams at every instant of time surrounding the Sun, coming from all directions at every distance from the Sun. The space around the Sun is not empty in any sense of the word.

Every point in Space has large amounts of electromagnetic energy passing through it at any point in time.
Even the above image is misleading as to the real quantity of electromagnetic energy which exists in space as this image shows the light from these distant object passing through only one point of space. In reality the electromagnetic field passes through all points of space. All this electromagnetic field, carries momentum, has energy and thus has mass. It really appears in established physics that we are entirely failing to consider the cumulative mass contained in all of this electromagnetic radiation and by extension all the mass and momentum of these electromagnetic fields. The amount of cumulative mass of all electromagnetic fields in the space of the Universe, far exceeds the amount of physical mass in the Universe by many orders of magnitude.
All this electromagnetic energy, carries with it the energy of its momentum, mediated by the field carrying physical force. The field carrying physical force transfers the motion, defines the frame of reference, moves the space which then moves the mass. The two concepts of space and matter are not separate entities, but a divided nature of the same entity. The mass and the space around the mass, move together. There is no motion relative to some absolute space, for space is motion. Space cannot be separated from motion, because they are one in the same entity. Space carries momentum, and through this momentum of space carries a measure of mass itself due to this motion. This motion is mediated through energy transfer through a field carrying physical force which defines the character of any region of space. Space is not a physical medium, but a field carrying physical force, a field of motion or transfer of momentum. When the motion ceases, the field carrying physical force no longer exists.
It is this motion of space, which causes gravity. When space rotates, it essentially causes a vortex. If this vortex becomes sufficiently powerful, concentrated and dense, we will have solid matter. It is the motion of space, this difference in spatial pressure causing a flow of space, which leads to the gravitational force between mass. The motion of space causes a reduction in spatial pressure, which causes the force called gravity. All space in motion, has momentum, has inertia, has effective mass, and thus exerts gravitational forces. Thus space and matter are in a delicate and universal balance, the motion and energy of space, leads to gravity and the formation of mass.
What the Unified Field concept predicts is there is an additional attractive force within a galaxy, acting towards its axis of rotation, due to its motion through space. It is a similar effect to that of two current carrying conductors being attracted to each other. This force though is through the Unified Field of physical force, due to the momentum of the galaxy as a whole. It is an electrogravitational force of a nature we currently due not recognize and thus attribute to dark matter.
Thus a galaxy is not just the motion of the matter we can see and detect through its electromagnetic emissions which reach us, but this electromagnetic energy exists everywhere around the matter, surrounding the matter, between all the matter. We only see the light which shines directly upon us, and thus fail to consider this light shines in all directions, between all things and exists at all points in space within a galaxy. The entire galaxy is a whole volume of electromagnetic energy and all this electromagnetic energy has a measure of momentum, of motion. This momentum of the fields between matter, has energy and thus too mass. It is invisible too us, yet plays a critical and important role in the motion and coherence of a galaxy as a whole. This field of momentum, this field carrying physical force, connects the entire galaxy together as a single thing in space.
For any such entity in rotational motion, there must be an equal and opposite motion, a counter-rotation which balances everything. This counter-rotating energy extends far from what we would consider the radius of a galaxy or the matter. Thus the true size of a galaxy is much larger and thus contains far more energy than previously considered. Indeed, even our very Universe is many orders of magnitude larger than not just the visible Universe, but what we would describe as the "material" Universe. There is a field of contrary or counter-rotating energy, entirely opposite to our entire Universe, somewhere out there, which keeps everything in balance. Thus there is a sort of steady state to our Universe, but it requires unimaginable scale.
This concept may seem somewhat contrary to established astronomical and physical theory, but there is new evidence for just such ideas coming from observational data. Recently the motion of quasars relative to the Earth, has shown the Earth's direction of motion through the Universe, appears to go through the galactic center. This is not at all unexpected and even predicted by the Unified Field concept. The motion of our Solar system through space around the galactic center is in the approximate direction of the Sun's north pole. That is the Earth and the planets of our solar system follow an approximately helical path through space as they are pull along by the solar fields. Said another way the solar system moves through space, along the axis through its rotation. It would be expected the path of our galaxy through space is also in a direction through its central axis of rotation and even that greater conglomerations of galaxies rotate around some central axis and move inline with this axis.
It is interesting to note that this axis of motion shown by the quasar data, is perpendicular to the Cosmic Microwave Background dipole. The CMB dipole was suggested as an indicator of motion of the Earth relative to the Universe and played a crucial role in modern astronomical theory. The Unified Field theory would suggest the CMB dipole is not due to motion, but due to a Universal dipole of charge and axis of rotation of the entire Universe which is ninety degrees to the motion of our galaxy and thus our Earth relative to the majority of mass in the Universe. The Unified Field theory predicts this perpendicular alignment of all motion, relative to the electrical field and angular momentum, and this arrangement applies to all structures in space from the microscopic to the galactic.
The Anchor of Modern Cosmology Just Shattered - See the Pattern on YouTube
Experimental Evidence for the Unified Field
Experimental Evidence for the Unified Field
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. - Albert Einstein
We can endlessly discuss the Unified Field Theory, debate whether it was completed, argue over its relevance or even its possibility, but words and mathematics prove little. Mathematics, theories, papers and concepts are of no use whatsoever if we cannot develop practical applications from them. Actions speak louder than words. We would argue it is the development of practical applications from the scientific theories which is by far the most important. Mathematical formulas and words have their role to play, but it is far more beneficial to bring such ideas into physical reality. Especially when such devices and experiments are capable of advancing humanity and civilization.
To that end let us bring this discussion, from mere words and conjecture, into reality. Presented here are devices, experiments and situations which are applications and experimental evidence which can confirm the ideas of a Unified Field and a "Field of Force". At this point, we are no longer just talking, speculating and theorizing, but providing the means for direct physical evidence and ways to develop real world, reproducible experiments and devices proving the reality of these ideas. The following experiments can prove without any doubt the existence and reality of the Unified Field and a universal "Field of Force".
Have You Done Any of These Experiments?
The short answer is yes, we have done some of these experiments. We have experimented sufficiently to know for certain the ideas presented within this document are real. For us this is sufficient. Others may need further evidence.
Experimentation is required, but the realization of a concept does not always lead to the individual who understands the concept being able to engineer or construct a direct experimentation. There is the concept, but an entirely different knowledge set and resources are required to apply and engineer a concept. For example, knowledge of how a combustion engine works or how an airplane flies can be grasped, but to actually build a car or an airplane is another thing entirely. Even to build a rudimentary internal combustion engine would take engineering, mathematics, machining, chemistry and other skills which any one person may not posses. To grasp a concept, does not always readily equate to being able to experimentally demonstrate that concept. Certain requirements, skills and resources must exist to do so. It is exceedingly rare for any one individual to possess all these skills and the resources to apply them.
We look up to certain individual who did possess this rare genius, such as Nikola Tesla, who not only understood extremely complex concept but who was able to demonstrate and apply these concepts in physically real constructions and invention.
We have not reproduced or attempted all these experiments, but trust these experiments worked and were demonstrated as described by their inventors or witnesses. We are able to consider such physical constructions and relationships in our mind, so that it is clear these particular experiments have a sound basis in reality and could be constructed and built as designed. We see these as the most likely avenues of research which would produce the results we would expect from the existence of a Unified Field. We see the common element of the Unified Field through all of these experiments and thus out of so many possibilities suggest these to be the most likely to produce remarkable results and evidence for the concept of a Unified Field. True investigations and actual reproduction of some of these experiments would require significant funding and work on the part of a large number of people.
It is easy to discredit and dismiss information, for which there is no hard evidence. When hard evidence is found, then it is not so easy to dismiss these ideas. This is what we found when researching and investigating the concepts of a Unified Field. We were skeptical of such a solution being possible and questioned the very nature of the entire concept, but upon finding numerous experiments and applications which demonstrated the reality of exactly this concept, then our doubts were always put to rest.
The Unified Field, the concept of another Field of Force and a connection between electricity and gravity has been suggested and demonstrated many times before. We need only recognize the connection and significance of the following experiments to prove its existence.
The Fallacy of Trust in Experimental Science
The Fallacy of Trust in Experimental Science
We must address this naive notion of inventors and scientists being entirely responsible for researching and developing their ideas to prove the reality of them. This is simply not true nor a logical expectation.
Much of Einstein's theories were not experimentally proven by Einstein himself. Entire legions of people have been involved in the development and proof of Relativity theory. The notion of the backyard inventor having a 'eureka' moment and then constructing some remarkable invention on his workbench with screwdrivers and tools is pure Hollywood fantasy. To truly realize the reality of significant ideas requires a tremendous effort, often on the part of many individuals, many groups, entire universities, organizations and governments.
Solving the problem theoretically, mathematically or on paper can itself be the effort of a lifetime. Expecting one to then go on and drum up the funding, have the time, have the engineering experience and to have all the resources required to bring an idea into reality, is a high expectation indeed. Few have such an ability. Nikola Tesla was one such individual and this is why so many hold him in such high regard. It is possible, it has happened, but it is not the norm nor reasonable to expect this to happen.
It is rare for a physicist or scientist, especially ones in lesser funded Universities or institutions, to have the money they want to do whatever they chose. Universities and research institutions are highly political, corporate and extremely elitist. Idea's contrary to an established narrative face an extremely difficult, uphill battle to demonstrate any viability worthy of funding. Scientists are not free to work on anything they chose. This is the reality. For example, the very proposal of researching anti-gravity would have had you laughed out of many Universities before you even got started.
Consider much of University funding comes from corporations and these corporations have significant control over where this funding goes and upon what it is spent. For example, a corporation interested in funding experiments on new adhesives, is not going to let their funding be spent on experiments into robotics. Very important to keep in mind is a corporation's primary interest is profit, not saving humanity, not helping people, not maintaining peoples health, not producing products which last forever, or minimizing waste. It is exceedingly rare for a corporation to be sincerely interested in advancing humanity. Most corporations are interested in profit at the expense of everything else. People need to keep this in mind.
Consider the tobacco industry as a good example. Money was spent and invested to improve smoking, so the cigarettes burned more evenly and consistently, the aroma was improved, the potential for addiction was increased and so on. Do you think such expenditure went into determining the health effects of smoking. If the tobacco companies did fund such health research, and 10 papers were produced which said that smoking was safe and 10 papers were produced which said smoking was unhealthy and dangerous, they simply threw out the papers and unfunded the scientists whose papers contradicted their potential for profit. Thus no one would get funding unless they supported the company providing the funding. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. Experimental results are easily manipulated through the control of funding and discreditation of researchers. This is not idle speculation, this has happened and continues to happen.

The other problem we see in the experimental physics community, is experimental reproductions which are blatant attempts to disprove others experimental results through manipulation of the experimental setup. We see professional, scientific research associations approach new and novel experimental results, from a purely established physics perspective. That is they reproduce the novel experiment in a specific way which intentionally disproves the novel result. They do this so the experiment remains within the established paradigm and maintains the established understanding. We are not here talking about eliminating sources of error, or demonstrating mistaken effects, but the elimination entirely of the true scope of the original experiment itself.
Like using a block to disprove the ability of a wing to produce lift or changing the size of some element, when the original design stated specifically only this certain size would work. The relevant aspect of the experiment which would prove the unique and revolutionary result is dropped and the experiment rebuilt in a way which conforms to the established concepts. We have provided two examples of this, one in our discussion of Townsend Brown's discoveries and the other in regards to Nikola Tesla's discoveries.
We liken this to someone discovering a hot air balloon will rise, proving a means of lifting objects into the air, then the establishment using cold air in a balloon to prove a balloon full of air cannot possibly float.
Blatant Errors in Attempts to Reproduce the Biefeld-Brown Effect
Blatant Misunderstandings of Nikola Tesla's World Wireless System
We see in both of these currently discredited and misinterpreted results, direct, verifiable, experimental evidence for the utilization of an effect connecting gravity and electricity. Evidence for the same connection proposed to exist by Albert Einstein's Unified Field theory itself. Yet today we see the established physics community continue to blatantly deny the reality of these results and defame the character of the scientists who discovered them. It is a truly ludicrous situation.
"It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." - Robert M. Pirsig
Rather than follow the explicit instruction and description of the experimental process as defined by the one who discovered the novel result, the establishment ignores the specified criteria for reproduction and develops an experiment which isolates any novel effect, which disproves such a novel effect exists. We have made efforts to point out where established physics manipulated some of these experiments to maintain established notions. It is naive to think such manipulation never occurs and that the scientific community and their backers are always intelligent, logical, completely honest and trustworthy.
Another fallacy common is to expect that a significant scientific discovery, will always reach the general population and media. It is unrealistic to expect that if some scientist did succeed in developing some remarkable new technology or experimental evidence, you are going to immediately hear about it on the nightly news and see it mass produced in no time. The reality is much different than this, contrary to what people believe.
The reality is, many research projects have been done and even exist today, researching remarkable new technologies. We discuss how there was a tremendous interest in gravity or "anti-gravity" technologies in the 1950's. People seem to feel, if these corporations discovered the means to control gravity, they would rush out immediately to the local media outlet and announce their discovery to the world. The reality is if one of these research efforts ever succeeds or has already succeeded in such a discover, few people will ever know about it.
Primarily because corporations and industry depend on trade secrets for their monetary success. If everyone knew how to do something, then a company wouldn't be able to profit from their exclusive control over that knowledge. Such discoveries become a trade secret. Further, advanced technologies could even lead to the complete irrelevance of their own business model, thereby they would put themselves out of business if they released that information. This notion that a company would rush out to build flying cars and corner the market after discovering such a thing is extremely naive. There is far more nuance to the dissemination of knowledge and discovery than appears at first glance.
For example, it is possible to make products which last for extremely long periods of time, but it is far more profitable to make a product which breaks, gets worse, or becomes obsolete over time. Why sell one product which lasts for 10 years, when your product can break in a few months, the consumer has to buy a new one twice a year, and you can sell 10 or 20 in ten years and make 10 or 20 times the profit. If an Aerospace company discovered anti-gravity, then all their airplanes become obsolete, their whole business model might change and they might make less profit. Sure they might make more profit if they were the flying car company, but it is a huge risk and upends the established situation which is certain. Thus the idea corporations are out to make the world a better place through research and development is naive. Again, the goal is profit, not benefit to the world or people.
A good example of this, is the expectation that car companies have a desire to make cars more fuel efficient. They do not. As a high ranking executive of a car company once said, Our company is not buying the gas, what incentive do we have to make the car more fuel efficient? Indeed, they are much more likely to cut a deal with the fuel producing companies, to keep the cars consuming a certain amount of fuel, if that makes them a higher profit than they would gain by selling a more fuel efficient car. These companies do extensive experimentation to determine the failure rate of certain components and parts of the car, so that these parts have an expected life, after which the owner of the car needs to purchase new parts, pay them for expensive repairs or even more profitable for the company, buy a new car.
If you think such things are untrue, we suggest you investigate the case of the Frank Stelzer motor , which I would guess most have never even heard of. This was a very simple engine, proven working, more thermally and mechanically efficient and more durable and long lasting than modern internal combustion engines. It was sold to a large automotive corporation( Volkswagon ), and has never seen the light of day. Volkswagon claimed they could never work out how to get the power out of it, but this is just utter misdirection and a lie. Of all the internal combustion engines ever designed, this one is clearly the best. There was such remarkable potential of this engine in the sheer simplicity of its design. The company could have easily developed and refined the motor into a reciprocating generator or compressor as the inventory had clearly pointed out. The engine was just too good, period. This is just one of many examples which can be found if one looks for them.
Need further convincing, investigate the addition of lead to gasoline products and the results of this scientific discover and how it was handled by the corporations and governments. The Man Who Accidentally Killed The Most People In History - Veritasium on YouTube
Not only do corporations play a significant role in the control of knowledge and discovery, but so do governments.
Inventions and experimental evidence can just disappear, simply because it's on the USPTO ( United States Patents and Trademarks Office ) restrictions list. This list, not currently available for review, details specific technologies which are unable to be patented because they are deemed important to the national security of the United States. Technologies on this list cannot be patented and thus companies would keep such inventions under lock and key. You can see an older version of this list here: 1971 Patent Security Review List. Thus the desire to patent and profit from such world changing technology, may not even be legal. Such policy ultimately leads to the prevention of any release of potential beneficial, civilization changing technologies. These sorts of policies serve to severely hold progress back.
There are even more issues which could arise from the release of such information or inventions. Inventors can be hit with the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, which is enforced by the United States Department of Energy. Using this law, your invention can be essentially erased from the public domain in the interests of National Security. In 2022 alone the DoE made more than 80 inventions secret, via this National Security Order which is a unilateral decision with essentially no recourse available for inventors who are hit with it. Most countries have similar laws. Thus if you were to discover a potentially world changing discovery, you could be jailed or restricted from ever releasing it.
This is not even considering whether the conspiracies are true, which say inventors have been murdered or had unfortunate accidents upon their attempted release of world changing technologies.
How many inventions have been hidden, which could drastically improve the conditions of humanity? We simply do not know. The point being made is this notion of scientists working to discover technologies beneficial to humanity, such as gravity or anti-gravity technologies, and then them being released out to the public and discussed on the nightly news, is a complete and utter fantasy.
Knowing this, we are going to freely release here a few, civilization changing experiments, with the potential to prove without any doubt the existence of a Unified Field and the potential for control or manipulation of gravity. We have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, any individual or company which would investigate the following experiments will quickly discover immediate and irrefutable evidence to confirm everything we have thus discussed in this document. It is not a question at all whether these technologies are possible or exist, but a question as to who is courageous and powerful enough to implement their world changing potential.
To truly develop and change the world, utilizing a completely new technological foundation, would require an enormous effort on the part of not just one individual, but many people, companies and governments. If such efforts were undertaken, change could happen overnight. If the expectation is one individual is entirely responsible for implementing this, then we will forever remain in the current state of affairs.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are that good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." - Howard Aiken
Existing Demonstrations of Levitation
Existing Demonstrations of Levitation
We will here provide numerous experimental examples which demonstrate various known means to levitate objects against the force of gravity. These experiments may or may not prove anything new or novel, but give us some background and framework upon which we can base further ideas.
You can see videos of various methods to achieve levitation from John Iwaszko's YouTube channel which he describes as follows:
"Antigravity the Reality" was originally filmed between 1991 to 1996, with 15 methods of levitating an object known to the author with heavier than air devices usually referred to as "antigravity" as they achieve flight without propellers, jets or rocket propulsion. The original inspiration of this series was to show interested people "REAL" experiments that can levitate objects, real is defined as "SCIENTIFIC" experiments that are repeatable by others. As opposed to fake or unrepeatable experiments or presentations mainly by "armchair" scientists/people that speculate or form opinions about how to create antigravity that dominate the word "antigravity," and in my opinion do not form a solid basis from where to start serious research and experimentation. This of course does not mean that other proposals are not possible, as I only present my own successful experiments that are repeatable scientifically; science fiction has always inspired reality!"
15 Real Antigravity Methods - John Iwaszko
Electromagnetic Induction Levitation
Although not electrogravity, we will here discuss another method by which electromagnetic fields can produce a levitation against gravity. This is a simple demonstration often references as a means to levitate objects. However, this is not electrogravity, but purely an electromagnetic repulsion, relying very much on an opposing field created in a large metal plate beneath the levitating coil, or the metal plate is levitated over the magnetic coil.
You can make a simple electromagnet by winding a long wire into a coil, which increases the magnetic field by adding up the magnetic fields of each individual wire. You can power an electromagnetic from a battery which is direct current ( DC ) or alternating current ( AC ). Any insulated wire will work, but with magnet wire the varnish coating is very thin, and very insulating, so the coil windings can be closer together.
In professionally created electromagnetic they will employ special materials for the core of the electromagnet. A Tesla Coil has no core, and is referred to as an Air Core transformer. Indeed, if you place two electromagnets close to each other and power one with alternating current, it will induce an alternating current in the other coil, this is inductance. All transformers rely on this simple concept.
All current flow will generate a magnetic field. However, induction requires a changing flow of current. Induction is the act of inducing or causing an opposing magnetic or electric field, from the inducing field. A magnet field is induced in the environment which opposes or is opposite, to the magnet field the alternating current is producing.
The alternating electric current in the coil, produces and alternating magnetic field. This rapidly changing field, induces and opposing field all around it, which tries to oppose or cancel it. This opposing field acts as a reactance or counteraction to the creation of the magnetic field. Normally, in air this counter acting field is very weak and you would not even notice it. However, when you put a metal plate or some other metal which can react more strongly, this opposing field can be sufficiently strong to repel the magnetic coil creating it.
The magnetic field of the coil induces a much more powerful opposing magnetic field in metal because a greater imposing current can flow in the metal. A much much stronger alternating electromagnetic field would be needed to do achieve the same effect over air or plastic or wood. The alternating magnetic field created by the coil will always induce an oppositely alternating magnetic field, thus the two magnet fields repel each other. The induced magnetic field opposes or repels the inducing magnetic field.
Thus the magnetic field of the coil repels or moves away from the magnetic field it induces in the metal plate. It can only move so far way because the coil itself is inducing the magnetic field which is causing the repulsion. As it moves further away, it induces less repelling magnetic field and would fall back down. If it gets to close the strength of the induced field increases pushing it away. So the electromagnetic induction coil can only levitate so high, before it reaches a balance point. Without the large metal plate beneath the coil, there would be no levitation.

Electromagnetic levitation device utilizing
simple electromagnetic induction repulsion
Levitation of an Electromagnetic Induction Coil - chrisdav93 on Youtube
(#0126) Lenz's Law Levitation Coil Stable with No Tethers - High Voltage Hot Dog on YouTube. Another excellent demonstration of induction levitation showing how to stabilize the position of the induction coil, using gaps between the aluminum plates which control the eddy currents causing the repulsion.

Diamagnetic Levitation of Pyrolytic Graphite
Levitation of a Magnet Using the Diamagnetic Properties of Bismuth
A Toy which demonstrates the only method of levitation using permanent magnets. The Levitron
See also our discussion on Ionocraft and Ionic Lifters
Reproduction of Ball Lightning
Reproduction of Ball Lightning
Despite the enormous potential for the solution to ball lighting to explain structure and mass creation from energy in the Universe, the subject remains more of a curiosity, misunderstood and generally unexplored. The lack of interest in the production of ball lightning today, shows the misdirection of established physics to investigate the microscopic, quatum world as an explanation for matter, when there may be a excellent and relevant macroscopic example right before us in ball lightning. If we were to expend serious effort into the reproduction of ball lightning, we would find evidence for another "Field of force" and a physical demonstration of the connection between gravity and electricity. Knowledge of this other field of force, and its relationship to electromagnetism, is what allows us to resolve the long standing mystery of long lived, stable electromagnetic plasmas, as we find in ball lightning.

Ball Lightning
Understanding ball lighting, could provide important evidence and experimental demonstration of the mechanism by which Unified Field theory unites with quantum theory. We see in ball lightning a mechanism by which 'fields' of energy, take on the character of an 'object' or 'form' of a certain size. This is an altogether different character of the electromagnetic field, a stable form of contained energy which appears to be capable of moving around as if it is an object of sorts. The repeated experimental reproduction of ball lightning in a laboratory could not only prove the unification between gravity, electricity and quantum mechanics but could even be the final clue which makes fusion energy completely feasible.
We have shown Nikola Tesla was capable of producing Ball Lightning in his Colorado Springs laboratory and had a good understanding of the mechanism involved. We should realize if we can repeatedly produce this phenomenon it will give us a much better understanding of the means by which fields and energy can become stable, independent 3-D forms. This is an important step to be able to understand how energy is formed into matter and more importantly provides another critical clue between the relationship of electric fields and gravitational fields.

Real Photograph of Ball Lightning.
Tesla said he saw these many times and that they
were not a photographic defect.
Nikola Tesla knew how to create ball lightning. This is important as ball lightning appears to be a macroscopic stable formation of electrical energy. This would be an import key to fusion, formation of matter, electron creation and other fields.
Lightning discharges are, accordingly, very frequent and sometimes of inconceivable violence. On one occasion approximately twelve thousand discharges occurred in two hours, and all in a radius of certainly less than fifty kilometers from the laboratory. Many of them resembled gigantic trees of fire with the trunks up or down. I never saw fire balls, but as compensation for my disappointment I succeeded later in determining the mode of their formation and producing them artificially. - Nikola Tesla from The Transmission of Electrical Energy without Wires. Electrical World and Engineer, March 5, 1904
Nikola Tesla explained the ball lightning occurred only when an electrical discharge hit the same spot twice. That is when there was a plasma discharge path from one of his coils, and a second discharge happened to interact with the first plasma discharge. This would explain the events extreme rarity and the numerous failures to ever reproduce it consistently.
If there was an expanding or collapsing magnetic vortex induced by the initial path of an electrical discharge and then another electrical discharge stuck through the center of the first, thereby energizing it with additional energy, perhaps this would create something akin to an electrical smoke ring, which would then be relatively stable in the air. Although the actual size of the electrical toroid or smoke ring could be small, it would energize the air around it and thus appear as a glowing ball. Instead of disregarding and ignoring Nikola Tesla's discovery and explanation, we should see it for what it is, a clear path to understanding this phenomenon and its relevance to other physics concepts.
A New Explanation for One of the Strangest Occurrences in Nature - Ball Lightning - Nautil.us
During the “Guppy Reconversion Program” in 1945, tests were performed on the electrical gear of the submarine the U.S.S. Cutlass. During these tests a fully charged bank of batteries was accidentally connected across a non-spinning generator. The reverse current circuit breaker opened and interrupted the resulting short circuit.
A green fireball floated out of the circuit breaker into the engine room. The life of this fireball was about one second.
Paul A. Silberg of the Raytheon Company investigated this incident in 1962. Silberg concluded that “Some configurational energy must be present” in the plasma balls. Silberg offered an explanation to account for the excess energy. He said that the energy of the plasma ball was contained within a loop of current.
Further experiments with submarines, large battery banks and Tesla Coils was performed by a Robert K. Golka, but it appears he never met with any success. There is a video of him on board the USS Silversides Submarine, attempting such a test and filming in slow motion, but nothing significant is really discernible.
Robert K. Golka Conducts Fireball experiments in Submarine - geipeandldn on Youtube
Another startling sighting - and certainly one of the most detailed and scientifically credible - comes from Professor Roger Jennison (Department of Electronics, University of Kent) concerning his experiences on board a late-night flight from New York to Washington in March 1963. He later wrote of his experiences in the November 1969 issue of Nature. Jennison states that the phenomenon occurred after the aircraft encountered a thunderstorm in which it was enveloped by a bright and audible electrical discharge. Some seconds later a glowing sphere some 20cm in diameter emerged from the pilot's cabin and passed down the aircraft's central aisle approximately 50cm from Jennison. The ball moved on a straight course the whole length of the aisle 75cm above the floor at a velocity relative to the aircraft of about 1.5 ms-1. It was blue-white in colour and its optical output amounted to about 5 to 10 Watts. Interestingly, no heat was felt when it passed close by and the limb darkening (like that of the Sun) gave it an almost solid appearance, indicating that it was optically opaque. No asymmetry could be seen in any dimension so it was impossible to determine whether or not it was spinning.
It has been suggested ball lightning might be a good model for a fusion reactor confinement scheme if it could be consistently generated in the lab for proper study. I am curious why there has not been more done with the unintentional ball lightning of the type seen in old diesel electric submarines. My understanding is that clumsy switching of the large batteries that ran the subs would generate ball lightning.
We see in the following diagram, an experiment performed which attempted to produce ball lightning from the phase difference between two high voltage Tesla Coils. This is an excellent direction of research to pursue in this field. We question though why the experimenters picked the specific frequency differences they did, as it would seem more logical to experiment over a wide range of phase differences using some sort of variable frequency high voltage generator. Further, we suggest the explanation proposed by Nikola Tesla, previously mentioned, to be of significant relevance here. Just having two different fields out of phase may not be sufficient, the phase difference needs to occur in a confined volume, such as the small region of a plasma discharge.

Production of Ball Lightning from a Phase Difference in High Voltage Oscillations
We should consider the explanation of ball lightning made by Nikola Tesla, to be the most logical and likely method by which ball lightning forms. The idea of ball lightning being caused by two discharges interacting, explains the process and the rarity of the phenomenon. If we have an energetic region of plasma, and this region is impacted by a pulse from another high energy plasma, we could get a distinct situation in which one plasma, penetrating through another plasma, could induce the first plasma, into a toroidial vortex like situation. Such a plasma toroid would be extremely stable and this form could account for many of the strange behaviours of natural ball lightning. It would be exceedingly rare in nature, for lightning would need to essentially, "strike twice" through the same region of space, or the branching paths of lightning would have to cross each other or two lighting strikes would need to occur very near to each other and at nearly the same time.
Indeed, we even find direct mathematical proof for a mechanism by which electromagnetic waves can connected to form a stable concentration of energy, enough energy to become massive. In the following model, it is shown how the electromagnetic momentum of light can become confined in an odd, twisting, alternating, form which produces all the characteristic behaviors of the electron, like its spin, mass and charge. We see here that the electron, appears to be the most fundamental and first building block of matter from the energy of radiation. This model shows clearly how electromagnetic waves can in certain cases form a sort of circular, helical loop of energy, where the energy is trapped or contained. Are Electrons made of Light? (The Williamson & Van der Mark Electron model). Huygens Optics - on Youtube
We find these two papers highly relevant and very interesting as possible mechansims for the stability of ball lightning:
The Bagel Game by Bob Greenyer
Electromagnetic Fields Of Current Structures-V02 by N.E. Nevessky
The Mysterious Phenomenon Of Ball Lightning - See the Pattern on YouTube
‘Incredible video’ captured during Alberta storm could be rare ball lightning event: scientist - Global News
The Townsend Brown Battery
The Invisible Electrostatic Wall
The Invisible Electrostatic Wall
In our investigations into a connection between gravity and electricity, we came across a very unusual and remarkable story. This story has been investigated thoroughly and determined to be as true as we are able to discern. The concept within is documented no where else and appears to be a chance demonstration of electrical effects with significant potential for experimental application. We find in this story, further evidence for the importance of fields in our understanding of forces and physical solidity.
This at the very least, appears to be a macroscopic demonstration of how electrical fields can appear to be solid, in macroscopic ways unlike the mechanisms of solidity as described within quantum mechanics. We note the possibility of such an effect is not currently recognized by the established physics community and there would likely be disbelief in such a concept, if this case was not so well documented.
We will here discuss the discovery of a very unusual static effect reported in a 3M plastic film manufacturing facility. The report concerned the creation of an 'invisible wall' through which no person could walk, like an invisible wall, which occurred beneath an area where a plastic film was being ran over lengthy rollers. This effect was investigate and confirmed by multiple people and the following is the extent of the research we could discover on the matter. This seems to be an effect possible within established physics yet represents a wholly unique application if true. Perhaps, this is the science of force fields of which science fiction has oft dreamt!
The reproduction of this effect, could suggest altogether new ways of applying electrostatic fields and we would predict, would require a better understanding of the forces created by electrostatic potentials. For example, we would question whether the situation described here, could work in a different orientation. Could such an "electrostatic wall" become an "electrostatic floor" suspending an individual in the air against the force of gravity. Does such an electrostatic wall represent the macroscopic reproduction of the forces of solidity we experience from ordinary matter, proving without any doubt that fields are responsible for the nature of matter we call solidity and particles.
"Invisible Electrostatic Wall" at 3M Adhesive Tape Plant - W. Beaty. Aug 1996
The Final Frontier - ESD Journal
From the ESD Journal site, here reproduced as the current ESD Association site no longer serves this file, although they do publish other articles from David Swenson. They likely just got tired of the attention such a remarkable story attracted.
Original ESD Website showing The Final Frontier story.The Final Frontier - ESD Journal - The ESD & Electrostatics Magazine. Website. 2011
Wide PolyPropylene Web Static Charge. A Phenomenon Worthy of Star Trek. - by Devid E. Swenson. Society of Plastic Engineers. ANTEC 1997 Proceedings April 27 - May 2. Toronto.
The Final Frontier
Response from Peter Thompson Response from Melissa Georgiou
Paraphrased and dramatized by Cynthia Waters
In August of 1980 in the southeast United States, problems were being experienced at a polypropylene plant. Strange things were happening around a film slitting machine.
David Swenson of 3M Electrical Specialties Division in Austin, Texas was called in to investigate. Little did he know that he was about to enter the final frontier. When Dave asked what type of problem they wanted him to look at, he was told that he would have to come to the plant. They could not explain it over the telephone. They did tell him that they were experiencing problems with contamination of wide web film as it was being run at high speed, converted (split) into "film jumbos" with a width of 3' x 5' for coating with adhesive to make tape. Dave didn't see what was so unusual about film being contaminated by dust, flies, other insects and... birds. "Birds"?
Now they had Dave's attention and he didn't hesitate to go to the plant to see for himself how birds could be caught up in film.
The Polypropylene web was 21 feet across - almost the width of three lanes of traffic on the interstate. The film ran from one roller up 20 feet to another roller; across 15 feet to a third roller; down 20 feet to a splitter; and was then wound onto two rolls. It formed a huge dynamic "tent". On the morning that Dave intended to measure the static electricity inside the web tent , the temperature was 80°F with a relative humidity of 75 to 80%.
As he walked toward the web with his field meter in hand, the machine operator said "I wouldn't do that if I were you. Strange things happen inside the web tent this time of day."
Dave paused and thought about what the man had said but he was there to do a job and that was what he intended to do. You see, Dave is a very brave guy. Besides, it was just film running on a splitting machine. He had seen that many times and nothing seemed particularly unusual that morning. That is, until he looked down at his static field meter.
With a 200kV @ 12" measurement device, the voltage measurements were off the scale and he was still 20 feet away from the web! For the meter to be pegged at that distance, the amount of static electricity had to be in the Megavolt range. He thought to himself "Van de Graaff would be proud!"
Since he had come this far, Dave decided to enter the web anyway. As he did so, the hair on his head, arms and entire body began to stand on end. Even worse, he began to feel like sparklers were hitting him all over his body. It felt like burning sensations at hundreds of points all over his being. (brave? - hummm?) At exactly one-half way into the web, David slammed into a wall that was both invisible and impenetrable. It felt like he had hit a force field like he had seen on Star Trek.
Although he knew this was Coulomb's Forces - the law of static attraction and repulsion - he was held in place for what seemed like ages as he tried to grasp what was actually happening to him. It's one thing to know about Coulomb forces, but it is quite another to feel them with such gusto. When he finally came to his senses, he had to literally "peel" himself off of the invisible wall.

Image from Original Article
As he backed out of the web, he saw a fly drawn right up into the film and wondered if conditions ever existed inside that web that could actually draw a person up there as well. Dave hurried to talk with the Plant Manager and excitedly explained what had just happened to him. The Plant Manager agreed to go to the web to see for himself what was going on. By the time he was able to go, however, it was later in the day and the temperature and relative humidity had risen. He was able to walk into the web and from one side to the other without experiencing anything at all unusual. He told Dave that he thought he was simply hallucinating. When the machine operator corroborated Dave's story, the Plant Manager agreed to meet early the next morning to see if the same conditions would exist as they had experienced earlier in the day. They met bright and early the next day. As the Plant Manager entered the web, his curly gray hair immediately straightened. As he strutted toward the center of the web, his confident gait suddenly came to a complete stop as he hit the wall of invisibility.
Once he peeled himself off of the force field wall, a shaken Plant Manager came out of the web and exclaimed...
that he "didn't know whether they should fix it or sell tickets".
They decided to fix it.
Conclusion Static Electricity can cause some very strange and often difficult to explain phenomena. It is easily controlled if a commitment is made. This nuisance can be reduced to a non-nuisance level by proper analysis and installation of suitable equipment, at a very low cost.
Corrective Action An induction static eliminator was installed across the web at the unwind. The static electricity was immediately reduced throughout the process to less than 50kV (from MV's). It was then possible to make measurements in the rest of the area. Additional induction units were also installed at the jumbo wind-up areas which resulted in less than 5kV at conclusion.
Editor's Note We would like to hear your explanations for Dave's adventure. Please give us any similar experiences you may have had. We will publish these in the next issue. Maybe this will become a series - "Weird Phenomena." - David Swenson ESD Journal

Image of the Scale of the Electrostatic Wall as Described
Response received via e-mail September 22, 2001 from reader Melissa Georgiou
I was searching the internet to find a similar situation that I had encountered and your article on the invisible wall is very interesting. I encountered an invisible wall, but it felt more like a cushion which was vertical and got denser the farther I pushed on it. It lasted for about 30 secs and I could not walk through it. It happened at dusk in England during fog and high sunspot activity. I've been trying to explain it since. I am so glad some one else has experienced a "star trek" like force field and I hope you will encourage your engineers to perfect the effect instead of fixing it by decreasing static.
Sincerely, Melissa Georgiou
Response received via e-mail June 7, 2001 from reader Peter Thomson
EUREKA - I have found it. I have been studying the implications of charge being moved at high speeds. The math is very complex so it is hard to predict what sort of experimental setup is required to demonstrate different aspects of the phenomenon. But I think your members have practical experience of this phenomena, and my theory may provide insight into practical ways of predicting and preventing problems.
First, a little bit of basic physics, often overlooked. When you consider two charged particles with the same charge, when stationary they will repel each other, but when moving in parallel each moving charge creates a circular magnetic field round itself that results in mutual attraction. This is normally demonstrated in the attraction between two wires where negative charge is moving in parallel, but applies equally to charge moving in a paper or plastic film on a production line or in a moving charged dust cloud, or a thunder storm.
The forces created by an electrical current in a wire are produced in proportion to the speed of electrons through a wire. Because of collisions and random movements of electrons in the wire, the overall speed of the electrons, or drift speed is quite slow. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html (but the density is high). A 1 volt potential in a pure copper wire will produce a drift speed of 0.0043m/s This is less than half a centimeter in a second. One definition of the amp and force is based on this. 1 amp produces a force of 2*10^-7 Newtons per metre of wire when the parallel wires are 1 meter apart. By contrast production line speeds for paper and plastic film can be over 100 times faster and air flow in a tornado can exceed 1000 m/s.
Because electrostatics and electric current are often taught separately in schools, the effects of moving charge are often forgotten about. The effects of moving single charge become most dramatic when a charged vortex is created. Charged particles in front of or behind another particle will experience strong forces of repulsion, but the charged particles moving in parallel are very strongly attracted together! The net result is to form a charged sheath vortex, where a sheath of particles rotates about an open core. The sheath cannot contract into the core because of repulsion round the core, and the opposite sides flowing in opposite directions repel, Neither can it expand outwards from the sheath because of the attraction between particles moving in parallel. The result is a very tightly bound sheath of particles and air molecules. If new charged particles are being delivered to this rotating sheath vortex they will be bound into the sheath with the build up of huge electrical potential that doesn't discharge because of the forces of attraction generated by the movement of charged particles.
Your article describes the ideal situation for setting up a charged sheath vortex. The high speed
web is delivering a constant supply of the same charge to the tent created by the web flowing up and over the tensioning rollers. Within this tent, friction with the moving film causes the air to start rotating and initially this air will be given the same charge as the film. The rotating charged air will now start to create the attractive forces between particles moving in parallel and will draw in more charge from the moving plastic web. This process will continue and will produce a charged vortex sheath spinning in the middle of the tent. This would normally be invisible and could also feel like a solid wall with a well defined edge (and a soft center). You certainly wouldn't push it out of the way!
The charged sheath vortex could be made visible by releasing smoke streamers into the area.
Reference http://uk.geocities.com/tornadodrive/ - ESD Journal
An updated link to the charged sheath ideas of Peter Thompson.Charge Sheath Vortex Basics - Peter Thompson
An interesting report of various observations from individuals who have been inside a tornado. Might not entirely relevant to the Electrostatic wall, but if such reports are to be believed there is much more going on with a tornado than simply air moving due to temperature differences. Since clouds and such storm formations are capable of producing very intense electromagnetic discharges in lightning, we find it entirely plausible there is a significant electromagnetic component to tornadoes and even hurricanes.
On the Electromagnetic Basis of Tornadoes - Collegetimes.co
Email Confirmation from David Swenson
David Swenson is definitely listed as giving that talk in Electrical Overstress/Electrostatic Discharge Symposium proceedings, 1995. http://books.google.com/books?id=hGspsJvDB0cC&pg=PT11&dq=david%20swenson
Here's a November 2003 email from Swenson, originally posted on this message board:
This is David Swenson, "Voltana" at 3M forwarded your question to me to see if I could assist.
I retired from 3M in March of this year and started a consulting company called "Affinity Static Control Consulting, L.L.C. The article you referred to in Electrostatic Journal was originally presented at an EOS/ESD Symposium but was not published at that time. I was asked to present it again at a conference in Canada related to the Printing and Graphic Arts industry several years later. The published version from that conference was then put on the Web Site of Electrostatic Journal. http://www.esdjournal.com/articles/final/final.htm
I have had numerous inquiries over the years from people all over the world regarding the phenomena. Several explanations were offered and several have tried to duplicate my observations on a lab or test bed scale. I have never heard if anyone was successful. The US Department of Defence was also interested and I think put some effort into trying to duplicate what was I observed. I was asked to try to get the plant to allow some others to come in and do a study but it never worked out. I have no access to it anymore, in fact is is not even a 3M operation anymore.
I think the best explanation has to do with the film being at or very near the theoretical charge density limit and just the right combination of resistance between the person and floor. With the electric field at its maximum at the center of the tent formed by the film, the conductive body (person) approaching the center was actually pinned to the floor. Had the floor been more conductive, the person would have been closer to ground and probably would have received a massive shock from a propagating brush discharge. But being isolated from ground, no charge separation occurred resulting in the electrostatic "pinning" effect.
There was some other talk about a "plasma" being formed but I do not think that explains it well. This only occurred at the exact combination of temperature and humidity (dew point) and went away when the humidity increased in the room.
You asked about charged particles - if you mean actual solid particles or an aerosol, I doubt that the field density could approach the film level since the particles would repel one another too much. - David Swenson
We can consider this "Electric Wall" along with our ideas about the apparent "solidity" of matter, and the formation of particles from fields. They are calling this an electric wall as if there is a solid wall through which one cannot pass, as if there is something solid there, but there is not. All we have is an extremely powerful electrostatic field, which behaves entirely as if there is something solid prevent passage or preventing any superposition. The electrostatic field appears significant to the idea of matter being particles and we touch upon this concept elsewhere in this document.
Further, we can consider Nikola Tesla's analogy to this effect, from his work with very high pressure water pumps. He describes the situation in which he produced such a high pressure stream of water from one of his pumps, that he could strike this water stream with a heavy metal bar and not be able to pass the bar through the stream of water. The extreme motion of the water, made it behave as if it were a solid material.
An idea proposed by Tony Cuthbert, was to surround a ship with a flow of water, spread out like a shell completely around the ship, which could be turned on at will. Any missile or projectile encountering this water, would impact it with great force, either damaging it, triggering its explosives or at the very least redirecting it. Thus we in essence would have a sort of water shield.
One begins to consider, in light of this idea of an "electric wall" and Telsa's experiments with the 'solidity of motion', if we could create some sort of electric field in a high degree of motion, which could similarity be used as a shield or force field. We could consider this as a possible explanation for the 'electrostatic' wall, but we consider static electric fields, to be unchanging and not in motion. Thus there may be a connection here, but we would need to investigate further. It does appear thought that the concepts of a Unified Field of force, lead to concepts of solidity and the potential for creating shields, force fields or artificial regions of solidity using electromagnetic fields of special configuration.
As mentioned we find it interesting to consider the possibility of constructing such an electrostatic wall, in a different orientation, so that the 'wall' was below a person acting as a floor. Could such an electrostatic wall support someone in the air? It is interesting to consider such a situation and even similar situations in which utilizing electromagnetic fields, we could produce a sort of anti-gravity chamber here on Earth, for simulating zero-g.
It has been considered, what if we were to construct an extremely powerful electromagnetodynamic field, which effected the area within a chamber or volume, and the resulting Lorentz forces of this field, acted in the vertical direction. Einstein demonstrated, such electromagnetodynamic fields can act even upon the dielectric currents within insulators, and thus specially configured fields could act even upon neutral bodies. Thus within such a chamber, even a person could enter, causing them to float in the air without experiencing any shock or sensation of the immense electromagnetic fields producing the anti-gravity like forces upon them.
Gravity Field Coils
Gravity Field Coils
These experiments detail a few unique combinations of electromagnetic coils and circuitry purported to create gravitational like effects. It is interesting to note the similarity between some of these designs and the similarities between these designs and other experiments and concepts discussed. We should also keep in mind the interesting paper on toroidial windings for the storage of electromagnetic field, The Bagel Game, linked below. Although these particular descriptions may be lacking in some of the required technical details to actually construct such a device, they nonetheless point out an extremely difficult case to solve with current electromagnetic theory with potential to produce the effects described. It seems only through experiment could we make any real conclusions about what the results of such devices would be.
We see a remarkable correlation between these, purported "fringe" physics ideas of a means to effect gravity using special arrangements and design of electromagnetic coils, and the other experiments discussed here. Specifically, we see the reports of rapidly rotating superconductor able to produce some gravitational like force and the device described herein as the Varo disk, to be so similar to the 'Gravity Field coils' it cannot be purely coincidental.
A the reality of a connection between electricity and gravity as defined by the Unified Field theory, implies such experimental results must exist and herein we find examples and discussion of just such experimental results. Can we continue to discount this connection, when we find such obvious and repeated demonstrations of its physical reality?
Rotating Superconductors
The Varo Disk
We find it interesting in the following paper, "Antigravity for Aerospace Applications" some attention is drawn to similar structures of toroidial coils surrounding cores of material. In the first case of the paper, they are simply discussing the fields of a toroid wound around a magnetically permeable core, which results in an electric dipole through the center axis of the toroid. In the second case, they convert this electromagnetic toroid, to a similar gravitational case, proposing the existence of a 'created' gravitational field through the center of such an arrangement.

Dipole Electric Field Generator

Dipole Gravitational Field Generator
Images From: Antigravity for Aerospace Applications - author unknown. A paper from a series of advanced technology reports produced in 2009 under the defence Intelligence Agency, Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications (AAWSA) Program
Antigravity - Robert L. Forward. Hughes Research Laboratories, Malibu, California. 1962
The problem, as pointed out in the paper, is the mass required to be rotated in such a system is absolutely unachievable through any normal engineering method. They are considering the mass be that of the density of a star or rotated at velocities close to the speed of light. Thus, even if it could create a gravitational effect, such an effect would be many orders of magnitude weaker than the mass used to create this effect. Further the stresses upon such a system, as pointed out in R. Forwards paper would necessitate the use of electromagnetic fields just to hold it all together and keep it from just destroying itself. Thus the proposals in this paper, Antigravity for Aerospace Applications, although feasible from a mathematical perspective are entirely implausible and likely impossible from a practical engineering perspective.
We can consider, these "gravity field coils" as discussed here, operate in an altogether different manner than that proposed in this paper. What these devices appear to suggest, is there is some method by which energy can be collected, increased or stored, in the space around these arrangements of coils. Such an increase would necessarily involve an increase in the gravitational field due to the increased mass of the energy, according to Einstein's equation for energy mass equivalence. However, can we speculate in certain configurations such arrangements can reduce the energy, decreasing or creating a sort of energy vacuum in the space surrounding the device, and then effectively causing an anti-gravitational effect.
There is most likely something similar happening as described in the following two papers, which discuss in detail the energy effects of toroidial coils, toroidial coils, themselves wound from toroidial windings and further combinations of such arrangements. It was demonstrated, such coils do produce a stable form of energy in space which can actually persist even after the coil is unpowered and removed from that space. A phenomenon which seems to be of particular application to the ideas of particle creation from fields and the the formation of stable fields in space, like with ball lightning. Both of which are discussed further elsewhere in this document.
The Bagel Game by Bob Greenyer
Electromagnetic Fields Of Current Structures-V02 by N.E. Nevessky

An unrelated "gravity coil" diagram which shows the same basic circuit involved in the Shadowhawk device.
How to Build a Resonant Gravity Field Coil Using Crossed Fields and High Voltage
How to Build a Resonant Gravity Field Coil Using Crossed Fields and High Voltage
Nicknamed elsewhere in this document; "The Shadowhawk Device" as that is the name of the author of this text.

This is a better image I made to show the device described below in better detail.
Although a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind its operation is lacking and the requirement for modulation is likewise not explained in any detail. The real question is why have devices with these types of magnetic field configurations not been rigorously tested experimentally when they obviously produce very unique electromagnetic field characteristics. The ability of devices such as this to do or not do as their creators claim cannot be simply dismissed without legit testing and experimentation. There is at present no way to predict the results using modern physics, and neither have any such experiments been previously conducted which prove or disprove the claims.
The text of the original has been modifying somewhat, where it does not effect the ASC drawing here. You can find a copy of the original text file here:Gravity3.txt
February 14th, 1997
NOTE !! This project is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and it is being presented ONLY
for informational purposes. If you choose to do anything more than
read it, you are responsible for your own actions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
October 17, 1990
listed on KeelyNet as GRAVITY3.ZIP
courteously shared by Joseph Misiolek
--------------------------------------------------------------------
/==\ \ / /==\ \ /== /=================================\
| | \/ | | |\ | Systems | The Resonant Gravity Field Coil |
+==+ || | | |||| Present | (or: how to manipulate reality |
| | /\ | | | \| | in a 530 square inch area) |
===/ \=/ \=\==/=/ \ \=================================/
____________________________________________________________________
| By (_>Shadow Hawk<_) |
| Theory, concept, and Idea by: ????????????????????? |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: Within this file will be presented a potential method of altering the spatiotemporal continuum as one desires. I take no responsibility for any use or misuse of this information, whether harmful or otherwise. The effects of this device, if used in a careless manner, can be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
____________________________________________________________________
| Gravity Resonance? What is this nut talking about????? |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You are probably thinking, "how can gravity possibly be resonant?"
This is a good question. As discovered by Thomas Townsend Brown, electricity is directly related to gravity (see his U.S. patents 1,974,483, 3,187,206 in particular.)
If this is so, it is most likely a vectorial relationship (law of opposites), and since there is already an electromagnetic vector (2 dimensional), a gravitational vector would be at 90 degrees to both the magnetic and the electric vectors (since we are in a 3 dimensional space.)
The gravitational vector is like the "duration in time" of the electric and magnetic vectors. There are also, in addition to scalar electric and magnetic waves
(see Bearden, Thomas E. "Toward a new electromagnetics: part IV: vectors and mechanisms clarified. Tesla Book Co., Millbrae, California, 1983.
This work, however, fails to mention gravity waves, although it does mention controlling gravity), there are also scalar gravitic waves
(see Ford, L.H and A. Vilenkin. "A gravitational analogue of the Aharanov-Bohm effect." Journal of Physics A. Mathematical, Nuclear, and General. (Great Britain).14(9), Sep. 1981. p. 2353-2357.)
____________________________________________________________________
| Okay. So There are gravity waves. |
| How can resonating them control reality? |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above has been proven; this is where basically theory comes in. There has been much supposed experimental proof of these effects, however all current research is, unfortunately, proprietary, and it is extremely hard to come by anything helpful.
The only good sources of information are some small mail order book stores, and no one store has everything.
One example of publicized experimental proof is the information regarding the largely ignored Biefield-Brown effect, whereby gravity can be nullified and even reversed due to electric charge
(see Thomas Townsend Brown, Above patents), and the book on the Philadelphia experiment (and NOT THE MOVIE! The movie was fiction, the book is an attempt to analyze what little fact is known.)
The true Philadelphia experiment, if it actually occurred, used a Navy ship degausser modified to act as some type of resonant gravity vector coil.
The actual theory is that, since electricity can be "transmitted" through the ether through electric scalar and vector waves, and magnetic energy through magnetic scalar and vector waves, why not gravitational scalar and vector waves, if they do exist (law of opposites)?
A gravity wave is the temporal "shape" of the electric and magnetic vector (I hope this is a good explanation!), and by changing this shape you are changing the molecular construction of the matter (or lack thereof) transmitting the waves.
Also, since there are an infinite number of parallel, real universes
(see Hypernumbers II, by Charles Muses, January 1978 "Applied Mathematics and Computation", and his introduction to Jerome Rothstein's "Communication, Organization, and Science," The Falcon's Wing Press, Indian Hills, CO, 1958),
the gravity vector coil MAY allow the psychic (scalar electromagnetic brain wave) postulation of reality through the G- vector. This could also be done with a computer, but both are beyond the scope of this paper.
I will now present the plans for the construction of a simple G-vector coil. What you do with it from here is up to you, show it to your physics teachers and have them look up the references and watch their eyes pop as they find out the speed of light is NOT constant.
____________________________________________________________________
This, actually, is the hardest part. You will either have to spend a lot of $$$ at a plastics company or have some good friends to get but one of the parts needed, the others should be fairly easy.
Listed in order of availability
(2) 50 VDC (DC-10 MHZ preferred, but...) @ 10A, 50KV isolated power supplies
(parts list for those:)
(2) 110 VAC to 48 VDC @ 10A Isolated stepdown transformers (500 watt)
(2) 100V PIV rectifier diode
Optional (2) Heatsinks for above
(2) 0-120 VAC @ 10A variacs (variable autotransformer)
(2) 80-100V @ 1000uF electrolytic capacitors
Optional (1 or 2) Case to hold it all in
(1) 25-100 KVDC (again, DC-10 MHZ preferred...) @ 100-400 uA (not necessarily variable) 50 kV isolated power supply
(parts list)
(1) 10-12 KV @ 20-30 mA neon sign transformer
(4) TV HV diodes - 12-14 KV PIV
(4) HV capacitors, 500-1000 pF @ 10 KV
(1) 0-120 VAC @ 10A variac (variable autotransformer)
(1) Case to put it all in
about 7500 feet of #16 Guage heavy Formvar magnetwire
a lot (probably 5000 feet) of #20 or #22 magnetwire
some fiberglass tape
some plastic tape
TV HV corona dope
And, the clincher:
(1) Hollow plastic dia., about 30"-32" outside diameter, 24-26" inner diameter, and about 4"-6" thick.
It must be hollow, thermosetting plastic, with supports for an internal coil of wire, and two holes for the wire to leave, spaced to avoid electrical discharges.
It must be boiling wax-tight, preferrably with a gasket.
And it should be openable, at least into 4 sections, with screwholes (and gaskets if available.)
You also need enough of equal portions of Carnubura (sp) beeswax, and paraffin wax to fill the inside.
____________________________________________________________________
| Construction |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Wind a 28" (about, must center inside the hollow part of the plastic donut) "hoop" coil of the #16 magnetwire.
(see Illustration 1)
(2) Wrap first with fiberglass and then plastic tape, and then dip it in TV HV corona dope. Allow to dry.
(3) Place the coil inside the hollow donut.
(4) Seal the donut, allowing an opening for the wax to be poured into.
(5) Pour the wax into the donut, leaving as little air space as possible.
(6) Seal the donut, adding any extra wax.
(7) Wrap approximately one layer of the #20 or #22 guage magnetwire over the outside of the donut.
(8) Coat with HV corona dope.
(9) You are finished with the coil. It should look similar to illustration 2.
See illustration 3 for a cutaway view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustration 1:
____________________________________________________________________
Top View Side View
__ ||
___/--\ ----- 1000 turns #16 magnetwire ----- __//|
| | __/||
---\__/ ||--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustration 2:
____________________________________________________________________
Top View Side View
___ /-------------\
\\|// / / / | | | \ \ \
|\/ \/| --- Outer Layer of #20 ---| | | | | | | | |
|- -| or #22 magnetwire | | | | | | | | |
|/\ /\| | | | | | | | | |
//|\\ \ \ \ | | | / / /
--- \-------------/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustration 3:
____________________________________________________________________
Cutaway (side) View
_____________________________________________________
/ / / / / // / / // / / / | | | \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / // / / / | | | | _____ | | | | \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / | | | | _______/*****\_______ | | | | \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | ______/*******=======*******\_______ | | | | |
Plastic Donut ---|*******=====================*******| | | | | |
(hidden by wire)| |*******=====================*******| | | | | |
| | | | | | ------\***** <-\ ======*****/------- | | | | |
\ \ \ \ \ \ | | | | -----\ \ === /----- | | | | / / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ | | | | | ^ | | | | / / / // / / / /
\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ | | / / / // / / // / / / /
----------------------- ^ | | --------------------
toroidial Plastic "Donut"----^ | | \-
The ='s represent the inner "hoop".
Outer layer of #20 or #22 magnetwire or coil of wire.
The *'s represent the wax mixture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Building The Power Supplies |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are unfamiliar with electronics, you may need some help with this section, as I am only presenting the schematics. Here they are:
For both 50VDC power supplies:
____________________________________________________________________
/---\ /\
v | 100V Piv 15A diode / \
_mmmmm_+__ ___|\|__+__________________/0-15\__+
/ Variac )||( |/| | 1000 uF @ 80 V \DC A/
=)====== 110)||(48 --- electrolytic \ /
\__________)||(_____ /-\ \/
120 VAC 110V to 48V \ |-
Grounded Plug 10A Transformer \_+__________________________-
(2) of these are required. Note that the stepdown transformer must be 50kv isolated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 100 KVDC power supply:
____________________________________________________________________
/---\
v |
_mmmmm_+__
____________________+___________+____________________
| Variac )||( _|_ _|_ HV
| 110)||(8-10KV |/ \ /14KV PIV/-\cap
| ________)||(_____________||_ _v_ TV HV |
| | 100V to 8-10KV |\ \ | Diode +____+______
| | 100uA Transformer ^ \__+ | _|_ \
/___\ 800-1000 pf 10KV \ TV HV-^- \ /TV HV|
120 VAC capacitor \ diode/ \ -v-diode|
grounded plug \ -|- | _|_ /\
\______+ + HV /-\ / \
Note that all unmarked parts | | cap | / 0- \
have the same value as their | |/ | +/ 1000 \
marked counterparts. +_||_+_ |\ /
|\ \ -^-\ uA /
HV cap | / \ \ /
| -|- \/
| | !!
\_____/ TV HV
diode
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Usage |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To connect the power supplies to the coil, connect the wires leading out of the donut (from the inner coil) to one 50 VDC power supply.
The polarity, at this stage, does not matter.
Next, connect the leads from the outer coil to the other 50 VDC power supply.
Do NOT turn either of them on! Now, connect one of the leads of the inner coil to one terminal of the 25-100 KV power supply, and connect one lead of the outer coil to the other terminal of the 25- 100 KV power supply.
Thats it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the hard part. You will have to figure out some way of modulating the fields. This could be done through stepper motor control of the variac, or through the insertion of a probe coil (probably just a ferrite rod wrapped with a few hundred turns of wire) into the center of the donut hole.
This would then be modulated with whatever electromagnetic signal you'd want to impress upon the field.
Through careful experimentation, you should be able to produce some very interesting effects, such as extreme gravity, bending of metal within the field, spontaneous materialization of ?, etc.
Note that the purpose of the wax is to act as a molten dielectric, so don't be surprised when it starts boiling.
Thats why the donut form must be made out of thermosetting (or any kind that doesn't melt near the temperature of boiling wax) plastic.
Have phun, and don't do anything you wouldn't want perpetuated throughout your subjective reality!
(_>Shadow Hawk<_)
====================================================================
|Call these fine boards: |
|
| Ripco (312)-528-5020 |
| Wildfire Invitation Only |
| Pirate 80 (304)-744-2253 |
====================================================================
********************************************************************
Appendix to the above paper..............by Joseph John Misiolek
********************************************************************
There are two modifications to the above device which should make the effect of the unit more powerful, while at the same time making
it more safe for the operator to conduct his/her research.
1. In place of the wax in the coil being used as a "molten dielectric", it would be advantageous to use Glycerine instead.
The "scorch field" set up between the two coils using the 25- 100kvdc supply will be approx. 25 times greater in intensity than with the wax.
While the dielectric constant (k) of wax is less than 3, the (k) of Glycerine is about 56.
Also, the semi-liquid state that Glycerine maintains at room temperature will prove to be an effective heat-sink for the inner coil. Glycerine is an emollient, and can be obtained from most drug stores.
2. The Modulator coil (250-300 turns) on ferrite core to be placed into the interior of the coil shall be replaced by a coil larger in diameter than the outer coil of the present unit (as herein described) and shall be placed outside the units' outer coil.
This will give a more stable field configuration, while confining the gravitational effects to the interior of the device.
These two modifications, while increasing the units' power, will also provide a level of safety not to be had in the original design.
A word of caution! --------
While operating this device, it would be wise to secure a non- interruptable power supply for it.
If, while the fields were at their maximum output, the power to the coils were to be suddenly interrupted, a very serious condition could arise as the distorted region of spacetime surrounding the coil "cut-loose" into the surrounding spacetime beyond the coils influence.
A "pulse" of distorted spacetime might, under these conditions, leave the coil at high velocity, and inflict great damage to the surroundings near the coil. (Including the operator)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DON'T SAY THAT YOU WEREN'T WARNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Simulation and Cellular Automatons
Compute Simulation and Cellular Automatons
It is entirely preferable to do physical experiments, as these are effective and real evidence which can confirm the conclusions proposed in this document. However, there is also the possibility of more easily demonstrating some systems and results using computer simulation, which could demonstrate the feasibility of complex concepts with less expenditure and effort.
Specifically, remarkable results could be achieved by putting the simple relationships proposed herein into cellular automaton like simulations. In which these three field axis, governed by the Unified Field characteristics could be shown to interact. For the most interesting results we would propose the existence of 5 characteristics or dimensions, represented in either a 2-dimensional slice or 3-dimensional volume. There is certainly in these concepts a way to simply demonstrate the interaction of matter in ways similar to galactic, solar, planetary and atomic interactions which are observed. Although potential has been seen in this, the skill and programming knowledge necessary to implement is not something we posses.
Evolutionary Approach to Synthetic Biology - Zen and the Art of Creating Life. Thomas S. Rayhis
A cellular automation is a unique program which uses very simple rules to generate extremely complex patterns and behaviours. The idea is a "pixel" or "square" will turn on or off, depending only on the state of the neighbors in contact with that square. The rules for a cellular automaton, set how many adjacent squares must be on for the cell to turn on and how many adjacent squares must be on for the cell to turn off.
Despite this very simple rule structure and underlying simplicity, remarkable behaviours results such as the ability to replicate patters, the production of random patterns, and even life like behaviours. Cellular automaton have even been proven to be turing complete, in that the "Game of Life" rules, were shown to be capable of creating computer logic, which in turn can be developed to the point, the "Game of Life" can run the "Game of Life" within itself.
You can see more types of cellular automaton, examples and further links and information using the following link: Cellular Automaton Demo
The following is an actual 2D cellular automaton running a unique rule we discovered which generates random, mandala like patterns which never repeat.
We see in the work of Stephen Wolfram an effort to describe the behaviour of the entire universe based on this concept of cellular automaton, in which even when the underlying rules for a system are extremely simple, the behavior of the system as a whole can be essentially arbitrarily rich and complex. However, what we find is Stephen Wolfram, despite having an excellent idea with tremendous potential, is essentially blindly throwing darts at a board in the hope to find some rule structure which describes reality. It is our own opinion, that such a simple structure exists, and that is must be based on some fundamental field metric of space and time. Rather than blindly guessing at what that field structure is, as Wolfram and his associates are doing, we should realize the rule are already laid out in front of us, in the existing relationships between the forces of nature. What has been missing though, is the full three dimensional relationship of the fields.
We have focused on this idea of electric, magnetic and gravitational forces, then added additional forces like the strong and weak forces when our existing understanding did not serve to explain all the phenomenon. With the understanding there is a "Unified Field of Force" in which momentum and physical forces are conveyed by a more fundamental field, we find a much more solid framework within which to approach the construction of a set of simple rules required for Stephen Wolfram's solution.
We see it is this relationship between a more fundamental field of force and the electric and magnetic fields, which leads to all structure in the Universe. The three dimensional relationship between these three fields, is what defines the energy contained in any region of space, and this relationship is beautifully simple. Applying the relationship between these three fields, and how they determine the volume, energy, motion and character of any region of Space/Time, sets a very solid foundation upon which Stephen Wolfram's structural logic can be built.
Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics… and It’s Beautiful
Thus far "cellular automaton" concepts are the simplistic, pure systems which can demonstrate the concept of "replication", which is absolutely an essentially character of the Universe. This feature alone, shows the immense promise of cellular automaton simulation and its deep underlying connection to reality.
One of the problems with Stephen Wolfram's work, is the focus on "computation" as the solution, as computation requires the idea of "discrete" space and a linear progressive flow of time and events. The reality suggested by the Unified Field theory, is far more nuanced and inclusive. Within the Unified Field theory, space can be both discrete and continuous. The notion of space being discrete, is a special case within a more general space composed of fields which are continuous. Discrete packets of energy, form from specific situations within the fields of space. That is in reality, each cell within the Universal cellular automaton, can have a different time and density of energy when compared to other regions. There is in a sense a Universal clock, defined by the speed of light, but due to the density of energy within separate regions, thus different gravity, time flows differently in different regions. Thus we need a cellular automaton in which individual cells may experience different rates of time then their neighbors. Another difficult but necessary character which must be included, is each cell is a sort of hologram of the whole and many cells can thus give the appearance of a larger greater cell. There is a sort of recursive character and holographic character, which is difficult to emulate with a cellular automaton. Were we able to include such notions in our automaton, great strides could be achieved. At that point, then a computational algorithm could be entirely successful at describing reality, but beyond that it can no hope of explaining how its algorithm came to be nor what it is itself composed of.
Further, although we see in the cellular automaton and computational algorithm's the production of random behaviour, this is not truly random, in that if we started again from the same starting conditions the exact same 'random' result would be achieved. Within the Unified Field theory, we are faced with a situation in which things are again both deterministic but also non-deterministic. It is deterministic in the sense, we can assume knowledge of the initial conditions and thus from that, even randomly appearing situations can be determined.
However, at a deeper more fundamental level, determining those initial conditions exactly is impossible, as we cannot possibly determine every possibly characteristic of the initial state and can only make an approximation. Thus even within a theory considered deterministic, it is only such from a certain, relative perspective that this is true. There is always a probability of something entirely unpredictable occurring. Like the three body problem or the incompleteness theorem.
Computational algorithm will always be faced with the halting problem of sorts, however instead of knowing whether the computation will halt, we are just uncertain if it will every solve, simulate or predict the outcome we are expecting. Although computers can simulate random behaviour, no algorithm can truly be random. All algorithm starts from some known condition and rely on some random seed into that condition to be truly random. Thus any grand theory of everything which is based on a computational algorithm, would still require some 'non-computational' seed, to fire it all off.
Platonic Solids and Fields
Platonic Solids and Fields
** Not where this should be included, but it does lay down some of the principles required for a cellular automaton mechanism for the Universe **
We briefly mentioned the concept of fields and forces, leading to the idea of a cellular automaton like nature to the Universe. This notion, implies there are simple rules or simple structures, which when left to interact over time, lead to remarkably complex behaviours and forms. What we will attempt to demonstrate here, is how a simple definition of three fields in space, when expanded and added upon one another, can lead to just such a similar progression of complexity, from simplicity.
Remarkably, as we will show in further discussion, understanding of the Unified Field existed in ancient times, even if they did not call it such or understand it in the same way we approach its understanding today. One example of this, relevant to our discussion on the formation of particles from fields, comes from the ideas of the "Platonic Solids"
Platonic Solid - from Wikipedia
The Platonic Solids represent an underlying simplification, pattern and order to the formation of material objects and matter in the Universe. The scientists and philosophers of the day attempted to define the formation of structure in the Universe, according the progression of form from these fundamental solid shapes. It appears highly likely, in light of the other evidence in this document, the knowledge of this underlying structure of the Universe, came from a much, much older science which did understand the relevance of these three dimensional shapes, but that underlying knowledge had been lost. Thus they sought to rediscover the significance, but were unable to do so.

The 5 Platonic Solids discovered carved in stone in ancient Scotland
Field Structures in Space
Here we will explain the significance and proper order of these shapes according to the Unified Field. There was a reason the Platonic Solids did not fully work as an explanation and we will demonstrate why and how to resolve this, according to an understanding of the Unified Field.

Kepler's Nested Platonic Solid Structure of the Universe
As we have stated, the formation of matter from fields is a complex problem, even prone to unsolvability at its root, and yet me can model it and lay down a framework to describe some of its fundamental interactions. We know there are three fields of force and we know there is a relationship between these three fields of force, thus we can build upon this number three, and using various combinations and connotations of the number three, we get various universal shapes and interactions defined, which help us better understand and visualize how matter and forces interact.
We find one of the most useful creations, regarding the atom and its character to be the periodic table of the elements. However, it is clear the current periodic table we commonly use, although very useful, does not really represent the underlying forces which lead to these various atomic elements. There is clearly an orderly and underlying process, to how the various atomic weights, and electron arrangements lead to various repeating and similar properties in the elements, which correspond to their periodicity on the table. However, the periodic table give no reason or mechanism for the arrangements or groupings which work. There have been some attempts to present new tables, but none is so interesting or practical as that devised by Walter Russel. Walter Russel based his periodic table upon recurring octaves of energy, and his table shows this in a very simple and remarkable way. It is interesting to note, this table successfully predicted the existence of Plutonium and other elements, before their discovery, giving it more substance than has been acknowledge. Further, the table predicts elements or particle structures of far finer tenuity than hydrogen, which we have yet to discover, or perhaps these account for particles discovered in our super colliders but given other names.

Walter Russel Periodic Chart of the Elements
There is most definitely more to this idea, and we see it appears to align and support our ideas of a field carrying physical force, and its associated longitudinal waveforms in space, as being responsible for the formation of matter. The following is some speculation on how the fields which make up the Unified Field exist as fundamental three dimensional forms in space and how combinations of these arrangements can lead to more complex forms. The point here is the field structure of space, is the fundamental building block of all form in the Universe, not material matter. Matter exists as a special case or more complex arrangement of field structure. The following polyhedral shapes are the most fundamental field structures in the Universe, of which all other forms arise. These are not matter, but when combined into more and more complex arrangements, will eventually define the fields within matter. We do not profess to have this entirely worked out, but here demonstrate a possible solution and demonstration of how this works.
The Tetrahedron
This form represent the Unified Field itself. This is the fundamental, foundational form for everything in the Universe. The significance of this form is based off of the triangle and the number 3. This is the 3 secondary fields in nature, which represent the 3 physical dimensions of space, within which everything exists. These fields are the electrical field, the magnetic field and the "Field of Force". As these fields define space, they represent the 3 physical axis or dimensions of space, the x axis, y axis and z axis of Euclidean geometry.
Since there are three dimensions of space, three axis of geometry and we are defining three fields of force to align with these dimensions, it makes sense the tetrahedron would define this most fundamental relationship.
One unique characteristic of the tetrahedron, is its dual polyhedra is just another tetrahedron, thus we have a very consistent fundamental form, with nothing simpler.
When we arrange 3 lines of the same length in space, each perpendicular to the other two, but joined at a single origin point, we get four points or vertices, which when themselves connected with lines, give us the tetrahedron. Thus the tetrahedron is created. Although formed of 3 lines, arranged perpendicular to each other, we arrive at a shape with 4 vertices and 4 sides. These 4 sides, represent the 4 dimensional nature of the Universe, as to represent the Unified Field theory, we also need the 4th dimension of time which is set as the origin or mid point of all the fields. Thus the tetrahedron represents the 3 fields of space, changing in time relative to each other.
All other shapes or forms can be made with some combination of multiple tetrahedrons connected together.

The Cube and Octahedron
The next most important and significant forms which come from this idea of 3 fields of force in the Universe, interacting in time, are the cube and octahedron. Using 8 tetrahedrons, we can create the octahedron and using 24 tetrahedrons we can create the cube. However, the underlying Unified Field mechanism for creating these shapes is different. The significance of these shapes is based on the number 6, or the doubling or symmetrical joining in space of two tetrahedron at one vertex.
The cube and the octahedron are the dual polyhedra of each other, they are an oscillation of form, where one form becomes another which in turn, returns to its original form.
If we take our 3 axis again, representing our 3 fields of force in the Universe, as 3 lines of similar length, each perpendicular to the other, but this time, each passing through the origin point, so as to form an arrangement of crosses when viewed from any side. This represents the fields in oscillation, with a positive and negative value on either side of the origin. Thus we end up with 6 vertices, which when connected together by lines, gives us the Octahedron. If we represent these 6 vertices, by faces instead, we get the cube.
This volume, represents our well know Euclidean representation of 3 dimensional space. This is how the Unified Field, forms a stable volume in space, which is capable of containing other shapes and versions of itself and is the foundation for the form of the sphere, which is everywhere in nature. We can have the sphere in the cube, or a fractal volume in space which can easily stack. We see both the octahedron and cube everywhere in the Universe.

The Universal, Non-Regular Polyhedral Shape
All these philosophers, mathematicians and geometrists were unable to resolve all the shapes and forms of nature using the regular polyhedral forms of the platonic solids. Although the other Platanic solids do play a role in the forms of the Universe, they are not the shape the final form of the Unified Field takes. There is a reason why so many have failed to utilize simple congruent faced, regular polyhedra for this final form and why it has been so difficult to grasp the geometry of the Unified Field itself. The Universe is not entirely regular and symmetric and thus cannot be entirely represented by such forms.
We find in the universe, apparent randomness, asymmetry, unbalance and this tendency for things to just never quite line up, in a manner of speaking. Even us ourselves would like to think we are not entirely determined and relegated to some preset plan where everything is readily determined and set down. Thus, the Universe cannot be adequately nor accurately described entirely by symmetrical forms. Like the tetrahedron, which although a regular polyhedron has an odd number of sides, and can start from an odd number of lines, we need another more complex form which leads to a similar odd number of vertices and faces, so as to cause some unbalance and asymmetry.
Thus the final form is based off the number 9. The form takes the shape of two pyramids with square bases, inverted to each other, nested within each other, and rotated 45 degrees from each other. However, they are nested, asymmetrically, so that the peak of one protrudes, but the other does not. We end up with a square base, but the opposite side is a point. We have 13 faces, 9 vertices and 20 edges. These volumes are constructed by 16 tetrahedrons, although they bear a similar design as an octahedron, the pyramid shapes are double the number of tetrahedron, using 8 rather than the minimum in the octahedron which is 4 per pyramid shape.
The dual polyhedra of this shape, is unique in that we can have 12 equilateral triangles, combined with a single square face. A uniformity, with a single element of difference. It is this nearly balanced state, of which we speak as the cause of so many unusual situations in nature. It is mostly balanced, but slightly out of balance.

This shape is very counter-intuitive and completely breaks our expectations of what shapes the Universe should take, but we need such a shape to explain the features above. This shape represents in reality, a counter-rotation of the fields, a mixing of fields, which is unbalanced, where one side just does not fully counteract the other, leaving a net unbalance. Such an unbalance has been a great mystery to the physicist and mathematicians who struggle to determine why the Universe separated out into different forms, contains randomness, asymmetry and became non-uniform in nature. This is due to this incomplete mixing and imperfect counterbalance, due to a change in timing of wave propagation which occurs as density changes.
This timing difference happens everywhere in nature, where one side of a cycle takes less or greater time than the other, for the same amount of energy. This concept is difficult in mathematics, where everything tends to stay in balance and equalize. It is difficult to grasp in mathematics how numbers can go on forever, like PI and other constants, and it is from this concept these infinite series progress. No such discrepancies could every exist in a Universe composed entirely of regular polyhedral shapes. We need an imperfect, perfection in the design to give us the wide variety of forms we experience in reality.
This shape is also representative of a toroidial geometry of fields, where we have the 8 symmetrical fields, in rotation about a common point, leading the the generation of a form and separation of field. What we have is not only rotation of the fields, about one of the fields, but we have "rotation of the rotation" or "rotation squared". We have the fields in rotation, but this rotating field, is itself rotating around another axis. We get what we could call, a "hyper-field" or "field within field".
It may be difficult to grasp how a polygon, composed of triangles can represent a toroid, but that is what this shape represents. We see the repeating triangular pattern around the sides, with a resultant up and down nature through the axis, which is very much related to the "behaviour" of a toroidial vortex. We find 8 triangles, which we could equate to 4 full waves, or 2 different waves types, circling or surrounding a common axis. We can look at the fields as a whole, in a simplistic manner from outside, but within we find there are fields which define the exterior simplicity.
We realize the concept introduced here is exceedingly difficult to iterate and understand and hope to elaborate upon this further in the future. There is more to this concept, than at first appears.
We find some ancient reference to similar forms, in the Merkaba and the Sri Yantra forms, however the Merkaba is based off the tetrahedron( not a square base ) and neither of these are asymmetric. Thus most of these appear to be confused ancient ideas and the orginal meaning and context has been lost long ago.
4 Sided Sri Yantra in crystal cube - from SriYantraGeometry on Youtube
It is this final shape, which we can use to explain the relationship between gravitational field and electrical field which we will discuss further. Despite this form being introduced here seemingly through numerology and pure randomness, scientists, physicists and mathematicians will find a wealth of answers,explanations and utility in this form. The mystery of this shape is one of the great secrets hidden within nature of which few ever grasp the significance. It has taken decades of effort to discover this shape and its significance to field structure in the Universe.
The shapes define the fundamental field relationships within all matter and form. The determine the characteristics and ultimate behaviours of those objects. We find in these diagrams, an untold wealth of knowledge which could lead civilizations to untold achievement.
Falling Magnet Experiments and Magnetic Levitation
Falling Magnet Experiments and Magnetic Levitation
Boyd Bushman, a former secret projects aerospace engineer, discusses an interesting thing, a simple experiment which can be performed with two dropped masses from a height. He takes two strong magnets and attaches them together against their repulsive magnetic forces and then puts them inside a sphere of some sort. He then has another sphere of similar weight, with no magnets, or with magnets connected together in their attractive state. He takes both spheres to the top of a building and drops them off at the same time repeatedly. The one with the opposed poles always fell slower than the other. This is contrary to any known understanding of gravity and electromagnetism.
We would expect this result from the Unified Field theory. Two magnets forced together against their forces of opposition represents a different total energy state than two magnets connected by their forces of attraction. One is clearly more entropic than the other, as this is why there is even forces of attraction and forces of repulsion at all. This effect would be very weak though, requiring very strong magnets to have a detectable effect over any reasonably measurable fall distance. Performing this experiment accurately is also much more difficult than it would appear.
We would need to create two very similar objects, one with magnets locked together in opposition and one with the magnets allowed to connect through natural attraction. What ever mechanism is used to hold the magnets together in opposition needs to also exist in the second case. The total mass of both systems should be made as identical as possible. The shapes of the two systems and preferably spherical to eliminate any differences in fall speed due to different aerodynamic forces. There would need to be no metals at all anywhere close to the experiment, not involved in the release mechanism. A release mechanism would need to be constructed to very accurately time the release of the objects. A laser sensor or some other electronic detector could be utilized to time the top and bottom of the fall. The longer the fall distance, the greater the effect should be. An indoor location would isolate wind or external factors and provide a set temperature.
We would conclude none of these issues are insurmountable to resolve and a very accurate experiment could be developed. Many attempts have been tried, but still there is no definitive answer to this apparent simple situation. Established physics seems to ignore the problem, maintaining current theory does not support any result would occur, thus no experiment even need be performed. Yet, our understanding of energy, electromagnetism and physical forces expects there is a significant different between these two cases and an experiment is justified.
"In this work, we measured the magnitude of forces raised in the free fall of high magnetic field coupled magnets. By using a highly accurate accelerometer connected to the falling magnets, we measured unexpected and weak decreasing or increasing in the local gravity acceleration which has no traditional explanation, indicating the possible influence of quantum mechanisms as responsible by the anomalous effect. We also propose a simple model based on the generalized quantum entanglement hypothesis which applied to that physical system provides us the magnitude of such a macroscopic force as originated by the microscopic magnetic dipoles constituting the magnets. The new results corroborated the positive results of previous experiments and are consistent with the validity of our theoretical forecast. - New experimental evidences of anomalous forces in free fall locked magnets. Porcelli, E.B., Filho, V.S. New experimental evidences of anomalous forces in free fall locked magnets. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 128 (2022).
This effect is not unexpected, but the exact mechanism and detailed experimentation has not been fully or rigorously tested by established physics. There is much more to this than people realize. Physics discussion on the effect - physics.stackexchange.com. It is clear the mass of an object does not change, but we would expect some change in the 'weight' or 'gravitational acceleration' of a free-falling magnetic object, and should see different results for magnets opposed and forced together, versus magnetic attracting, if mass, air friction, shape, timing of drop, distance of drop and all other variables are taken into consideration.
Commentary on New Experimental Evidences of Anomalous Forces in Free Fall Locked Magnets - by Elio Porcelli. Department of Physics, H4D Scientific Research Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil
Some additional magnetic experiments of interest.
Magnets Suspended Gravity - Popular Mechanics
Small permanent magnets will be levitated above a larger rotating permanent magnet. A simple example of magnetic levitation previously unknown.
Magnetic Levitation by Rotation - Joachim Marco Hermansen, Frederik Laust Durhuus, Cathrine Frandsen, Marco Beleggia, Christian R.H. Bahl, and Rasmus Bjørk. Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 044036 – Published 13 October 2023
Rotating Superconductors
Rotating Superconductors
Don't forget about Eugene Podkletnov, Ning Li and Amy Eskridge. We would be remiss to not discuss these three people. All three have been heavily involved in modern research into gravity. Two, Ning Li and Amy Eskridge are now deceased, but Eugene Podkletnov is still working in the field.
The focus of their work is on various means to better understand gravity, and the primary mechanism they were utilizing were medium sized ( >10 cm ) superconducting disks rotated at high speeds. Eugene Podkletnov has said the large size of the superconducting disk is important to the results. The result is an apparent loss of some percentage of weight of materials suspended over the superconducting disks. Eugene Podkletnov has gone on to develop further experiments, one in which he has created a device which he purports will fire a beam of a 'gravitational' like energy some distance away from the device. It is a short lived effect, not a continuous beam like a laser, but is detectable at large distances from the device.

Diagram of Podkletnov Superconducting, Rotating Ring Experiment
We do not find such devices in contrast to the ideas of a field of force and in fact see the potential to better explain the behaviour of such devices using such an understanding. We could readily propose such rotating superconductors are capable of aligning or reducing the general energy in the region surrounding the superconductor, which as we have suggested is one of the key components to producing an anti-gravitational like effect. We have pointed out the key to anti-gravity is developing a means by which you can use energy, to reduce energy. A superconductor would be a good candidate for the discovery of such an effect.
We have in superconductors, some very unique behaviours, in that they as their name implies, conduct electrical current with zero resistance. Due to this, they are capable of creating or sustaining very strong electrical fields and the associated magnetic effects which come with that. We are well aware, superconductors will suspend themselves very efficiently in the presence of a magnetic field, even experiencing a phenomenon called "quantum locking" in which they are not only repelled or expel a magnetic field, but appear to lock into a specific position within such a field. The simple explanation provided for this result, is for a superconductor to move in a magnetic field, it would need to thus generate an infinite current, and so any movement is 'locked' or prevented. Likely, tiny movements do occur, which immediately generates a large eddy field, contrary to the existing magnetic field, which immediately opposes the motion.
"Someone in the laboratory was smoking a pipe, and the pipe smoke rose in a column above the superconducting disc. So we placed a ball-shaped magnet above the disc, attached to a balance. The balance behaved strangely. We substituted a nonmagnetic material, silicon, and still the balance was very strange. We found that any object above the disc lost some of its weight, and we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect was increased." - Eugene Podkletnov

Diagram of Podkletnov Experiment
Due to the very cold temperatures required for the superconducting effect to appear in superconductors, their material is already put into a very low energy state. In rotation, a superconductor would experience the inertial effects of this angular rotation and thus produce some degree of magnetic and electric field, just due to the motion in Earth's natural magnetic and electric fields. If the result of these generated fields, served to oppose or cancel these natural fields to any degree, we would indeed be creating a region of 'reduced energy' which as we have predicted, would cause an anti-gravitational type of effect. As we have discussed, the preferred terminology would be to call this a buoyancy effect similar to the buoyancy of a hot air balloon.
As previously explained, a hot air balloon is reducing the total energy contained within its volume, which is counter-intuitive as it is "heating" the air. We should realize though, this hot air takes up more volume and this additional volume is allowed to escape the volume contained by the hot air balloon, it being open at the bottom, thus there ends up being less total air, less total mass and thus less total energy overall in the system. We could speculate, due to the cold temperatures, rotation of the superconductor and its size, there is a similar reduction in the total energy of the system, which in this case would include the immediate space surrounding the superconductor. This reduction of energy, if sufficiently large, could be responsible for the resulting "anti-gravity" force being detected in these experiments.
As we have proposed, there may be numerous means by which we can achieve a situation where the energy of a volume of space is reduced enough to provide significant forces. In a gravitational field, such forces result in a force opposing the normal gravitational force.
We would here emphasize this is not really what we would call an "anti-gravitational" force, because buoyancy is a force due to gravity. Gravity causes the increase in density or pressure of the medium which provides the buoyant force upward, when something lighter than that medium exists within it. A pure "anti-gravitational' force provided by reduced energy, is a force caused by the energy within space itself, a sort of spatial pressure, which acts in a similar way to water or air under gravitational pressure. There is a significant different though with spatial pressure, in that what we would call the higher or denser region is outside of the mass, and mass actually represents a region of lower or less dense spatial pressure. Thus it is not so much "anti-gravity' but is more of just a reduction in the gravitational attraction of a volume of space relative to some local normal value.
We see a remarkable correlation between these, purported "fringe" physics ideas of a means to effect gravity using special arrangements and design of electromagnetic coils, and the other experiments discussed here. Specifically, we see the reports of rapidly rotating superconductor able to produce some gravitational like force and the device described herein as the Varo disk, to be so similar to the 'Gravity Field coils' it cannot be purely coincidental. It really appears as well, the coils used to impart rotation to the superconductor, appear to be so arranged to cause a rotating or circular magnetic field, which is the identical situation to many of these other experimental situations.
A the reality of a connection between electricity and gravity as defined by the Unified Field theory, implies such experimental results must exist and herein we find examples and discussion of just such experimental results. Can we continue to discount this connection, when we find such obvious and repeated demonstrations of its physical reality?
The Varo Disk
Gravity Field Coils
(1 of 5)Rare Podkletnov Interview
A great 5 part interview of Finnish scientist Eugene Podkletnov and his ideas about gravity manipulation.
A possibility of gravitational force shielding by bulk YBa2Cu3O7−x superconductor - by E. Podkletnov, R. Nieminen. On ScienceDirect.com. Direct Download
Bose-Einstein and Anti-Gravity - Article discussing the work of Ning Li
Anti-gravity Effect? Gravitational Equivalent Of A Magnetic Field Measured In Lab - ScienceDaily
A Historical Perspective on Anti-Gravity Technology - Amy Eskridge.
NEXUS Magazine- Antigravity - Holy Grail of the 21st Century - Archived NEXUS Magazine website at cruinthe.tripod.com/nexus/index.html
Sound and Gravity Laser type devices
Sound and Gravity Laser type devices
Of special interest in the work of Eugene Podleknetov is the device he has been experimenting with, which appears to be capable of directing a beam of force. The ability to construct such a device is to be expected from a Universe which contains a field of force.
If there exists another field of physical force in the Universe, we can predict the ability to create devices which work like lasers( light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation ) but are not electromagnetic in output. Since electromagnetic field are herein determined to have associated momentum, as a field, then it should be possible to produce coherence in the forms of longitudinal radiation predicted to exist. This would be a sort of "beam of force" , a beam of physical momentum or a beam which can push or move objects from a distance.
If we can "lase" electromagnetic field, it would be natural to assume we could do something similar with the longitudinal waves of energy in the field of force. If not a true laser like coherence, then at the very least a very concentrated and focused beam or projection of momentum through space at very high frequencies or energies. We would have a "gravitational laser" of sorts, although the laser acronym cannot really be applied here, as we are not amplifying light, but a different field. Such a device would have very strange characteristics.
We would be dealing with a device capable of storing, subtracting or otherwise manipulating mechanical energy over a distance. Such a device, when directed at an object, could cause said object to lose weight and thus levitate upwards against the force of the local gravity. It could cause objects to move from a distance, drawing them closer, pushing the away or even moving them through space like the science fiction concept of a "tractor beam" or "gravity gun". Such a device at low levels of power, could cause distortions of motion, disruptions in the gravitational acceleration acting on masses, at high frequencies or energy levels even extreme heating or disruption of molecular bonds. That is the physical momentums and motions which could be produced from a device, could act even at an atomic level, directly imparting momentum and velocity to atoms.
Such a device would be readily capable of not only cutting stone quickly and easily, but then in turn levitating or lightening that stone, so that it could be moved. Such a tool would represent the ultimate construction tool. Allowing stone to be quarried, cut, shaped, and worked with extreme speed and accuracy, leaving a smooth finish not in need of any further work. Then such stone could be readily and easily transported or lifted into place to assemble from these stones. Since stone is very durable, an excellent insulator, strong, beautiful and available in large quantities, this would represent a huge advance in construction. We could build strong, efficient, long lived buildings from a natural, readily available resource.
Such a device would be build in a manner much different than a normal laser. Even a hollow metal tube, long metal coated shaft or a tube containing some material which can be stimulated to emit mechanical acceleration or vibration might suffice for the "lasing" medium. A material like crystal or stone itself may be suitable for this purpose. We would like need materials and methods different in quality than that used in modern lasers, although the underlying principle would be similar. As we see from the work of Eugene Podleknetov, the use of superconducting material may play a role in such devices.
Eugene Podkletnov appears to have constructed something very similar to what we are proposing here. A device which uses a superconductor, electromagnetic coils and a high voltage discharge, to cause a sudden beam of impulse to emanate from his device. This impulse will propagate a significant distance from the experimental setup, demonstrating it must be some sort of coherent beam of physical force or momentum. We find an interesting correlation here, in that a discharge of electrical energy serves to trigger this effect, not at all unlike the concept proposed in the Varo Disk experiment.

The Varo Disk
We do find further obscure references to just such a thing existing. The very same source for this Varo Disk information, "The Case for the UFO" mentions numerous times the idea of a "Force Cutter", which is a tool capable of cutting or melting stone as well as contributing to means to move such stone. We see similar references in the device called the Cloud Buster developed by Wilhelm Reich, the Alfred Hubbard generator, rumors of a handheld, flashlight like device called the "Flash" developed by Ratheon used by the deep, secret military as well as many similar devices reported in many UFO encounters. Although many may be adverse to such suggestions as evidence, it is interesting this very idea and reference to such a device, comes up repeatedly. We find in the ideas of a "field of force" the distinct possibility there may more to these claims.
One thing we would point out here, is such a device has clear potential for use as a weapon. This in itself may explain the reluctance or efforts to suppress and control the concepts of a Unified Field. Indeed, Einstein himself withdrew his Unified Field theory for exactly this very reason, he saw how weapon development became the primary goal and application of his theories. It is frightening to see how we rush to new means to destroy ourselves, rather than focusing on the tremendous benefits such technology can bring.
Growing plants in the Dark
Growing plants in the Dark
Say what? Don't plants require light for photosynthesis to produce the energy they need to live?
Yes, this is true, but what this idea refers too, is there may be additional properties of light, which are what the plants are actually utilizing. Properties which are transmitted through matter, even when we do not detect the normal visible light we are aware of. This interesting idea coincides with our ideas of a Unified Field as we are here discussing being able to transfer the Unified Field wave energy to the plant, despite eliminating the electromagnetic field components of the light.
That is there is a component of energy which exists in our Universe which is non-electromagnetic, yet definitely related to electromagnetism, and it is in reality this energy which is used in photosynthesis, not the electromagnetic energy. Thus if this experiment works as described, it is a very simple way to demonstrate an "unknown" field mechanism in nature.
The experiment is relatively simple to perform, but attention must be paid to the details and understand what the goal is. We can take two boxes, insulating, non-conductive with sufficient air, humidity, temperature for plants to thrive, so the only limiting condition on the success of the plant, is its exposure to light. Both boxes should be light tight, so that the interiors are kept completely dark.
We note in Thomas Heironymus's original description of the experiment, he used foil inside the box, connect by a wire to an elevated platform upon which additional foil was placed. The bottom of the box, was also a layer of foil, connected by a wire to an Earth ground. He points out the external foil collectors, should be raised from the ground some distance. The internal foil which is grounded, should be in direct contact with the bottom of the soil in which the plant is grown, not just a pot placed on top of it. Foil could be place in the bottom of the pot and a wire run to ground which would serve the same purpose.
We could consider a possible improvement to the experiment, in light of our knowledge of the Field of Force and its character. In the improvement, we suggest using two metal plates on both the inside and the outside of the boxes. One metal plate being on the inside of the box, secured to the top. The other metal plate be outside, exposed to the Sun, elevated off the ground by a minimum of 3 meters. The two metal plates must be connected together, through the wall of the box to the outside, with a solid metal conductor of a greater thickness than simple wire, like a 1cm or 1/2 inch diameter solid metal rod.
This rod can be bent or curved so as to travel between the inside and outside plates and should be fastened centrally and perpendicular to the metal plates. The final construction of metal should be as if it is all one solid piece of metal, with no gaps or spaces between any parts of the plates and connecting rod. If we then expose both boxes to the Sun( not electric or any other artificial source of light ), of course carefully monitoring other conditions such as heat and temperature so as the conditions within both boxes remain the same, we can monitor the growth of the plants placed within these boxes.
We consider that what we are transmitting from the Sun outside to the plant inside the box, is not so much electromagnetic energy, but a mechanical longitudinal energy, akin to a sound wave. Thus what we are attempting to convey, is a sound like energy from inside to outside, not light or electromagnetism. Thus although a simple wire may be capable of doing this, we would expect a greater effect would be accomplished by a solid material through which such longitudinal energy would more readily propagate.
What we will find, is the plant in the box without the metal plates, will die or shows signs of lack of light exposure, the same as any plant kept in the dark. However, the plant in the other box will survive. Despite no visible light reaching it, the plant in the metal box will receive enough energy to power its photosynthesis and remain alive.
This experiment is included here it point out there are energies and forces effecting living things, our lives and environment, we currently do not account for. Since we do not consider and are not aware of these other fields in nature, we do not consider the effects their existence may have on a body. That is we may even be producing harmful versions of this energy around us, in our environment and in our homes. Further there may be places where either greater or lesser forms of this energy exist on Earth's surface, which way have beneficial or harmful benefits to our health or the health of other living things. We may be able to amplify or reinforce this energy to benefit our bodies and exposure to destructive potentials of this energy may harm us.
The existence of this additional energy, may prove very beneficial to efforts to grow plants in environments different than their natural ones. We find it difficult to grow certain plants in farms or locations different from their natural habit, despite all efforts to reproduce all the same conditions as well as we can. It may be this last component, and understanding of another Field of Force, which was missing from our efforts.
The first step is to acknowledge and prove this Unified Field exists, and once we accept its existence only then can we begin to apply it to food production, environmental improvements, even medicine and health. If this simple experiment to grow a plant in the dark works, then we begin to realize we have missed something very important in our understanding and there is much more to learn.
Growing Plants in the Dark
by T. Galen Hieronymus
Radiations from each of the known elements of matter produce some form of
energy, probably electrons which can be made to flow along electrical
conductors. The flow from each of the elements having characteristics
different from the others. Conversely, the flow of electrons along a
conductor produces a radiation having characteristics of the radiation from
each respective element.
Such of the known elements as are required to feed growing plants have
been transmitted to the plants through metallic conductors as the plants were
entirely isolated from the elements upon which they were fed. More precisely,
seeds were planted in boxes in a darkened basement room.
One of the boxes of plants containing some of the seeds was used as a
control and no apparatus for transmitting element radiations thereto provided.
The remaining boxes of plants had electrodes or plates of conducting material
mounted or otherwise disposed adjacent thereto, and each box of plants was
separately attached to a conductor extending to a point outside the building
where electrodes or plates were attached to the conductors and allowed to
remain exposed to the light.
Such of the known elements as required to impart normal characteristics
to the plants were apparently fed thereto by having the radiations of the
elements from the light conducted to the plants through the wires and
associated electrodes.
The treated plants were relatively healthy but the control plant assumed
the characteristics of growing vegetation which has been deprived of the
elements in natural light. Particularly was the control plant devoid of
chlorophyll while the remaining plants were green. - T. Galen Heironymus

How to Grow a Plant in the Dark
J.G.: .....Lets get back to your experiment in transmitting solar energy in a darkened room by wire. Exactly what did you do and what happened?
Hieronymus: All right. I made eight small boxes: two-by-two-by-four inches long, without tops or bottoms. Before tacking on the base, I put in pieces of aluminum foil slightly larger than the bottom and did the same for the top, except that the lid was raised about a half inch above the box. The top and bottom on the inside was covered by aluminum foil. In my basement workshop, which was lightproofed, I connected the bottom plate to a water pipe with copper wire and ran another wire from the top plate to the outside of the basement where Id built two shelves. Seven of the boxes were wired to metal plates outside in the sunlight -- also on shelves built onto the house. The eighth was a control, not connected to anything. On the first wire I soldered a plate two-by-two inches, the second to a metal plate four-by-four inches, the next to a plate eight-by-eight inches, and another one to a plate sixteen inches square. To the next three grounded wires I soldered two-by-two, four-by-four and eight-by-eight inch copper screening -- to see whether there'd be any difference in the results from the solid plates than from the screen mesh . . .
J.G.: Was there . . .?
Hieronymus: Don't get ahead of me now. I sifted and mixed some soil and put an equal amount in each box, then planted ten oat seeds in each box-- two rows of five each, so that I knew exactly where they were and could tell which were growing and by how much. Each of the eight boxes were identical, with exactly one-half inch of soil over the seeds. The only difference was in the size and texture of the plates outside connected by wire to the aluminum sheets inside the tops of the boxes. I watered each box daily with exactly the same amount of water, which I applied with a salt shaker. As the plants grew inside these dark boxes, I raised the lids to allow them more headroom, but still kept them lightproof, and kept exact records of when the plants broke through the soil . . . Remember now, these plants were in absolutely dark boxes which were located inside dark shelves in a dark basement. The oat seedlings were totally divorced from light.
J.G.: But you had one control -- a box of seeds with aluminum foil at the top and bottom that wasn't wired or connected to anything, right? What happened?
Hieronymus: They all sprouted at the same time and were about the same degree of sturdiness. But then something entirely different and, as far as I was concerned, unexpected actually started happening. There was chlorophyll in every plant that was wired to the outside plates, but the control box plants remained a pale yellow -- almost white.
J.G.: Fascinating. Has this experiment been duplicated by others?
Hieronymus: Yes, although when it was first published, one of the early experimenters deviated from my explanation in two serious ways: first, he didn't light-seal several big windows in his basement and second he laid his plates on the ground instead of elevating them six feet on outdoor shelves, so he got no potential differential, or antenna effect. This was corrected in later experiments and in each case the results coincided with my own.
J.G.: What about differences in size and texture of the outdoor plates? What results?
Hieronymus: That's the interesting thing. The amount of sunlight falling on any given area is measurable. For analogy, you can use an optic lens to concentrate sunlight to scorch or burn paper; well sir, the plants connected to the largest plates outside in the sunlight not only generated green coloring, they also gave every appearance of having been subjected to scorching sunlight -- as if they'd been singed or burned! The next largest plate yielded better plants and the next was about what you'd expect normally from normal exposure to sunlight. The others especially the ones connected to the screening, were less green, and the one connected to the smallest piece of screen was yellowish.
J.G.: It seems inconceivable that photons can be transmitted through a wire.
Hieronymus: Oh, I doubt that the energy is visible sunlight; in fact I suspect were dealing with a form of energy from the sun that is probably non-electromagnetic in nature. This concept represents the entire thrust of the work Ive been doing most of my life. - interview with Thomas G. Heironymus
Thomas G. Heironymus Machine
Eloptic Energy - Thomas G. Heironymus
The Philadelphia Experiment
The Ancient Discovery of Levitation
The Ancient Discovery of Levitation
Here on we are going to focus our attention and researches upon references from a book, specifically:
The Case for the UFO by Morris K. Jessup. The Varo Annotated Edition. The Varo Annotated Edition of the Case for the UFO by Morris K. Jessup
The book, "The Case for the UFO" by Morris K. Jessup, came out in 1955 and there is a great deal of controversy, discussion and background behind this book. There are many unusual circumstances surrounding its author, his suicide and a great deal of speculation on the authors of the annotations within. Despite many peoples dismissal of the entire UFO subject, "The Case for the UFO" is a substantial, sincere and scientific effort to investigate the phenomenon of UFO's. We would consider "The Case for the UFO" one of the best books on the subject of UFO's.
We find a tremendous amount of support, correlation and confirmation of the ideas of the Unified Field and a "Field of Force" within this book. There is a great deal of disinformation and skepticism regarding this book and attempts to outright dismiss its contents as fantasy and entirely made up. These dismissals tend to revolve around discrediting the book based on the character flaws of one of the people involved in annotating the book. However, within this book and its annotations we find information, evidence and descriptions of technology which can stand quite independently from the character of the authors.
In he quotes The Philadelphia Experiment: A-Z, The Varo Edition - by Andrew Hochheimer, some personal who were involved with and read this annotated edition of The Case for the UFO and stated, "the eventual conclusion of all concerned, including the men at ONR, was that the annotations made no sense at all.. Indeed this seems to be the whole focus of Andrew's work, is to discredit the points made by Carlos Allende as nonsense.
However, as we have pointed out in numerous places within our discussion of the Philadelphia Experiment above and our deep investigation of Albert Einstein's Unified Field concept, these comments are far from nonsense. Many may conclude these annotations are nonsense, because at the time they would have had no knowledge of the Unified Field concept or context within which to understand them, but because some did not understand does not mean there was not something true within the words.
Prior to the early 1940's, annotations or words discussing the ability to split atoms to make a super weapon would have been just as readily considered nonsense. Prior to public knowledge of the reality of the atomic bomb, to tell someone splitting an atom to cause a huge explosion would sound insane. Andrew Hochheimer's research, although extensive and commendable, ignores the tremendous amount of technical information contained in these annotations and the reports from the Philadelphia Experiment itself. We have shown and will further show here, how these annotations are far from nonsense.
We can confirm the book is real as we special ordered an original leather bound copy through the University of Alberta special library collections branch many years ago. After nearly 6 months of waiting, we held an authentic, leather bound, original print of the book, which apparently arrived from the University in Quebec. Although lithographed from the original typed copy of Jessup's original version, upon which the annotations were hand written, the annotations is this version were typed in different colored ink and the redactions appeared as large blacked out blocks, not as simple cross out text as some imply.
It was one of the most fascinating UFO books we have ever read, for even if you completely disregard the annotations and read only "The Case for the UFO" it is one of the most clearly written, scientific speculations on the UFO phenomenon ever written. The annotations within are what take this book to the next level. Highly recommended reading if you are interested in the subject.
After publishing his book, the story goes, Morris Jessup received a copy of his own book in the mail. The margins and space between paragraphs was thoroughly marked up in hand written pen by some individual or individuals whom provided commentary and further insight regarding Morris Jessup's theories and speculations. The annotations seemed to show a much deeper knowledge of the subject material and provided a great deal of clarification, broader answers and confirmation of the authors conjectures. The suggestions made by the annotations were remarkable and even claimed knowledge of supposed top secret military experiments in which Morris Jessup was involved. This led Morris Jessup to contact the military, showing them the book, whom ultimately had the Varo company reprint the book, including the annotations, for wider dissemination within their ranks.
Many claim the annotations are complete nonsense and attempt prove they were entirely the ramblings of a mentally unwell Carlos Allende but this seems to be an attempt to misdirect and downplay the significance of the book. We would point out, at one time this book held enough interest in its time for the military to make copies, at a significant labor and cost. Despite the latest explanation of the military stating this reprint was done, without their involvement, for personal interest by a few people, we should remember at this time as it would have to have been hand typed and lithographed, a time consuming and expensive process for someone to undertake out of there own pocket, especially on a military salary. Further, the the military ultimately redacted some of what they must have considered sensitive information from the final publicly released version.
If all that Mr. Allende wrote was nonsense it would seem completely unnecessary to cover it up and make such a big deal of it. Surely the book should have just ended up in the trash can if it was indeed complete nonsense. Once again though, let us come back to our primary goal here, we will continue to look for those points and notes which are technical and scientific and thus can be discussed wholly separate from the character of the authors and credibility of the source who wrote them. This is sharp contrast to most researches who seem more interested in the character of the authors, rather than considering the actual content these authors wrote. It is as if the intention was to draw as little attention to the content and statements of these authors, but instead the intention was to distract and misdirect interest in the subject by focusing on minute details of the character of the authors. If someone speaks a fact, it remains a fact whether that someone ends up in an asylum or not.
In the book "The Case for the UFO" by Morris K. Jessup and its associated annotations, we have a clear account of experimental methods which would provide concrete evidence which can stand independent of the character of the author of these annotations. Despite the attempts at defamation and dismissal of the contents of this book, by claiming it to be the rantings of someone mentally unwell, we find within very concrete and practical examples of technology and scientific methods which can stand quite solidly on their own.
Discrediting the character of an author or artist, is like saying the work of Van Gogh is any less remarkable because he cut off his ear. It is like saying Nikola Tesla's induction motors did not work, because he had a fascination with pigeons and counting the number of peas in his dinner. We should realize, a fact is a fact, regardless of the character of the one who utters said fact.
We can of course go through this book, argue against and discredit this or that statement, pick apart the wording and grammar, discredit the author, discredit the background of the book and so on. What we should be doing is investigating the legitimacy of the content itself, carefully considering the technical aspects described, filtering out the practical and factual. In this book, we not only have a story, we have many clear statements providing reference and evidence, by which we may TEST the validity of the story with real scientific experiment.
The information given in this book, creates a situation wherein we can get hard evidence and verify what was written, to find evidence which not only supports the story but can stand completely independently from the story. Examples appear to be given from which real experiments and apparatus could be built and a reproduction made of the levitation method described. The text within this book describes a real, practical way to demonstrate a principle of levitation which could change our whole understanding of ancient civilization and the UFO/UAP field.
Further, within this book we find even more correlation and support for the presented ideas of a connection between electric forces and gravitational forces. Not just theory, but the means to apply this connection for the purposes of levitation. We find evidence within for a connection between electricity and gravity, as proposed by the Unified Field, for the existence of an additional "Field of Force", that these concepts were used and applied even in ancient times, that they continue to be applied by other civilizations than us today and are a Universal concept available to all peoples.
"What this guy Believes he has knowledge to Prove his beliefs in the Main." - Annotation in The Case for the UFO. p45
The Field of Force Applied for Levitation in Ancient Times
The Field of Force Applied for Levitation in Ancient Times
Within this book are various references to an ancient people or civilization who discovered a process to levitate objects. There is mention of natural occurrences of this 'levitation principle' on the surface of the Earth in ancient times. It is described how the observation of these natural levitations led these ancient people to investigate what was happening, learn about it, reproduce at their own whim and overtime develop the principle to a highly advanced science. Let us directly reference the quotes from the book which refer to these concepts.
"...a permanent or very Close "Node" to fathom the thing. or one that frequently touches Earth in the same spot or even General Area. Now Such "Dead-spots" don't revisit the Planetary surface as described & so Now this Principle cannot be discovered..." -
" power of levitation ( defying the force of gravity to lift heavy objects ) was not only scientifically possible but had once been a known process on Earth "
"The Muaneans Never knew What an atom was &
Niether did the Atruscan-Lems. They only know
& knew Force-field work as their top accomplishment
& found that throo Inlay work in Metal that the
Design had been Hit by Lightning causing it to
Have No weight somehow. THEY WENT ON
FROM THAT FLOOR Design or floor pattern which
may have been Laid in Lodestone for all I know." - p56
This book tells this remarkable story how the people had carved a design in a circular stone and inlaid the design with metal for some unknown purpose in a temple on a high place. The authors suggest the stone may even have been lodestone. The metal was possibly bronze but it would not be a stretch to consider it to even be gold, for which the ancients had such an affinity. The extraordinary part of the story is they claim this inlaid stone was by pure chance struck by lightning. When the temple builders went to investigate for damage by the lightning, they were astounded to discover the entire stone pattern they had built, was floating in the air!. Due to a lightning strike, their inlaid stone now levitated.
With research we have determined much of the references in these quotes, to the work of Astrucan or Altruscan, seems to be referring to a people older than the "Etruscan" civilization, of which the origins are still debated. Interesting there are numerous megalithic and polygonal constructions in this area, not attributed to the Etruscan's but to some older unknown people. A construction method found all over the surrounding area referred to as "cyclopean". We find it interesting, archaeology uses this term "cyclopean" when discussing this ancient, unexplained, polygonal, stone construction technique, when the word "cyclops" refers to a mythological ancient race of one eyed giants. You can find a good video discussing the ages and timelines of these constructions here: Proof: Older than it's said - Tuscany, Italy - One-eyed giant building walls on YouTube
The history of this construction and the methods in ancient times is uncertain but this is a subject we will discuss at length elsewhere. Implications of Unified Field in Ancient Times
This people didn't know about atoms, possibly had no written language, no formal science, no advanced mathematics. Purely through the chance event of a lighting strike in just the right place, they were exposed directly to a real, undeniable demonstration of levitation. Through time and experiment, knowing from the beginning it could be done, they pursued this field of study( or study of fields ), investigated, experimented and replicated it. They eventually developed this practical knowledge of utilizing fields of force for levitation to a high degree. The story suggests these people studied this event, were able to learn how to reproduce the effect and eventually developed an entire science and civilization around this technology. "Force-field" work was their 'top accomplishment.'
Do we not find some collaboration here with our ideas of a Unified Field of Force?

Ancient Discovery of Levitation
( Not a video, but if there is interest in us producing such content, contact us and let us know!)
We can dismiss such writing as the rantings of a lunatic after attention, but if we allow ourselves to entertain and consider the deep implication of such an idea and actually take the time to investigate it, we find a tremendous amount of correlations and evidence which support and demonstrate just such a possibility.
Consider our extensive discussion on the impact of knowledge of an additional "Field of Force", an understanding of the practical application of a "Unified Field" and connection between gravity and electricity upon ancient civilization. We seem to arrogantly think today, because we cannot figure out this simplification of fields and forces, no previous people could have figured it out either. We must keep in mind, the Unification of Fields and Forces, the unification of electricity and gravity, is a simplification!
That is these concepts could indeed have been applied in ancient times, without even having advanced mathematics and theoretical knowledge. They could have known and understood the ideas of the Unified Field and the Field of Force, from an entirely practical viewpoint. The quote directly refers to this society as knowing "Force-field work as their top accomplishment. They could use and apply the concepts, even if they did not posses an obscure, complicated mathematical framework describing it in intimate detail. The mastered the knowledge of a "Field of Force" even if they did not master the application of electricity or magnetism themselves. They mastered an aspect of fields, we do not have mastery over. They had knowledge of a different aspect and understanding.
We should not so quickly discount the possibility of ancient civilizations knowing and utilizing and understanding, we do not have today. Yet, here it is laid out in great detail, exactly what they knew and not only that, explicit detailed instructions how to demonstrate and apply it today.
"It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." - Robert M. Pirsig
Megaliths and Pyramids as a Source of Power
A Method to Apply the Field of Force for Levitation
A Method to Apply the Field of Force for Levitation
Now this is a remarkable story if true, but everyone always brings up a relevant quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, within this book the annotations describe an extraordinary method to demonstrate the reality of this principle. They explain, in quite clear detail, how one might reproduce this principle of levitation in modern times with modern materials. This description also correlates and aligns entirely with many other concepts and ideas in this document regarding the existence of a connection between Gravity and Electricity as proposed by the Unified Field concept.
This story not only describes this exact connection, describes the mastery of a Field of Force or mastery of Force Field technology, but gives instructions on how to demonstrate this principle. At this point, who really cares who wrote this. Sure credit is due to Morris K. Jessup and to Carlos Allende as the authors, but at this point their character is utterly irrelevant. They have given us the means to prove their words.
The book describes a metal disk with magnets attached to it which, when something is done to it which is 'redacted' in the book, would then float in the air.
a circular pattern of Bar Magnets 342 of
them, HAVE NO WEIGHT if they are attached
to a common Sheet of Metal
& are XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX1
In short, THEY FLOAT IN THE AIR, all 900
lbs of them. XXXXXXXXXXXXX 1&2
2 (In center, I wish were one Drive-inductor.
3 Boy! oh Boy! - The Case for the UFO. p132
Now at this point, whether this is a story or not, we have sufficient information to actually build something. This would be real proof of the Field of Force applied for levitation. If we can build this disk, do what is required and it works as described and floats in the air, it proves this concept is real. We should at this point be asking "Could this actually work?" and "Is levitation really so simple?" We should not so quickly dismiss it because we don't like or understand the person who wrote about it. Nor should we dismiss it simply because we do not understand how it could work or why. We can try it and KNOW.
At this point, the words are instructions for something which can be built in reality. The annotations describe something which can be experimentally tested and verified. We are given a relatively clear description of a method by which an electromagnetic device can made to levitate. We can mentally consider the mechanism which could be at work here, determine the physics principles which would be involved, follow these instructions and attempt to reproduce the effect described. This would not be difficult nor absurdly expensive to try. The possible rewards from a successful result of such an experiment would be so astounding as to absolutely justify the attempt.
If such an experimental demonstration proved successful, then this is no longer just a story and we must be forced to consider the truth of it all. If this simple explanation of a means to produce electromagnetic levitation proves to be true, it demonstrates unequivocally a connection between electricity and gravity, it proves there are means to use electromagnetic fields to counter gravity. The potential is literally, civilization changing.
This alone is reason enough to take this seriously enough to actually try it. The possible implications of such a demonstration preclude ignoring this. Its potential impact, demands investigation, it absolutely requires investigation. To dismiss the potential of such a discovery, when set right before us so obviously, would be a tremendous error.
In this simple, obscure, odd quote, we see laid out before us a real, practical demonstration of a mechanism to apply an electromagnetic device for the control of gravity. We see implied there is indeed a special case, by which we may take electromagnetic fields, of specific orientation, power and design, and through their implementation, cause an object of significant mass to levitate against the force of gravity!
Is this not exactly what we would expect to be possible, from a unification of electricity and gravity? Is this not exactly what we would want to have from an experiment to prove this connection. A simple, experimental demonstration how the "Field of force" can be applied for levitation against gravity. Is this not the key to the uncovering of a great, overlooked secret, the extraordinary evidence for a previously unknown, unapplied principle, which allows us to control the force of gravity through application of electromagnetic energy? Here the reality of this concept is laid out right in front of us, dropped right at our feet, and is staring us right in our face. We need only see it for what it is.

The Mechanism to Discover Levitation

Electromagnetic Levitation
Deeper Analysis of an Ancient Means of Levitation
Deeper Analysis of an Ancient Means of Levitation
Let us analyze this idea much further. Can we actually reproduce this? How could this even work and why?
We find at once a problem to recreate this demonstration, in that some of the information was redacted, likely for good reason we might add. They essentially dropped a huge clue here and realized it was far too obvious. Can we further analyze the content of this book, to perhaps find some clue to fill in the missing and redacted information? Is there enough information provided to actually demonstrate this concept?
The significance of this principle, if real, could have profound repercussions on all of physics and even other fields of science and knowledge, so at the very least we should take the time to try, rather then dismissing the idea outright due to the character of its author. Is there more information in the book about this principle and idea? Let us dig into this much deeper.
We could consider there are really only a few possibilities for the missing redacted action which once performed upon our disk of magnets, could cause it to "levitate". Obviously, we have never encountered such levitation before in all of our established physics researches, so some new or unusual method is being applied. If such a principle is possible, there is something to its implication which makes it uncommon and must explain why it has not been discover before. There as to be some 'trick' to it, which once understood explains why it works and why established physics could never figure it out. Further, it should tie in with all that we have discussed thus far. It should tie in with our Unified Field concept and the ideas of a "Field of Force".
Simply spinning the disk, would not significantly change these disks fields and thus seems unlikely to cause it to levitate. The ancients would not have been likely to have been able to impart rotation of such a stone to any significant degree, so we can eliminate rotation as the missing action. Although, we find rotation does seem to play a role in modern superconductor gravity experiments. The magnetic fields used to rotate the superconductors appear to coincide with the fields created by a circular pattern of magnets as described in this example. We could also perhaps apply chemicals to the disk, it may require some external influence such as a plate of metal beneath it as in inductive electromagnetic levitation, or perhaps the method is to chant magical words upon it, play a great noise from a bunch of musical instruments as described in the Tibetan Levitation story, but these processes seem unlikely to produce any significant effect. There are likely other possibilities we have not considered. Luckily, on closer inspection of other annotations within the book, we find the clarification and information we need. It is so obvious once found, there is no further speculation required.
Although the process required to cause the magnetic disk to levitate was redacted, within the book we find numerous other quotes and clues which further define the nature and mechanism of this ancient principle of levitation. We find in this book other quotes which clarify and fill in the blanks of the missing information. We find other references to the nature of this "levitation effect", how it is a special case of electromagnetic field, how it was discovered by chance and what other technologies arise from understanding its principles:
- WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BOLT OF LIGHTING HITS
AT A POINT WHERE THERE IS A "NODE" SUCH AS
A ''SWIRL" IN THE MAGNETIC SEA OR WHERE A MAG.
"DEAD' SPOT" caused by the NEUTRALIZATION OF
MAG. SEA contra GRAVITY ESPECIALLY, WHAT, WHEN
THE NODE & BOLT BOTH ACT OVER BRONZE INLAY
- "Had Faraday concerned Himself With the Mag. FIELD surrounding his Elec. current. Man today could already Have reached the outermost Parts of our Galaxy."
- That field of Gravity & Magnetic exploration, as yet Untouched,
- "VORTICES, NODES, DEAD SPOTS "traps," = all the same things." pg121
- "or one who doesn't realize the galactic-molecular scope of Einstein's Unified Field theory, 1922-27 " pg171
- "The Muaneans Never knew What an atom was &
Niether did the Atruscan-Lems. They only know
& knew Force-field work as their top accomplishment
& found that throo Inlay work in Metal that the
Design had been Hit by Lightning causing it to
Have No weight somehow. THEY WENT ON
FROM THAT FLOOR Design or floor pattern which
may have been Laid in Lodestone for all I know."- p56
When considering these quotes, we should know Mr. Michael Faraday is the originator of our very concept of a FIELD. We have previously mentioned how Michael Faraday was interested and very close to discovering a "common origin" to all forces and fields. Michael Faraday is the one who has contributed most to the terminology and understanding of the mechanisms and interactions of electric and magnetic forces and directly led to our understanding of these as related as a unified electromagnetic field. It is remarkable these quotes refer directly to the work of Michael Faraday and specifically to his investigations of the field surrounding an electric current. This is not coincidental or the rantings of a lunatic.
Video showing Faraday's discovery of the Fields around an Elec current. Faraday's Experiment
Not only is our unit of capacitance the Faraday ( F ) named after him, which is the measure of charge stored in a condenser, Faraday's law describes how a changing magnetic field can induce an electric field and vice versa an electric field can induce a magnetic field. Faraday's discoveries set down and paved the way for our current understanding and industrial use of electric and magnetic FIELDS to essential distribute power to do work anywhere we so desire. Indeed, Quantum Field Theory has taken this to the remarkable conclusion that what we perceive as material solid bodies, are nothing more than fields themselves.
We should know that in this quote, concerning Faraday's investigations of the fields surrounding an electric current, there is a direct correlation to the magnetic fields around lightning and a correlation to this idea of a "magnetic swirl".

Magnetic Field Around Lightning
We see in these quotes, lightning is mentioned a few times as relevant to the discovery of this "levitation effect". To understand the connections and correlations between all these quotes, we will discuss lightning and its associated electromagnetic fields in more detail.
A lighting strike is an electric current which is travelling through a ionized air, a conducting plasma, rather than through a metal wire. Yet the magnetic field surrounding this flow of current through a plasma is the same as the magnetic field which surrounds any electric current. The magnetic field surrounding an electric current, occurs the same whether that electric current flows in a plasma or wire. This is important when we consider the recurring questions and suggestions in the annotations as to what happens when Lighting hits a magnetic swirl in the magnetic sea, a lightning strike leading to the discovery of levitation and lightning applied to a disk of magnets allowing it to levitate.
The magnetic field around a current and thus likewise around a lighting strike is in a circular pattern. The magnetic field circles or we could even say 'swirls' around the electrical current as it flows. The magnetic field around lightning is in a very real sense, a swirl. Thus lightning striking a swirl in the magnetic sea would serve to reinforce or augment this swirl, as it too has a swirling magnetic field. Thus we would have a mechanism whereby a lightning strike hitting a magnetic swirl, would increase the magnitude of that magnetic swirl, it would greatly amplify and augment it.
We see in the case of the ancient magnetic stone, with its circular arrangement of metal the possibility of a similar, pre-existing, circular magnetic field. We see in the quote about a circular arrangement of magnets on a metal plate a similar, pre-existing circular magnetic field. We see in the magnetic field surrounding a current carrying conductor a similar circular magnetic field. We see in the magnetic field around lightning, again the same similar circular magnetic field. Are we clearly pointing out the correlation and connection here? All of these quotes are discussing the exact same arrangement of magnetic fields and electric current. This is not coincidental, nor the ravings of a lunatic. There is logic, a correlation and a connection between the magnetic fields described in all these quotes.
In the context of these correlations of "lightning hitting a magnetic node", the importance of a "magnetic field around a current carrying conductor" and the mention of this ancient discovery of levitation due to a chance lightning strike upon a magnetic stone inlaid with metal, we can make an entirely logical suggestion. Due to this additional information, we are confident to suggest the redacted, missing element in the description of this means to levitate a metal disk with a pattern of magnets, is a lightning strike.
It is interesting to consider this suggestion that a 'magnetic swirl' can be also considered as a magnetic dead spot or a neutralization of the magnetic sea and even more remarkably, such a neutralization can be contrary to gravity in some way.
We can also consider the formal definitions of a Node, and find a Node is the point at which a wave cannot move/transfer energy to the medium. A point of stillness. It is a point, line, or surface of a vibrating body or system that is free or relatively free from vibratory motion or a point at which a wave has an amplitude of zero.
The Power of Lightning for Levitation
Now that we know the full concept, we can consider this case, of lighting hitting a circular arrangement of magnets on a metal disk and attempt to discern why this would cause it to levitate.
Lightning would provide a unique and interesting case, as lightning would provide a huge input pulse of electromagnetic energy which could have some effect as of yet unrecognized. Lightning is a very high amperage flow of current, 5,000 to 200,000 amps, capable of producing very strong magnetic fields.
A lightning discharge's electromagnetic fields are similar to a single wire. A magnetic field circles the flow of current in a wire and a lightning bolt is a flow of current just in a plasma instead of a wire, but the resulting magnetic field would be nearly identical. You can use the right hand rule to show the direction of the magnetic field around lightning, where your thumb point in the direction of the flow of current in the lightning and your fingers curl around that current in the direction of the magnetic field.
Since a lightning stroke is similar to current in a wire, the magnetic field of a lightning stroke exists like concentric circles around the lightning the same as it does around a current carrying wire. Thus the magnetic field around a lightning bolt, does indeed swirl or circle around the lighting bolt.
We know the magnetic field of a lightning bolt, circles around the flow of current in the lightning bolt. Thus the circular magnetic field around the lightning bolt would reinforce or coincide with the circular pattern of magnets on the metal plate. Thus we have a correlation in field direction between the lightning and the plate, which is very interesting.
There is no established science on what happens when you hit a magnetic 'node' or 'preexisting circular magnetic field' with a huge current as exists in lightning. There are numerous hints at a connection between circular or swirling magnetic field and overcoming gravity. We see this exact same connection, between circular magnetic fields and some connection to gravity, in other theoretical cases, devices and experiments discussed in this document. There is definitely something to this.
An interesting reference which postulates an ancient stone circle may have attracted or have been built around a site of repeated lightning strike.
Geophysical Investigation of Neolithic Calamais Landscape
Consider this article which shows a connection between Lodestone and Lightning, saying " ..most, if not all, natural lodestones are produced by lightning strikes." Lodestone is more common on high mountain peaks which are more prone to lightning strikes and that mountain peaks which have magnetic minerals are known to cause compass deviations. Thus it is not unlikely the ancients may have been in these high places searching for lodestone and possibly even building temples there. Magnetism and Magnetite, Lodestones and Lightning by Andrew A. Sicree. Popular Minerology #17
"The leading theory is that lodestones are magnetized by the strong magnetic fields surrounding lightning bolts." Scientists have confirmed this, by getting lightning to strike magnetite containing minerals at high altitudes on mountain tops. Lodestone - Wikipedia
What is certain, is that lightning posses more than enough energy to produce electromagnetic influence of many orders of magnitude. If such high magnitudes of electromagnetic field are what is required for the production of gravitational effects, then we definitely have enough power in lightning. If the circular arrangement of magnets and a circular magnetic field is another requirement for the reproduction of this levitation effect, then lightning and a circular pattern of magnets fit as well.
From this we can see they are associating a magnetic node, or swirl in the magnetic sea, with a point of stillness or lack of field, which is associated with a gravitational node( which must mean a lack of gravitational attraction of field
There seems to be some significance to this number of magnets on this disk and its size. We can consider some further connections between lightning, the Earth and this story. Within the annotations in the book, we find another couple statements which appear to be related to using magnetic fields to levitate objects, even an entire flying saucer, against the force of gravity.
Lightning discharges are considered to be the primary natural source of Schumann resonance excitation; lightning channels behave like huge antennas that radiate electromagnetic energy at frequencies below about 100 kHz. At any given time there are about 2000 thunderstorms around the globe. Thus there are approximately 50 lightning events per second worldwide at any given time. These thunderstorms are directly linked to the background Schumann resonance signal.
We know Earth's circumference is the distance around Earth. Measured around the equator, it is 40,075.017 km. Measured around the poles, the circumference is 40,007.863 km. We know the Schumann resonances are at extremely low frequencies around 7.83 Hz (fundamental), 14.3, 20.8, 27.3, and 33.8 Hz. We can use the formula, velocity = frequency x wavelength. For 7.83 HZ at speed of light 2.98 E 08 give wavelength of 38,058,748 m, this is slightly less that the real circumference of the Earth, due to temperature, diurnal variations, losses, the differing circumference around the equator and other variables. However, we can see how the Schumann resonance occurs due to an electromagnetic wave travelling around the Earth, near its surface. There does not seem to be any associated between these values and the number 324 or 342, but there may be some other wave type they are associating with.
We have read other obscure reference to using electromagnetic fields, which produce some beat frequency at the much lower frequencies of the Schumman resonances, and that these frequencies do play some rule in the gravitational field. That is gravity is some very low frequency wave like phenomenon, like a very low frequency sonic vibration of sorts. Science has proposed the Schumman resonances are powered by lightning. There does seem to be some deeper connection here.
- "A compass "card" Looks Exactly Like a FLYING SAUCER from the top. Looking down on a Large Ships binnacle compass card floating in its Liquid." pg99
- "They break compasses fearing that we may use More then one Bar Magnet and thus fly as they " pg98
- "or one who doesn't realize the galactic-molecular scope of Einstein's Unified Field theory, 1922-27 " pg171
- "directional field induction" pg27
- "Mag. Attractors + Grav. Converters + Force Field Functions " pg26

Ships Binnacle Compass Card

CIA Logo in the Lobby
In order to build this as described, we would need to know the ratio of the mass of the magnets to the mass of the metal, we are only give 900lbs total. But why 324 or 342 magnets? Somewhere in these two numbers is a clue as to the ratio of the two masses, and some way to determine a diameter for the disk as a whole. 342, 324 is the approximate value of the speed of sound in air. 3 x 108 has some significance as ration related to orbital distances and size of the Sun/Earth and Earth/Moon systems. Is there something in the frequency of lightning which is relevant to these numbers. Could we through trial and error or experiment determined the final size of this in order to build it. The obvious assumption is the size, explains why it works as well. It is clearly, due to the size and number of magnets, harmonizing or resonating with something else. Some fundamental frequency inherent to Earth gravitational field perhaps?
Magnets at the time this was written would have been the Alnico type, which were the most widely available at the time. Ferrite magnets were not produced till later, no rare Earth magnets were readily available. Alnico produced commonly in 1931, Ferrite magnets not in widespread production until 1955. Alnico can be magnetized in any direction, withstands high heat and is still magnetic, strong, can be demagnetized. Density of Alnico is 6.8-7.3 g/cm^3. We can guess, each magnet could weigh 2 lbs and the disk itself 252 lb, or each magnet could be 1 lb and the disk itself 576 pounds. Or magnets could be smaller, and the disk larger. Our intuition tells us this disk is quite large, about 2 meters in diameter, which limits the thickness of the metal plate we could use and thus the size of the magnets. A larger, thinner disk, would possibly spread the fields energy over a wider area/volume thus enhancing the power of the levitating effect.

Symbol of propulsion from the book.
We can consider, when lighting hits a magnetic node some sort of electric shock wave, or toroidial plasma doughnut is formed, like a smoke ring from a vortex cannon but in the electromagnetic fields of space. This would require very specific dimensions and arrangements of the components and a significant initializing pulse of energy. Interestingly, such a think is possible as discussed here:
An Electromagnetic Vortex Cannon, Finally! - Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube
There is further relevant discussion of possible ways to have a stable volume occupied by electromagnetic fields in The Bagel Game paper, linked below. Such an arrangement and energization of intense electromagnetic field energy, may produce a sort of contained energy, which produces forces contrary to gravity. This would be a sort of electromagnetic buoyancy effect, discussed elsewhere.
We find these two papers highly relevant and very interesting as possible mechansims for the stability of ball lightning as likely relevant to the fields possibly contained by the Varo disk device:
The Bagel Game by Bob Greenyer
Electromagnetic Fields Of Current Structures-V02 by N.E. Nevessky
We see a remarkable correlation between these, purported "fringe" physics ideas of a means to effect gravity using special arrangements and design of electromagnetic coils, and the other experiments discussed here. Specifically, we see the reports of rapidly rotating superconductor able to produce some gravitational like force and the device described herein as the Varo disk, to be so similar to the 'Gravity Field coils' it cannot be purely coincidental.
A the reality of a connection between electricity and gravity as defined by the Unified Field theory, implies such experimental results must exist and herein we find examples and discussion of just such experimental results. Can we continue to discount this connection, when we find such obvious and repeated demonstrations of its physical reality?
Rotating Superconductors
Gravity Field Coils
We find in this discussion, the potential for a remarkable, civilization changing discovery. A mechanism and knowledge of fields of force which could have been known and applied, even in ancient times. We find a description of a real, practical method to demonstrate an means by which an electromagnetic device can levitate against the force of gravity. We see the claim such an arrangement of magnets, so empowered by the high current of lightning, can float in the air or levitate against gravity, but we do not find any explanation of the mechanism or reason this is so. Nevertheless, the means and direction for experimentation and research is made crystal clear.
There is an obvious and important physical clue here, with which we can proceed to determine the underlying relationship ourselves. We have here the description of a relatively simple, practical experiment to demonstrate levitation. If this is possible, it represents a breakthrough discovery in physics which is currently unknown and could revolutionize space propulsion.It is certain there is remarkable information here.
We find significant credibility, correlation and confirmation to the logic and science behind this obscure claim of an extremely simple method of producing levitation against gravity with an arrangement of magnets on a metal plate. The concept coincides perfectly with everything we have discussed about gravity and a possible connection to electric and magnetic fields. This is not theoretical musings about the reality of such a connection, but a physical, real, practical demonstration of just such a connection. How can such a breakthrough be ignored by modern science, when it is right in front of their faces!
The Magnetic Toroid Pendulum
The Magnetic Toroid Pendulum
If Faraday were to have continue his experimental researches with magnetic fields and their associated forces, would he have discovered the key to a connection between electric field and gravitational field. Specifically, there seems to be a very important connection between the fields surrounding a current carrying conductor and the gravitational field. A simple experiment may demonstrate such a connection. The experiment is as follows:
A simple, toroidial coil is suspended by a thin cord of as long a length as is convenient. Beneath this toroidial coil, as close as is is convenient is placed a powerful permanent magnet( ceramic, ferrite, permanent magnet ). We can then pass a continuous 120 Hz DC pulsation through the toroidial coil, from an unfiltered full wave bridge rectifier connected to AC mains. Predictions suggest such a coil, due to reaction between its magnetic field and the magnetic field of the permanent magnet will be deflected. This deflection should depend only on the centering, balance, levelness or other physical characteristics of the magnetic coil, its means of suspension and the repelling permanent magnet. However, what we find is an unexpected result.
The toroidial coil will seek the same preferred radial direction of repulsion always, as if locked to that position. Reversing the current will lock the coil to the directly opposite radial position. This is unexpected, as we would expect a toroid to have no pole, which would cause such a specific orientation. Even if such a pole existed, its radial direction should be unpredictable or dependent on the levelness or direction of the pole of the permanent repelling magnet beneath the toroid. Instead what we find is the toroid always tends to seek this same preferred direction, even if we re-orientate the toroid, so if it has a magnetic pole, that pole should be moved. Even if we change the levelness or the toroid or angle the repelling magnet beneath. Even if we change the way the wires power the toroid. The toroid always seems to want to repel the magnet beneath, in the same way, in this preferred direction.
Indeed the original expectation of the experiment was a rotation or twisting about the central axis of the toroid or some unbalanced condition whereby the toroid continually sought a balance which it could not attain. A desire to cause some sort of upward motion of the toroid, was the reason for setting up this arrangement. As per the physics of the magnetic field interactions, we would expect some forces from the repelling magnet and the toroid, but the result is not what we would have predicted. This result seems to suggest something unusual and no reference was found for such result or repeat of such experiment in any documentation we were able to ascertain.
One possible explanation was, although the magnetic field of a toroid is theoretically completely contained within the toroid and no magnetic pole should exist, in reality there is slight magnetic pole formed due to the cumulative addition of the electric currents in the coil. Although each loop of the coil, has an electric current produce magnetic field within the coil, the sum of all current loops, causes an apparent current which circulates around the interior of the toroid. This cumulative apparent current, will tend to create a slight magnetic field with orientation through the axis upon which the toroid circles, thus giving the toroid a slight magnetic pole through its axis.
However, we again find it unusual that even if such a pole exists upon the toroid we would expect a similar situation as if we were to suspend a normal permanent magnet in a repulsive state above the first. In such a situation we find a large torque force attempting to 'flip' the magnets into their attractive condition, but also the aforementioned radial force, pushing the magnets away from each other. The problem is there should be no preferred direction to this radial force, so long as the balance, tilt and orientation of the two magnets is balanced.
For example: in such a situation, if we slightly tilted the bottom magnet, so that its pole was angled in some specific direction off axis, we would expect the repelling suspended magnet to prefer this direction. In the case of the toroidial magnet, such tilting of the permanent magnet beneath it, had no significant effect on the preferred direction. Rotating the permanent magnet, even rotating the toroid and the positions of the wires powering it, had no effect on the preferred direction. Thus we must conclude some other effect was at work here.
We should consider the fields within a toroid, may exhibit something akin to a gyroscopic effect, but in relation to the fields effecting them and not due to a physical angular momentum. We speculate on whether the magnetic field force as we understand it, may be a pseudo force and more akin to a fulcrum or axis about which the electric field and field of force act.
We should consider the primary forces as being electric and momentum/force/motion related and that magnetic field is not really a force in its own right. We know the existence of the magnetic field, depends entirely upon the frame of reference and thus all magnetic field forces can be reduced to electric forces. Further we would say the existence of a magnetic monopole is impossible, as herein we would define the magnetic field as a direction, fulcrum or axis not a field in its own right, and by the very definition of this description a magnetic field acts like the mediation or point of reference for inertial frames.
A magnetic field is always a vector direction and thus the existence of a magnetic monopole is entirely equivalent to saying you can have up but not down, left but not right or a front with no back, it is nonsense. We can consider a magnetic field as an indicator of sorts of our local direction of motion, relative to some greater motion outside our current reference frame, and thus it does play a critical role in defining acceleration and inertial forces. The magnetic field is essentially to defining our current inertial reference frame, as any deviation or change in our inertial reference frame, will result in a detectable 'magnetic field'. Thus the magnetic field acts as our primary navigational aid, not just as a compass upon the Earth, but a Universal compass through space/time itself.
We can discuss the rumours of Nikola Tesla's development of what he called his "whirligig" which was essentially a Space/Time navigational device. We can with some accuracy say the concept of navigation owes a great deal to the compass. We have since developed systems of inertial guidance using gyroscopes. Inertial guidance systems utilize gyroscopes rotating in all three axis of our 3rd dimension, thus any motion in any direction will cause some deviation to at least one of the gyroscopes, which can be measured.
Nikola Tesla's 'whirligig' device is similar in concept, but rather than using gyroscopic, spinning mass, it uses circular magnetic fields arranged in all 3 axis, with the system being put in a delicate balance allowing it to freely move. What Nikola Tesla found is this device, would eventually lock into some specific direction, thus providing the direction of the local inertial reference frame. Such a device would be an absolute necessity if one were to ever consider travelling through space/time, or time travel.

Diagram of the Simple Toroidial Coil Magnetic Field Reaction Experiment
The Homopolar Generator Paradox
The homopolar generator gives an important clue to the nature of this tri-field arrangment in space. According to De Has modern experiments the magnetic field of iron resides in the electron spins themselves, but when we rotate a magnet near a disk, we do not see that the magnetic lines of force will move relative to the disk, as if the electrons and their associated magnetic fields are in rotating within the magnet. So there is something wrong with our picture. When we connect the magnet to the disk and spin both, there is not relative motion between the two, and yet we get a result as if now the electrons and there magnetic field are moving with the disk. How puzzling.
It appears as if the magnetic field represents some sort of alignment in space, about which rotation itself occurs, as if the magnetic field direction indicates an axis of rotation.
How to Build a Flying Car
How to Build a Flying Car
Some further speculation on a possible connection between an electrostatic DC pulsation current which flows outward from the Earth in opposition to gravity. This is related to the Townsend Brown and Nikola Tesla ideas of gravity as the 1st derivative of electric charge. Normally we would never detect this electrostatic connection with gravity, as the rate of change is very slow at only 7.8 Hz. It would be simple to detect this, just some type of electrostatic field detection which can detect such changes in the static field ( the atmospheric electricity ) over these frequencies. Note this is not detecting the Schumann resonance, but a distortion of the static electric field, a DC change, not an AC change.
We find an interesting description of a flying car in the story of Alec Newald, and his book Coevolution. Alec's story is a remarkable one which truly tests our understanding of reality, but we find within so many correlations and similarities to other subjects in this discussion, we feel obligated to include some mention of it.
Consider the following quotes from Alec Newald and how closely they align with this discussion.
- "I now put this information to our great world leaders and keepers of the faith, but if they already know about this (that I now realize they have known about it all along), they should hang their heads low in shame!"
- "Electromagnetic energy naturally surrounds and permeates most planets, including our Earth and the planet I was about to visit. This energy can be used as an endless, inexhaustible power source which is very cheap to access. In the case of my newfound friends, it has been their power source for many thousands or perhaps even millions of years. This energy can be tapped in the simplest of ways with technology we have right here on planet Earth now. Indeed UFOs use this energy source to power their craft when they visit Earth! It is so prevalent that our bodies pick it up unintentionally...."
- "....This power source does not require generators as we know them; hence nuclear, hydro, coal and oil power generators or stations could be dispensed almost overnight. It appears there is no need for wires to transmit this power, for each user could have its own inexpensive receiver, similar perhaps to a radio or a TV. In total the costs would be minimal."
- "The question is, why aren’t we tapping into this power source right now? The right sort of people knew about this back in 1940 - well, in 1900, if you really want to get accurate in reference to scientist Nikola Tesla. There should never be, and should never have been, a power shortage on this planet."
- "The disgust I have with some of my fellow human in powerful positions is the main reason why I did not and I will not cooperate with the planetary establishment when questioned about my experience. I simply do not trust them in any way with any information on any subject, let alone with what I may have picked up in my travels!"
- "...all things, even the energy known to us as atoms, contain a certain level of intelligence."
Within this book, Alec Newald describes a remarkable "car" which could levitate. He describes it as so and provides some picture of both the exterior and a rough sketch of its interior components.
- "The car was of particular interest to me as I've been involved in all aspects of motor-sport back on Earth. It seemed to be capable of immense speed, not that I could have read a speedo even if it had one.... we would have exceeded speeds of 160 kph (100 mph).... it was more like being in a low-flying aircraft."
- "How does this thing work?" I asked. "Part mind-power, part magnetic repulsion," was Zeena's reply.
- "....The car's guidance system had me puzzled. As the vehicle did not actually touch the ground, how did it know how to turn? It was suspended above the road by a form of magnetic repulsion, the details of which I did not get into but which didn't seem all that complex. I'm sure it could be reproduced here on Earth without too much trouble....
- "....the car appeared to be made from a plastic-like material....
- "....The top half was transparent but heavily tinted; the bottom opaque and greyish-brown. I guess you could say it was even vaguely pyramidal in shape, but it had a squashed and stretched-out look compared to a conventional pyramid. There were no wheels, and it sat a few inches above the ground, even though it was not yet in motion. If you could imagine a stealth fighter cockpit without wings, you would not be far off the mark. (Now isn't that a coincidence!)


From these drawings, we can determine quite a bit about the function of this "Flying Car". Specifically, we see within again as we often do very large electromagnetic components, including two 200 KV capacitors and a large, stepped, bipolar Tesla Coil type of device, a battery and some connections to an element on the top of the vehicle. We see the power from the capacitors connected to the primary winding of the stepped, bipolar coil. The car is described as magnetically powered, but we see within the capability to generate very high voltage electric charge. Let us analyze this concept from a purely technical perspective, irregardless of the source from which it originated.
If we have about 200,000 volts being transformed by a magnetic coil. If we have a step up in voltage of only 100 times, this equates to well over 20 million volts being produced in this "car". If the power from these two capacitors is connected in series this potential could be over 40 million volts. This is an extremely high voltage. Thus this simple diagram shows a remarkably simple means to develop a very high electric field. This high voltage field likely plays a key role in the car's ability to levitate. We could consider that if we had an existing electrical charge in the road or surface beneath this car, there would be more then sufficient electrostatic forces to repel the weight of this car against the force of gravity.
Another interesting thing we see on the diagram is a hard to discern mention of the car being "Tune to Gravity" and the value 7 Hz. This is interesting as this value is the approximate value of the Schumann Resonance on Earth. This seems to imply, the electrostatic field which is used to repel this car, is coming from the Earth itself and not from some artificially created field in the road. It is well known there is a significant electrostatic field surrounding our planet at even at the surface of the Earth.
We discuss the atmospheric electricity which exists on the Earth here: Lightning. Linked below is another interesting paper discussing these natural potentials of the Earth in much greater detail. It is noted the surface potential of the Earth is about 200 Volts per meter of height. This is not an insignificant amount of voltage.
The Earth’s Electrical Surface Potential A summary of present understanding - by Gaetan Chavalier, PhD, Director of Research, California Institute for Human Science. Jan 2007
Schumann Resonances - wikipedia
There is an interesting calculation performed by someone to determine the voltage required for electrostatic suspension of 5000 kg of mass. The conclusion of the estimate is it would take 490 billion volts to produce such an effect, however they do concede there may be factors which reduce this value. Interestingly, this value is not too far out from the 40 million volts calculated from the electrical components in this "car". Could factors cause a reduction of 100 times, the voltage produced in the car is another order of magnitude higher, to 400 Million, or is there some other effect involved than just a pure electrostatic effect?
Electrostatic Suspension Calculation - Wikiversity.org
This at first glance may seem too simple a method, but there are many subtle and complex operations by which this mechanisms could overcome gravity.
If we consider this frequency of the electrostatic potential from Earth to Space, or more accurately from Space to Earth, we should think of it not as purely electrostatic or purely an electric current, but as a low frequency direct current pulsation. We can predict the frequency of this pulsation, would be in tune with the Schumann resonance and related to the dimensions of the Earth.
The goal of the system, to get a strong reactance or connection or coupling with this low frequency direct current pulsation. To achieve this coupling, we use a high electrical potential( > 1,000,000 ) which is modulated at the required low frequency, so we have a high voltage which is a direct current pulsation at low frequency. Even though the electrical potential itself may be generated using much higher frequency. This is very similar to how we use a Tesla coil, to create sound waves as demonstrated by Singing Tesla Coils. It is entirely possible to modulate the high voltage electrostatic field of a Tesla Coil, with a much lower frequency, such as the 7-8 Hz frequency of the Schumann resonance.
This seems to be an important key to getting this car to levitate. This also explains why we do not just have high electrostatic fields levitating objects into the air all the time. Not only is a very powerful electrostatic field required, but this field needs to oscillate at a very specific frequency in order to get a strong reaction of the already oscillating natural field of the Earth. In the electrostatic calculations considered previously, the field is considered completely static, but the reality is much different as the Electric Field of the Earth is not purely static. There is a dynamic frequency to this supposedly "static" field, which is measured as the Schumann resonance frequency.
This oscillation is important to consider, as if we are simply using an unchanging static field, no significant effect would ever be noticed. Only by timing the oscillations of this electrostatic field to be 180 degrees out of phase with the natural oscillations of the Earth's electrostatic field, does any significant force develop. This is the well known concept of resonance. In order to impart energy to a child on a swing, you must apply force at exactly the correct time. If you push your hands out, at the same frequency as the child on the swing, but not at the correct phase, your push would go into the air and impart zero energy. Only when you push at the exact correct interval, can you impart the energy. In this case it is the timing of the energy which is very important to achieving a significant reaction.
It is interesting how Alec Newald speculates that this "car" and its levitating mode of propulsion, "could be reproduced here on Earth without too much trouble". Indeed there is nothing significant or overly difficult in building such a high voltage system. The primary problem preventing investigations into something like this, seems to be the established physics community desire to remain the peak of intelligence. As we have demonstrated and discussed at length, an understanding of the gravitational field may be far simpler than we have thus far considered. It is the overcomplication of modern physics which has made the problem more difficult than it needs to be.
Established Physics References
Established Physics References
"I think most people can learn alot more then they think they can. They sell themselves short without really trying." - Elon Musk
What is physics? We see in physics the science of observation and measurement, in order to define physical laws or rules in order to predict behaviour and future outcomes using those laws and rules. Physics is a model of reality, we use to better understand reality. We should see that because of physics critical dependence on observation and measurement, observation and measurement must be rigorously defined. Further, the goal of physics must be itself rigorously defined in the context of our discussion.
Is physics goal an understanding of the Universe and our place in it, or just an understanding of the physical processes at work in the Universe. Can these two ideas even be separated like this. We must ask does philosophy play a role in physics, does biology, consciousness or even spirituality? For our own understand is a true theory of everything, cannot avoid such concepts as they are inherently part of everything, are they not? How can we say any concept within the Universe, including life and mind, can be outside the physical laws and rule which govern the Universe?
Of course this is a path established physics fears to tread and yet research in this direction will likely provide the real answers to the questions physics seeks and it will ultimately fail in its efforts until such direction is pursued.
Here we attempt to present some concepts within established physics so we have a solid foundation and the right terminology by which to discuss more complex ideas. We are not going to explain all of physics here, but present important ideas and concepts relevant to the discussion and point out some of the areas where physics is still incomplete or working on solutions.
Logic and Problem Solving
Logic and Problem Solving
If we chose to solve a great and unsolvable problem. The first trick is to make the unsolvable, solvable. This is done through the first principle. Take the problem and break it down into its simplest parts, so that it cannot be broken down further. Once you have the simple parts, use those parts to solve the problem at hand. Once you have the solution for the simplest parts, it is most certain the rest of the complicated parts will be solved as well. If they are not, then they are likely wrong anyway and don't even worry about them.
For the simplest solution is the best solution. The simplest solution which solves the greatest number of problems, is always the best solution. A complex solution which only solves one specific problem is useful, but not as much so as a simpler solution which solves more problems.
The current state of physics, is an overly complicated behemoth of a problem, which in its current state is utterly unsolvable. Further complicating the problem, by adding more and more complexity is not the way out of such a dilemma. The only way to solve this problem, is through the first principle and come at the problem from a new direction.
Instead of trying to put together all the complicated and innumerable pieces to try to find some common element or connection, do the complete reverse. Make an assumption of simplicity, determine what that simply solution would look like, and then try to relate that solution to ever more and more complex features. If that solution shows the ability to cover the greatest number of problems, than it is good. If it causes more problems than it solves, than it can be thrown out.
There is another method to solving problems we can apply. Say we have lost a needle in a haystack. We could take a random approach, just start looking for the needle, look here, look there, just keep looking in new places until we find the needle by pure chance. We could employ various strategies of searching, circular patterns, one side to the other, top to bottom and so on. We could apply a brute force methodology, and move the entire haystack straw by straw from one place to another, until the needle is found or is all that remains. There are other strategies we could employ as well.
One might be to understand the situation better using some additional knowledge, we know a needle is magnetic and we know straw is not, so we could drag a magnet about through the straw until it picks up the needle. Similarly, we could know that straw burns, but a needle does not and set the whole straw pile alight, and once it has burned away we would find our needle. It is these strategies based on broader knowledge, which are the most fruitful in our mind.
We find though, the greatest means to solve problems is through intuition. Faced with this needle in the haystack problem, using intuition one would consider where the person holding the needle was, approximately where the needle could have fallen, perhaps checking how far the needle may have fallen downward, and then fully trusting their intuition they would essentially just reach into the haystack and pick out the needle.
Trusting our intuition is the most logical approach to problem solving.
"Prof. Klein distinguishes three main classes of mathematicians — the intuitionists, the formalists or algorithmists, and the logicians. Now it is intuition that is most useful in physical mathematics, for that means taking a broad view of a question, apart from the narrowness of special mathematics." - Oliver Heaviside. Electromagnetic Theory p 461
The Myth of the Magical Scientific Method by Dr. Terry Halwes. From and archive of the now offline site dharma-haven.org
The Scientific Method by Robert V. Blystone and Kevin Blodgett
The State of Physics
The State of Physics
What is physics?
The word physics means simply "the study of nature". "Physical science is that department of knowledge which relates to the order of nature, or, in other words, to the regular succession of events." - Maxwell 1878. Today Wikipedia defines physics as "the scientific study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behaviour through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force." and that "Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines."- Wikipedia.
Here we are going to take the broader, older stance on what Physics is and what Physics should do. Physics is utilizing observation and measurement of the world around us to better understand and predict the rules or laws which define the function of the Universe. Physics is a way for us to understand how the Universe itself works and thus what role we play within it.
Some would argue subjects such as consciousness, mind, philosophy, even spirituality and religion have no purpose in physics, but if physics purports to discover a theory of everything, and these things exist within the Universe, then Physics absolutely plays a role in these subjects. It is foolish for any physicist to claim knowledge of the workings of the Universe, without having any understanding of how those workings effect the physicist himself, how he even came to be capable of discovering such knowledge, or even what the very concepts of knowledge, laws and rules even are.
Thus we need physics as the solid foundation upon which to base our understanding of ourselves and the Universe within which we live. When we know ourselves, by extension, we know physics as a whole. In fact this connection between the physicist and the Universe is the most productive and illuminating path to discover the real underlying processes in Physics.
Even today in modern quantum mechanics, physicists are discovering the very concepts of Observation and Measurement must be rigorously defined. We too here state the fundamental goal of physics must also be thusly rigorously defined. If we do not start with a solid foundation, then we can never hope to reach any solid result.
Current Established Physics has laid out some fundamental understandings of what exists in the Universe.
- Charge, Electric Field
- Magnetic Field
- Motion / Velocity / Acceleration / Inertia
- Mass
- Gravity
- Time
- Space
- Mind / Consciousness / Life ( this is critically important and must be included! )
We find further considerations and principles in modern physics, such as:
- Causality
- Covariance
- Action
- Physical field
- Symmetry
- Physical interaction
- Statistical ensemble
- Quantum
- Wave
- Particle
We could argue and debate that some of these could be combined with others, there may be certain aspects missing, but this is a good enough summary. We can say from these, Physics would like to know how all these various concepts are related, and if this can be simplified even further. Ultimately, physics could come down to everything is mind or consciousness and all the other components come from this, but we are most certainly not at that point yet.
Quantum Mechanics theory has determined a simpler broader summary of the interactions of energy and matter, leading to the following summary:
- Matter is a Quantum Field
- Interactions are Quantum Fields
- Gravity is a Field
Unfortunately, this third component, the field of gravity has thus far found no understandable connection with the ideas of quantum fields, thus although physicists would like to have everything summarized as quantum fields or interactions between quantum fields, the inability to explain how gravity fits into quantum mechanics is a very big, "elephant in the room", as it is said.
Current Problems in Physics
Probably the biggest problem we see in physics today, is it appears to have lost its contact with its true purpose as defined above. Physicists have developed such complex mathematical methods for describing the formation of particles, interactions of mass and energy, and gone to levels so far removed from reality, they do not even realize how lost they are.
Yes, these theories predict what they find in experiments, in that sense they are irrefutable, but they have lost any relevance to a goal of understanding how the Universe works and what connection and role we have to it. If a physicist can tell us how the discovery of quarks, helps one in their daily life or helps humanity progress, improves humanity or provides some important service to humanity, we will gladly alter our opinion. If people are disillusioned with physics and seeking alternative versions, it is because physics is giving them nothing of value.
Consider this example: Early in physics we wondered of what matter was composed, and with research determined their were atoms. With this discovery numerous advances in chemistry and other fields of science occurred. We then went further and determined the atoms, were themselves composed of sub-atomic particles, the electrons, protons and neutrons, and from this we further advanced our understanding. With quantum mechanics we have developed numerous technologies, semiconductors, computers, quantum computers, new materials processing. We are in no way saying here there is not something of value which can come from such efforts, as clearly our technology advances from these discoveries. What is missing, is the broader goal, the discovery of a broader understanding.
We now know the sub-atomic particles are composed of even smaller particles, quarks. Maybe, if they build even more expensive and powerful super, super duper, colliders they will discover quarks are composed of even smaller particles of matter. Current physics seems to be taking this path, that if they keep discovering more and more, if they just dig a little deeper, if they just get more data, then they will discover the final clue, dig up the treasure and the data will finally all come together into a grand solution. As if the grand theory of everything is just around the corner, if we just keep adding complexity to our knowledge?
The thing is, the grand solution or theory of everything, if it exists, applies at all levels. Without even knowledge of atoms, it could very well be possible to discover a theory of everything. This is not saying such a discover would be easier, because all these other complicated things would not need to be included. What we are saying is a complete theory of everything by its nature includes atoms, sub-atomic particles, and even particle yet undiscovered. The grand theory of everything covers everything both found and unfound within its very nature and even those things yet undiscovered should already fit.
The true, one theory of everything, is available to be discovered, at any point throughout the entire accumulation of information. We could have figured it out many decades ago, Albert Einstein could have solved it, it could have been solved after the very first collider was built or even before. It is entirely plausible even some ancient civilization had already figured it all out. This is what we seem to have forgotten in physics. The solution is always at hand and does not depend on the addition of further and further information for it to be solved.
Adding information, calculations and theory to the problem, does not make it more likely the problem will be solved, it actually does the opposite. Adding more and more information increases the complexity of the required solution. We may have a solution, but now need to explain how this solution applies to so many more things. Now, because science does not know the correct path, they have branched out onto numerous paths, which have degrees of correctness in the direction they go, but can no longer be tied back together with all the other branches and paths which have been pursued. Only one path is correct and they struggle down so many paths, hoping to find the one which leads through, but they have lost track of them all. The one which does lead through, may be one we already started to walk, but then changed paths and now have forgotten about our previous choices.
Here we consider the possibility for a simple solution. We propose the existence of a better understanding of gravity and its relationship to all things. We propose the existence of one field, from which all other fields and forces come, could exist. Such a solution will come not from, deeper and ever more complex experimentation, but exists right now, in a simple, hands on, desktop experiment which could be performed by anyone.
Without our current complex knowledge of mathematics and physics, someone like Faraday or the true experimentalists of old, could have found a unique combination of parts and pieces which proved, practically, something new. The discovery of such a thing, could go back even to the foundation of all the branches of physics, and from this it is possible to determine where each branch, broke off. The discovery of such a thing, does not discount the validity of any of these branches, nor does it discount the successes achieved by each branch in its own way, it simply consolidates all into a more coherent whole.
Such a practical discovery could completely upend modern physics, forcing it to go back to its roots, force many to reconsider past positions and some people might even lose their jobs.
Unexplained Phenomenon and Principles in Physics
Modern physics appears like the emperor in his new clothes. Modern Physics is a grand, extravagant production claiming to know all and be the ultimate source of knowledge. However, any real scientist, a true physicist will be the first to admit, modern physics is incomplete. It is correct as far as it goes, but beyond that many deep, fundamental questions and problems remain unsolved. There are many concepts in physics which are yet to be explained. Any real theory of everything, should be capable of providing insight into these ideas.
- the fine structure constant
- the electron/proton mass ration
- the speed of light
- why accelerated charges emit radiation
- why there is beta decay and even radioactivity from matter
- why there is randomness and probabilities
- the quantum of action and quantum spin
- G the gravitational constant
- the wave/particle duality
- light/matter
- what is the space/time framework
- why do we need the weak/strong forces
- why is their red shift, Doppler effect
- why is the inverse square law so pervasive, for gravity and charge
- why is energy quantized
Some would argue, knowing the "why" of these things is irrelevant to understanding, that these things just exist and that is enough. We do not follow this argument, as there must be some fundamental structure which has led to the current situation.
You cannot talk about the laws of physics, or develop a theory of everything, in which laws and rules, just appear of their own accord from some previously unknown or void condition, that is creationism not physics. There should be some clear progression of development, or clear set of initial conditions which leads to the complexity and formation of additional relationships. Only by knowing this progression of principles, the progression of the laws and rules themselves, is any theory of everything become apparent.
Another concept which needs further clarification are the unsolved problems in mathematics revolving around infinite and the concept of zero. There exists a concept called, countable infinity, which seems contradictory to nature.
We have become aware of the Unsolved Strong CP problem with the Strong Force in the Standard Model. Besides the Standard Model hiding a huge elephant in its room in the complete omission of gravity or including some magical thing called the gravition, and yet purporting to be the ultimate solution to particle formation and prediction. In the standard model, the charge inversion and parity( 3 dimensional mirroring ) of the strong force is not restricted, but no violations ever occurs in reality and this cannot be explained. This is the Unsolved Strong CP problem. They have even gone so far to predict new particles to explain this discrepancy. If theta is fixed at 0, then there is only symmetry, but there is no reason why this should be so, all angles should be allowed. Why the system is limited to symmetry remains unexplained.
Another huge problem in Physics is the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. No theory yet explains adequately the relationship between gravity and the other forces of nature. This is the problem we are most interested in, as to discover the means to control gravity, is civilization changing.
You can watch some excellent videos the unsolved problems in physics presented by Unsolved Mysteries: A summary of the most fundamental questions - Unzicker's Real Physics
Vibrations, Harmonics and Standing Waves
Vibrations, Harmonics and Standing Waves
Much can be said about these three concepts but there are much greater explanations on the internet than are provided here. Suffice it to say that vibration, harmonics and standing waves play a crucial role in the Universe around us.
Vibrations occur in all things from the impossibly small frequencies in atoms and light to the unimaginable huge oscillations of stars and even entire galaxies. The harmonics of the world and space around us has been defined as the " Music of the Spheres " in which harmonies of nature are considered to be fundamental to the formation of all things. Standing waves concern waves which are contained and travel back and forth upon themselves so as to give the appearance as to not be moving anywhere. Resonance is defined in physics as the amplification of a natural vibration ( be it mechanical, magnetic or electrical ) by input of energy at the same vibration rate as the natural vibration.
The following brief physics tutorial covers resonance in greater detail:
The Physics Classroom- Resonance and Standing Waves Part 1
The Physics Classroom- Resonance and Standing Waves Part 2
Understanding the physics of waves from The University of Glasgow
We will briefly touch on the concept of a Soliton Wave. A Soliton wave appears to be a distortion due to a unidirectional, one way, change in the medium, which then propagates out as a change in the medium, but has different characteristics from a normal wave. A normal wave is an oscillation of energy, with a positive and negative component. A soliton only has one of these components, it is wholly positive or wholly negative and does not oscillate between the two.
Although these articles deal with sound and music the principles of resonance apply to mechanical vibration, electrical vibration and magnetic vibration.
Chinese Spouting Bowl in Slow Motion - The Slow Mo Guys
Spherical Harmonics (U2-05-05 ) - QuantumVisions
How waves work on the surface of a sphere.
In a medium in which waves are propagating, there is a pressure in the direction normal to the waves and numerically equal to the energy in unit volume.
Resonance and Feedback
Resonance and Feedback
Feedback and resonance are how a small input force and small overall input energy can, over time, give rise to huge, exponential increases in total energy of a system. When these two mechanisms are combined together, feedback and resonance, they have the potential to completely destroy the system in which they are operating. Feedback and resonance are an important physics concept to understand.
Resonance
Resonance is the maximum amount of energy transfer between vibrating ( or rotating systems ) when the input energy matches the natural frequency of the system receiving the energy. A good example of this is when you "pump" a swing with the motion of your feet and body. When you time your motion correctly, you can get the swing to swing higher and higher until you can go no further.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse Caught on Camera (1940) - You Asked For It on YouTube.
No discussion of the power of resonance is complete without mention of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse. Watch as wind, causes a tremendous resonance in the bridge causing it to fail after only 6 months.
An excellent example of resonance being put to work is in radio tuning. A radio is tuned by adjusting its components to that the electrical current in the radio circuit, resonates with the signal you wish to receive. Thus that signal is the one which causes the most power in the circuit, due to resonance, and is how a certain signal can be picked out of all the others. One signal frequency will cause the most resonance in the circuit, if that is the frequency the radio circuit is tuned too.
Tuning a Radio Receiver - Molecular Expressions. Electricty and Magnetism Introduction.
An excellent example of resonance at work in an electromagnetic circuit is provided by this java applet called "Tuning a Radio Receiver" at the Molecular Expressions website. The antenna receives a whole spectrum of frequencies, as shown in red. By adjusting the capacitance of the circuit, you adjust the resonant frequency of the radio circuit. Since the radio circuit only resonates at the one specific frequency to which it is tuned, it only extracts the matching resonant wave from the antenna, as shown on the green display.
Feedback
Feedback happens when a portion of the output of a system is fed back into the input of the system, causing a loop, increasing the systems total power.
A simple example of feedback in nature would be a snowball thrown down a large hill covered with wet snow. Under such conditions the rolling snowball would accumulate more snow and more snow, getting bigger and bigger, until we had a giant snowball capable of crashing through a whole building. This is the aptly named, "Snowball Effect". Another good example of feedback and resonance in a natural system is a tornado, in which different temperatures of air cause at first a small breeze, which eventually builds into a powerful tornado capable of immense destruction.
Another common example of feedback involves the squealing of an amplifier when the microphone is brought to close to the speaker. The squeal is the amplifier going into "feedback oscillations" as output from the speaker is fed back into the microphone, so the sound heard by the microphone is amplified and sent out the speaker, but the microphone hears what is coming out the speaker, so it takes that sound and sends it back into the amplified to come out the speaker even louder. It does this repeated amplification to a point, but the electronics cannot handle the increased power and instead the energy begins to just oscillate back and forth, and the system starts making this loud squealing noise.
This is considered a nuisance in audio amplification and the circuitry is prevented from overloading due to the design of the electronics and instead of the sound just getting louder and louder the system goes into oscillations causing a terrible screeching noise. In nature however, the principles of feedback and resonance is a source of tremendous power and growth. Nikola Tesla once remarked how it was a very good thing nature had natural checks and limits in place to prevent feedback and resonance from causing untold destruction and energy gain.
See the following picture of optical feedback between a computer display and a camera which is pointed back at the computer display. This perfectly demonstrates how a simple feedback arrangement can cause an infinite loop of images, as the camera sees the computer display, but the display is showing what the camera sees, but the camera sees the display, etc etc. This situation puts a huge load on the graphics processing power of the computer and when this is done you will experience a noticeable drop in performance as the graphics have to process more and more information in an endless loop.

Optical Feedback of a Computer Camera and Display
We see a similar example of such a feedback loop, in the infinite mirror light boxes people create. There is a Two way mirror on one side of a box and a normal mirror on the other, with some lights inside. So there is a reflection of one mirror upon the other, back and forth in an infinite loop so that it appears like the inside of the box goes on infinitely. We may think such things are only for entertainment purposes, but this concept and the fact we can reproduce it at the macroscopic scale, suggests it is a much deeper and more universal concept. Certain types of energy or interactions in the Universe, may behave in a very similar way, so that we can have an infinite recursion within a finite space. This is ultimately related also to the phenomenon of holograms and a holographic nature to the Universe, in which each tiny part, contains the whole.
Jet engines and Rocket engines, some of our most powerful and advanced engines, rely on feedback for their immense power. Thus we use feedback as the means to travel to space right now!
In the video below, they are using an old "turbo" from a car. A turbo has two turbines, attached to the same shaft. One side is used to compress air, which is then fed into a combustion chamber and combined with fuel and ignited. This hot expanding gas is then fed into the other side of the turbine, causing it to spin. Since the two sides are directly connected together, the hot side spins the intake side even faster, causing the input air to be compressed even more, which improves the power of the combustion, spinning the turbo faster and faster until it is rotating at tens of thousands of rpm, like a jet engine.
A rocket engine works similarly in that it uses very high power and high speed turbos to pump fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber of the rocket, producing immense thrust.
Homemade Jet EngineAn example of the power of feedback.
Vortex Motion
Vortex Motion
The spiral vortex appears everywhere in nature and seems to exist at all levels of the Universe. Although the causes of vortex structure appearing can be varied, its pervasive existence at all scales seems to strongly suggest there is a more fundamental explanation. In the images of the water spouts below, we see a very unusual and not well documented effect which may lead us closer to understanding the significance of vortices in nature.

Possible Vortex Structure of Particles

Giordano Bruno Crater Whorl

Charge flows away from the Sun in a Spiral pattern

The vortex fields around our Sun

Vortex Motion in a Galaxy

Possible spiral vortex motion of the Universe itself
In the following images, we see a very unusual and unexplained effect. In the water surrounding the water spout, we see vortex patterns on the surface of the water. One would naturally assume these patterns are due to the forces of the wind flowing into the water spout vortex, but this is not the case. As the scientists demonstrated, by dropping a smoke flare onto the surface of the water, within this vortex pattern. As you can see in the image the direction of the smoke from the smoke flare, does not follow the direction of the vortex. This demonstrates these vortex patterns are nor formed by wind. This is puzzling, as we must wonder than what is causing this vortex pattern in the water, if not the wind? This is a very interesting demonstration.

The Vortex Patterns Surrounding a Water Spout are not formed by wind.

The Dual Vortex structure in a WaterSpout
We see in most tornados and vortex, a dual flow of energy. There is material rising, but material falling as well. The internal vortex may turn in the complete opposite direction to the external vortex. The energy appears to be exchanged in a delicate balance of forces.
Could we speculate these patterns formed, not by wind, nor by charge, are perhaps evidence of some other force, some other field of force? Interestingly, Einstein himself proposed a possible solution to the rotation curve problem of galaxies in his paper, The Cause of the Formation of Meanders in the Courses of Rivers and of the So-Called Baer's Law.
The solution is explained by the existence of a dual helical flow in all galaxies, which is greatest through the plane of equatorial motion and least in the surrounding space. Of what this dual helical flow is comprised is unknown, but it provides an additional force sufficient to maintain and attract the masses of the galaxy to the center, in addition to the gravitational forces.
Such a flow may even propose a solution to the dark energy conundrum, as it provides an radial, axial force outward from the center out both axis of rotation, and seems to be the force responsible for huge jets from cosmological systems. Thus the Universe, may be experiencing a slightly attractive force along some vast universal plane, but everywhere else and especially along its axis there would be a significant force of expansion.
Albert Einstein and Meandering Rivers - SearchandDiscovery.com
Dolphins making Toroidial Air Vorticies
These videos should be called 'Dolphin Scientists' as this behaviour is remarkable and shows the dolphins real intelligence. Of specific interest and pointed out in the video is that these toroidial vortices of air will travel downward, whereas a normal air bubble will immediately and quickly just rise straight up to the surface. When moving in such a vortex shape, the air behaves in ways it does not normally do underwater. For a physicist these bubbles have multiple degrees of motion, and many forces involved, which make this simple thing, exceedingly difficult to model and understand.
It would be very difficult for modern physics to explain why, despite the vortex motion, such a toroidial vortex no longer experiences a very powerful upward force due to the buoyancy of the air. When the vortex is destroyed, the air behaves completely as we would expect, and the bubbles quickly rise to the surface. However, while the air is in this toroidial vortex motion, the air no longer appears to experience a powerful buoyant force. How puzzling.
Is is also remarkable how the dolphins can break the toroid into a smaller toroid without completely destroying the vortex, as well as manipulate and move it around as if it is some real form, not just a bubble of air.
This is a link to an article about lightning strikes and trees. We see when lightning strikes a tree, it tends to follow the spiral pattern inherent in the growth of the tree we do not often see from outside. Thus the vortex and spiral nature is built into the structure of trees which improves its strength.
Spiral lightning scars - yosemitenews.info
Celestial Mechanics
Celestial Mechanics
We need to discuss some ideas of Celestial Mechanics and Orbital mechanics
An orbit traced onto the surface of a sphere is a sinusoidal track. A plane cut through a sphere is a Sinusoid. Thus from a certain perspective it is a vibration, not a circular form, it is a forward back or oscillating motion.
Orbital mechanics works different than what we think. If you launch a rocket straight up, no matter how high it goes, once its engines stop, it would fall straight back down again. In order for a rocket to orbit the Earth, it needs to not only go up, but it needs to be given a tremendous amount of horizontal speed relative to the Earth's surface. It is even possible to orbit at the surface with a high enough velocity. It is like firing a projectile, the faster it goes, the further it will travel. If you fire a projectile fast and high enough, it will actually just go completely around the Earth and be in what we call an orbit.
If you want to rendezvous two spacecraft in orbit, or dock them together. Let us consider they are fairly close to each other and can even see each other. If you were to just fire your engines in the direction of the other spacecraft, you would find it impossible to meet it. This is because when you increase or decrease your orbital speed, you end up raising or lower your orbit. Speeding up raises the orbit, which actually takes longer to complete. Slowing down lowers the orbit, but takes less time to complete. Energy must be given to a spacecraft, for it to rise up and energy must be removed for it to go lower. If all the energy is removed, the spacecraft would fall straight down to the surface. If too much energy is given, a spacecraft will leave the gravity of the Earth entirely. Thus the astronauts had difficulty understanding what they needed to do, when they first attempted to rendezvous with another craft in orbit.
In order to understand orbital mechanics, we need to understand the relationships between the size of an orbit and its height. A larger orbit takes longer and your speed is slower, but you have more potential energy and less kinetic energy. A lower orbit takes less time to complete and is faster but you have less potential energy and more kinetic energy.
You would think you would just point your spacecraft at the other spacecraft and fire your engines, but what this does is increase your kinetic energy for your current orbit, which actually raises your orbit slowing you down, thus you will get further away from your target. If you you turn backwards from your target, and fire your thrusters, you will lost kinetic energy for your current orbit, this will lower your orbit, speeding you up and you will close distance on your target. Except, now you have changed your orbit so you will drift away from your target vertically, even as you close distance horizontally. Thus you have to time everything just right, so your orbit and orbital speed and the orbit and orbital speed of your target, coincide at a certain time the you can match kinetic energy with your target and will be able to rendezvous. Thus to rendezvous in orbit, spacecraft may even fire their engines on the complete opposite side of the planet from where they intend to rendezvous.
The Only Video Needed to Understand Orbital Mechanics - Animations Xplaned on YouTube
Oberth Effect - Wikipedia.
An Actually Intuitive Explanation of the Oberth Effect - OutsidetheAsylum.blog.
Say your spacecraft starts 1 AU away from a planet, on an inertial trajectory that will bring it close to the planet but not hit it. It takes a year to reach periapsis( closest point to the planet ) going faster and faster the whole way( accelerated by gravity of the planet as you move towards it ). Then it takes another year to reach 1 AU again, slowing down the whole time( slowed by the gravity of the planet as you move away from it ).
Now imagine that you burn prograde( in the direction you are moving ) at periapsis( closest point to the planet ). Now you'll be travelling faster as you leave than you were as you came in. This means that gravity has less time to act on you on the way out than it did on the way in. Of course the gravitational field extends all the way out to 1 AU, but if we take just a sub-region of it, like the region within which the acceleration is at least 1 m/s2, you'll spend less time subject to that level of acceleration.
So the Oberth effect is just a consequence of you maximizing the amount of time gravity works on you in the desired direction, and minimizing it in the other direction.
Understanding the Oberth Effect appears to be an important clue to understanding the relationship of momentum and energy around atoms as well. We are not sure how much this has been considered.
Also the motion of the Sun through space around the Galaxy is important as is the helical motion of the planets orbiting the Sun as it moves through Space. Why are the planets not slowly left behind if it takes time for the gravitational field to reach them? The planets are not just orbiting the Sun, the Sun is travelling at an immense speed, orbiting the center of the Milky Way Galaxy in which it resides, thus the planets must be pulled along with the Sun as it travels. However, according to any calculations we do, such additional motion of the Sun, should cause extreme effects on the orbits of the planets, not just leading to eccentricities for the planets furthest away, but even for planets to be left behind in space. It is as if there is another force holding our solar system together, in its more or less flat shape. is similar to the requirement for another force required to hold the galaxy together, to explain the orbital speeds of the most distance stars from the galactic center. We should also note the galaxy too is moving at immense speed through space, orbiting the great attractor. The explanation for these cases is still to be found.
Escape velocity = Space velocity. In order to overcome the gravitation field you need the escape velocity. This is the velocity required to move against the inflow velocity of the space due to gravity. The space as a flowing river analogy. This is calculated by the: Gullstrand-Painleve Metric
The spiral arms of a galaxy are and interesting vortex characteristic in that they are wave-like regions of higher density. The arms of a galaxy do not rotate like you would think. They are not a region of dense stars which rotates, but only a bunching up of stars as the stars rotate around the galaxy. That is the stars which make up the arms of a galaxy are always changing, new stars move into the arms and stars are always moving out of the arms. In a galaxy this wave-like denser region of stars in the spiral arms of a galaxy, is considered due to an external influence on the orbital motion of the stars, causing them to have an elliptical orbit, rather than a true circular orbit. This elliptical orbital motion results in the formation of the spiral arms as a pattern, but is simply due to the elliptical orbit of all the stars themselves, not due to any greater structure of the galaxy itself. Since orbital motion is almost always elliptical, this type of structure likely applies to much more than just galaxies.
Animation of Galaxy Rotation - Wikipedia Galaxy Rotation Wave
While on the subject of galactic rotations we should mention the abnormality in the velocity curve of galactic rotations. Scientist can predict the revolution of stars around the center of the galaxy using gravitational laws. The prediction from this, is that stars further away from the center of the galaxy should revolve much slower than stars closer the the center of the galaxy., simple because the gravitational attraction falls off with the distance. They can create what is called a 'velocity curve' for the galaxy, which charts the revolution speed of the stars relative to their distance from the center of the galaxy.
What they find is these 'velocity curve' diagrams show the velocity of the stars far away from the center of the galaxy do not slow down as predicted by gravitational attraction of the mass within the galaxy. Simply put, it is as if the galaxy rotates as a whole body, rather than as individual stars revolving due to gravitational attraction alone. Thus they have predicted we are just missing or not seeing all the mass within the galaxies and thus proposed the idea of Dark Matter. It is suggested, the Universe has far more Dark Matter then normal matter.
We can discuss the estimates of the total mass in the Universe. Scientists have estimated the critical density is approximately 10E26 kilograms per cubic metre, which is equivalent to about six protons per cubic metre. What this means is that on average, 1 cubic meter of space in the Universe only contains 6 protons. This being an average, of course we find regions where this is much higher, like within a star or planet, but because of the much greater volume of empty space in the Universe, this averages out to this very low value.
We can then take the estimated volume of the observable universe is approximately 4 x 10E80 m3. Using the calculation of Mass as the product of density and volume, we get the critical density as a mind-boggling mass of the Universe of 4 x 10E54 kilograms. This is about 2,000, billion, billion, billion times the mass of our Sun. This value is all matter of all types in the observable universe.
However, depending how exactly you approximate the mass and size of the observable universe you can come to a number which states that only 4.2 x 10E-21% or 0.0000000000000000000042% of the Universe actually contains any matter. If your were to round up this number to 20 decimal places it comes out to zero. This number is so small that we can accurately state that by our calculations, there is no matter in the Universe. That is on first approximation in Physics the Universe has no matter!
While discussing Dark Matter, we should briefly touch on Dark Energy. Scientist have determined through observation of the motion off other stars and galaxies in the Universe, that everything is moving away from each other. That is it has been observationally determined, the Universe is expanding. Einstein introduced a constant in his theory of Relativity, called the cosmological constant, as a means explain why the Universe did not collapse under the force of its own gravity. He later removed this constant, calling it his 'greatest blunder'.
However today, we have had to add the cosmological constant back in and adjust it, to explain that not only is the Universe not collapsing under its own gravity, it seems there is some force causing it to expand. The force causing this expansion has been named "Dark Energy" and it to is unseen and of unknown composition. Like Dark Matter, it seems to be a very high percentage of the total energy in the Universe, for it to be causing the observed expansion.
The existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are still up for debate, but there is no question that our understanding of the motion of galaxies and the Universe is currently incomplete without a better explanation. Currently Dark Matter and Dark Energy fill that requirement.
Vacuum Energy is 10^28 too high of a force to explain the expansion of the Universe. The tendency seems to be rapid expansion. Established physics cannot seem to find the balance between the expansive forces and compressive forces of the Universe. It is as if some force is missing, this is what has been termed "Dark Energy"
Titus-Bode Coincidence and Orbital Mechanics
From: Titus-Bode Rule - SpaceAcademy.net.au.
We can express the Titius-Bode rule by the following mathematical formula:
D(n) = ( 3 x 2n + 4 ) / 10 AU
where n = -infinity, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, .....
The table below compares the actual distances to the planets of the solar system, to three significant figures, along with the distances given by the Titus-Bode series formula:
| Planet | Actual | Formula |
| Mercury | 0.387 | 0.4 |
| Venus | 0.723 | 0.7 |
| Earth | 1.00 | 1.0 |
| Mars | 1.52 | 1.6 |
| ??? | ??? | 2.8 |
| Jupiter | 5.20 | 5.2 |
| Saturn | 9.55 | 10.0 |
| Uranus | 19.2 | 19.6 |
| Neptune | 30.1 | 38.8 |
Astronomers saw there was an anomaly, with the formula predicting that a planet should exist at 2.8 AU, but none had yet been discovered at this location in the Solar System. Note that neither Uranus nor Neptune were known at the time. Uranus was not discovered until 1781, and Neptune not until 1846.
Confident in his formula as an accurate representation of some unknown physical principle, Bode urged that a search be made for a planet at the 2.8 AU distance. The formula was given the status of a "law" when William Herschal discovered Uranus in 1781, and this was reinforced in 1801 when Giuseppe Piazzi of Sicily discovered the first asteroid Ceres, which happened to have a mean solar distance of 2.8 AU. Thus today we know there is an asteroid belt orbiting the Sun at 2.8 AU, rather than a planet, but it confirmed there was something to Bode's rule.
Unfortunately, the rule appears to breakdown at greater distances. The error between the formula prediction for Neptune was quite large. And for Pluto it is enormous. Despite many years of investigation, no explanation has been found for any underlying reason that planets should or do follow this formula, and most scientists now regard the Titius-Bode formula as just an interesting near coincidence with reality.
It has even come to the various cosmological and astronomic scientists disregarding entirely any papers even purporting to mention any physical explanation for the Titus-Bode relationship, however some papers are still being published to explain the coincidence.
Indeed, we have even been able to apply the Titus-Bode rule to newly discovered extra-solar systems to discover additional planets around those systems. It is not a direct match for all extra-solar systems, but the ability of this rule to apply to some is certainly interesting.
The following paper suggest the rule occurs due to "the energy balance of a harmonic oscillator in spherical (radial) coordinates", essential the orbits existed prior and the rule causes a concentration of mass at these points due to harmonics between these orbits. Thus this does not seem to provide any explanation as to why the orbits occur where they do, only that once established the rule can apply.
A Physical Interpretation of the Titius-Bode Rule - by Dimitris M. Christodoulou1 and Demosthenes Kazanas
It is also possible to write the Titius series in terms of kilometers rather than astronomical units. We start off with the series 0, 45, 90, 180, 360, 720, ... and then add 60 to each term. This gives us a planetary distance in millions of kilometers, as seen below:
| Planet Name | Actual Distance million km | Calculated million km |
| Mercury | 58 | 60 |
| Venus | 108 | 105 |
| Earth | 150 | 150 |
| Mars | 228 | 240 |
| Asteroids | 390 | 420 |
| Jupiter | 778 | 780 |
| Saturn | 1429 | 1500 |
| Uranus | 2875 | 2940 |
| Neptune | 4505 | 5820 |
It was interesting on exploring this avenue, the latest paper proposed a correlation of the Titus-Bode rule, with the Bertrand Theorem, and this Theorem discusses various combinations of energy and orbital relationships, based on the nature of the attractive force. If we input attractive forces of different geometries we can achieve drastically different types of orbit, such as an inverse linear force, a constant force or funnel potential ( like the strong force ), a spring force, and even higher exponent forces.
For say a force which increases at the 100 power, rather the square, we get an really interesting situation. Near the source the force becomes close to zero, which means there is no force on the orbit so the orbiting mass follows a straight line, but then at some radius away from the source the force becomes very high, causing a sudden change in direction, thus we can get orbits which resemble the path of a mass bouncing around inside a sphere, following a fixed shape. This is what we tend to see in quantum mechanics.
See this video for a more in depth explanation.Bertrand's Theorem and Orbits in any Dimension - Science meets Fiction on Youtube
Lightning
Lightning
We will find in this document, a requirement for a better understanding of lightning. In the context of the entire book it is obvious the redacted, missing element is a lightning strike. Lightning would provide a huge input pulse of electromagnetic energy which seems to be the key to this effect. Further the magnetic field of a lightning strike, circles around the flow of current in the lightning bolt, so this would reinforce or coincide with the circular pattern of magnets.A circular pattern of magnets could produce such a 'swirl in the magnetic sea.' They seem to hint at a connection between magnetic field and overcoming gravity.
Have not we oft considered storing the immense power of a lightning bolt for practical use? A single lightning strike contains on average 10 Gigawatts of power. Occasionally reaching to Terawatts. The voltage can be millions to even billions of volts. The energy from a lightning strike is cable of heating the air briefly to around 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This sudden thermal expansion of the air produces the intense sound of thunder we can hear for many miles/km around a lightning strike.
System have been suggested to store the electrical energy using magnetic capacitors or ways to store the heat from the power of a lightning bolt and then convert this back to more usable levels of power. Thus far we nothing significant has ever been developed to capture the power of lightning.
Magnetic supercapacitors: Charge storage mechanisms, magnetocapacitance, and magnetoelectric phenomena
What is certain, is that lightning posses more than enough energy to produce electromagnetic influences of many orders of magnitude.
Consider this article which shows a connection between Lodestone and Lightning, saying " ..most, if not all, natural lodestones are produced by lightning strikes." Lodestone is more common on high mountain peaks which are more prone to lightning strikes. Magnetism and Magnetite, Lodestones and Lightning - by Andrew A. Sicree. Popular Mineralogy.
Lightning is a very high amperage flow of current, 5000-200,000 amps, capable of producing very strong magnetic fields. A Lightning discharge's electromagnetic fields are similar to a single wire. You can use the right hand rule to show the direction of the magnetic field around a wire, where your thumb point in the direction of the flow of current in the wire and your fingers curl around that current in the direction of the magnetic field.

Magnetic Field Around Lightning
Atmospheric Electricity
There exists around the entire Earth an immense electrostatic field, extending from the surface of the Earth up into space. This space is estimated to have a voltage of over 100 Volts/meter. That is there is a difference in voltage of almost 200 volts between your head and your feet. Of course we do not feel this voltage at all, and thus are mostly unaware it even exists.
According to Richard Feynman, there are two reasons we do not notice this voltage ourselves. The first, is that because we are essentially grounded, our bodies tend to take on the charge of the ground upon which we stand, being the human body is a relatively good conductor of electricity. This prevents any significant buildup of voltage we could detect. The second reason we do not notice this, is the air is a rather poor conductor of electric charge, which prevents a significant amount of this voltage being conducted as a measurable current.
Electricity in the Atmosphere - Feynman Lectures on Physics II 9.1
Feynman points out there was a remarkable discovery that the ionization of the air, increased as we went to higher altitudes contrary to predictions the ionization was caused by radioactive elements in the Earth itself. This discovery led to investigation into cosmic rays, which are assumed to be responsible for the ionization of the upper atmosphere.
Remarkably, Nikola Tesla first proposed this idea of cosmic rays being responsible for this electrical energy in the atmosphere through his research at Colorado Springs with his very sensitive electrical field detector. An idea which many considered absurd at the time and for which Nikola Tesla is not given credit today. Indeed, even the very notion of the atmospheric electricity appears to be considered more a curiosity than anything of important significance to understand things like the unification of fields.
In fact we find there is a total voltage of over 400,000 Volts between the Earths surface and the approximate top of the atmosphere. There is also a slight current which flows, due to ions in the air, of some 10 microAmps per square meter of Earth's surface. If we take this small current, and consider it over the entire combined surface of the Earth, this comes out to 1800 amps. Thus the total power of the electrical energy flowing into the Earth is some 700 MegaWatts, not a small amount at all. Feynman then asks an important question, where does this immense current come from and why is it not immediately dissipated.
What scientists discovered, is it was lightning which charged the Earth and led to the creation of this immense current. The found a diurnal variation in the strength of the atmospheric electric field, which corresponded with the intensity of lightning around the world. They determined that the powerful air currents formed in thunderstorm clouds, carrying conducting water molecules and ionized dust, can generate immense voltages, of upwards of 100 million volts, which will eventually discharge into the Earth as lightning, replenishing the charge of the Earth.
Interestingly, Feynman points out a little question about the bottom of a thundercloud having a region of positive charge where the most rain falls, despite the bottom of the cloud being predominately negative as required for this process to explain the maintenance of atmospheric electricity. Remarkably, it is just the extreme temperature differences and high moisture in the air, which lead to the creation of the thunderstorm, thus its power is thermodynamic.
We should here point out, Viktor Schauberger built devices which were solely powered through this same process of thermodynamic heat exchange, basically building motors capable of producing significant power through a difference in heat. Viktor Schauberger essentially created a controlled tornado in a machine, capable of generating significant power, which we discuss here: Viktor Schauberger's Vortex Energy
We find in Feynman's explanation, that lightning is considered responsible for charging the atmospheric electricity, and the lightnings power comes from the motion of air and water in thunderstorms, but he points out there is no exact theory as to how the charge separation and immense and quick buildup of charge actually occurs in a thunder cloud. There are numerous theories, about ion movement and charge separation and the dipole nature of water and so on, but no theory has adequately explained all the features of the production of the power of lightning.
Another interesting and curious aspect of lightning not fully understood, is the "stepped leader". When lightning is about to strike a stepped leader forms, "It goes only about 50 meters and stops. It pauses for about 50 microseconds, and then takes another step. It pauses again and then goes another step, and so on. It moves in a series of steps toward the ground,... - Richard Feynman. Only once the stepped leader makes contact with the ground, does the high current, bright return stroke occur, which normally repeats a few times down the same path in rapid succession before ending.
We have some ideas of how lightning occurs, what is does, and investigate it immensely, but many mysteries and questions yet remain.
Telluric Currents
Also a very related, interesting yet wholly underrated avenue of study is that of Telluric currents, or currents of electricity in the ground or ocean of the Earth. We would find this very interesting if we intended to distribute electrical energy through the Earth, or possibly even some means to tap into this energy.
Wikipedia points out there are 32 different methods proposed as explanation for the Telluric currents, but the primary mechanism appears to be geomagnetic due to changes in Earths magnetic field from solar wind. The Telluric currents are detected simply by placing electrodes at various locations on the Earth's surface and measuring the potential difference between them. It is found these currents can have diurnal variations similar to lightning and atmospheric electricity and are extremely low frequency. The currents have been detected deep within the Earth as well. Measurement of Telluric currents and induced currents in the Earth, have been used for geologic and mining exploration for resources in the Earths crust.
We would here point out we elsewhere discuss Nikola Tesla's plan to distribute electricity world wide through the Earth as a Telluric current and his discovery that such currents already existed. You can read more about this discovery here: Nikola Tesla and the Wheelwork's of Nature
James Clerk Maxwell and Electromagnetic Fields
James Clerk Maxwell and Electromagnetic Fields
James Clerk Maxwell unified all our concepts of electric fields, magnetic fields and how those fields intereact into one complete set of equations. Maxwell's original theory was published as:
"A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" by James Clerk Maxwell, Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. The paper was orally read Dec. 8, 1864.
Oliver Heaviside later took the complicated components of quaternion calculations and applied the new mathematics of vector Calculus to put Maxwell's theory into the format it is today. There are some who are of the opinion, including Heaviside himself, that he lost important aspects of Maxwell's original theory, but the real situation is more complex. In order for Oliver Heaviside to convert Maxwell's theory into the vector Calculus version we know today, he did have to drop certain aspects of the theory, specifically the "magnetic potential" which Maxwell used. Oliver Heaviside speculated that had Maxwell been alive at the time, Maxwell would have agreed with Heaviside's decision to drop this concept.
Did Maxwell Originally Write His Equations Using Quaternions - hsm.StackExchange.com
The Long Road to Maxwells Equations - Spectrum.ieee.org
Confusion over the term "Maxwell's equations" sometimes arises because it has been used for a set of eight equations that appeared in Part III of Maxwell's 1865 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, entitled "General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field",[12] and this confusion is compounded by the writing of six of those eight equations as three separate equations (one for each of the Cartesian axes), resulting in twenty equations and twenty unknowns.
How do we go from 8 equations down to the commonly referenced 4 equations?
- Law of total currents (J needs to include the dD/dt term)
- Magnetic force is the curl of magnetic potential
- Ampere's law (curl of H = J)
- Roughly, Lortentz force: E = v x B - dA/dt - grad phi
- Definition relating E and D
- Ohm's law V = IR
- Gauss' law div D = rho
- Continuity for J: divergence of J = 0
We can combine 1 and 3, to get { curl H = J + dD/dt )
We can drop magnetic potential
We can drop 5, and just consistently use E or D
We can drop Ohm's law, because it's a different thing
Which gets you down to the "core" four.
Thus, in physics today, we summarize Maxwell's theory as four equations. All electromagnetic fields can be mathematically explained with his four formula. They basically say the following:
- Electric fields start on a charge and extend into space, or to another charge.
- Magnetic fields are continuous and always have a north and south pole.
- A changing electric field creates a magnetic field.
- A changing magnetic field creates an electric field.
"Let it not be forgotten that Maxwell's theory is only the first step towards a full theory of the aether; and, moreover, that no theory of the aether can be complete that does not fully account for the omnipresent force of gravitation." - Oliver Heaviside, 1893. We discuss the ether elsewhere in this document, here: The Ether.

This table of electromagnetic interactions represents most of the common forces and effects due to electric and magnetic fields. The forces associated with these fields are of most interest. The unique fields produced by a toroidial coil and the electromagnetic fields of light are of interest. We have pointed out one specific configuration of electromagnetic fields which is of interest in this discussion, where the electric and magnetic field both rotate in the same plane, yet are ninety degree's out of phase. Such a specific configuration produces a strong dynamic/force component with little external electromagnetic radiation. This specific case of electromagnetic field interaction is an important case to understanding the role electromagnetism plays in the Universe.
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
The electromagnetic Spectrum
The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum encompasses likely an infinite band of frequencies and wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. The light we see with our eyes, infrared energy of heat, ultraviolet radiation causing sunburn, to radio waves we use for communication, microwaves we use for cooking down very high energy x-rays and gamma rays. All these various forms of energy and light falls within the electromagnetic spectrum.

Image Detailing the Electromagnetic Spectrum
The first image below represents the electromagnetic spectrum of the sun, showing what the sun would look like if different wavelengths of radiation were visible to the human eye. The second image shows a detailed portion of the radio band of the electromagnetic spectrum, to give an idea of the sheer number of different wavelengths existing in a small region of the spectrum.


The scope and divisions of the EM spectrum are evident from these pictures. Light is an electromagnetic wave. All electromagnetic radiation ( light included ) consists of electromagnetic waves commonly represented by the following graphic:

Where the red "E" lines represent the plane of the electric wave travelling through spacer and the blue "B" lines represent the plane of the magnetic wave travelling through space. (Note however this website colors all electrical fields as blue and all magnetic fields as red, with resulting Lorentz force in green )
The wave travels in the direction of the "x" axis in this diagram.

This simple animation demonstrates how an electromagnetic wave is thought to travel through space. The red lines represent the magnetic field lines which exist 90 degrees from the electric field lines in blue. Both the electric and magnetic field lines are 90 degrees from the direction of travel of the wave.
Links explaing electromagnetic waves.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwavecon.html#c1
The Below is from: Energy Carried by Electromagnetic Waves - Phys.Libretexts.org from their University Physics course
Electromagnetic waves bring energy into a system by virtue of their electric and magnetic fields. These fields can exert forces and move charges in the system and, thus, do work on them. However, there is energy in an electromagnetic wave itself, whether it is absorbed or not. Once created, the fields carry energy away from a source. If some energy is later absorbed, the field strengths are diminished and anything left travels on.
Clearly, the larger the strength of the electric and magnetic fields, the more work they can do and the greater the energy the electromagnetic wave carries. In electromagnetic waves, the amplitude is the maximum field strength of the electric and magnetic fields (Figure 16.4.1
). The wave energy is determined by the wave amplitude.

Figure 16.4.1
The amplitude of the electric field E is related to the amplitude of the magnetic field B by a factor of c (the speed of light), as in E=cB. The magnetic field component of an electromagnetic field is so tiny that it's not shown in 2-D. You would think then we would be incorrect to show the scale of the electric field and magnetic field to be the same, but this is still valid because the expression E=cB=(1/√ϵ0μ0)B shows that the magnetic energy density uB and electric energy density uE are equal. So despite the magnetic field component being tiny, it carries the same energy density as the electric field, so we can show them at the same scale.
The equality of the electric and magnetic energy densities leads to
u(x,t)=ϵ0E^2=B^2/μ0
The energy density moves with the electric and magnetic fields in a similar manner to the waves themselves.
More generally, the flux of energy through any surface also depends on the orientation of the surface. To take the direction into account, we introduce a vector S, called the Poynting vector, with the following definition:
Vector S = 1/μ0 x Vector E x Vector M (16.4.7)
Because the frequency of visible light is very high, of the order of 10^14 Hz, the energy flux for visible light through any area is an extremely rapidly varying quantity. Most measuring devices, including our eyes, detect only an average over many cycles. The time average of the energy flux is the intensity I of the electromagnetic wave and is the power per unit area.

Speed of Light Related to the Permeability and Permittivity of Free Space According to Maxwell's Formula
Electromagnetic Fields come from Moving Charges
We can greatly simplify our understanding of electromagnetic energy, by realizing that all electromagnetic energy exists entirely due to the velocity and acceleration of charged particles. It is the motion or change of motion of charged particles which create electromagnetic energy and we can only detect electromagnetic energy by its conversion back to motion or change of motion of charge particles.
Cosmic Rays
What are Cosmic Rays? - Space.com
Bandwidth
It is important to consider the concepts of transmission of information especially in regards to bandwidth. There seems to be a relationship between the maximum amount of information which can be carried by certain frequencies which is not often discussed it terms of transmission of electromagnetic energy and gravity. Although there is a connection here. As a region of space/time experiences a relative difference in the time from two different frames of reference, how information is exchanged between those two frames of reference must change according to formula of bandwidth. If the frequency of light changes due to changing velocity, then the bandwidth available for that region changes as well.
Bandwidth limitations for the transfer of data. Voice requires about 2800 Hz of bandwidth, music requires about 20 KHz and video and sound requires about 6 MHz. Could we consider there to be a bandwidth for reality?
Interestingly, a single tone cannot be used to send information. two tones, slight different from each other, produce a beat note( a rise and fall in amplitude( loudness ) at the difference between the two tones. 1000Hz tone + 1001Hz tone, produces a 1Hz beat frequency. We can use this concept to send information, and if we want to send pulses, as we do with digital information, then we run into a simple equation to define a limitation. For a given range of frequencies times a given range of time for the information must equal 1. So for shorter and shorter timing of the information, we need a broader and broader range of frequencies to transmit that information.
The shortest pulse you can transmit with an optical fibre is about a femto second, 10^-15. At this speed, the pulse would almost be a full spectrum between blue and red and any shorter and it would go into the non-visible range and not be capable of being carried by an optical range fibre. This works out to a rough limit of a terabyte per hundredths of a second.
Producing Electromagnetic Waves
Producing Electromagnetic Waves
We are well aware of the various natural forms of electricity and magnetism, but we know too we can create electromagnetic waves and energy at will for our technical purposes. We use electromagnetic waves, like radio waves and microwaves for communication, sending videos, audio, phone calls, text messages, as well as television and radio. We use microwaves to heat our food, we use these waves for world wide satellite communication. How do we produce these electromagnetic waves?
There are two important components required for the production of electromagnetic waves, a capacitance for which we use components called capacitors and an inductance for which we use components called inductors.Let us quickly review a few concepts related to electricity, before we proceed to explain capacitors and inductors.
Voltage, Current and Resistance
There are three terms used often when discussing electric fields, electricity or the movement of electric charge. We will use a simple water analogy to give a better grasp of what these terms are referring too.
Voltage is like water pressure. Current is like how much water is actually flowing. Resistance is a restriction to the flow of water. With electricity there is a formula know as Ohm's law which relates these three quantities to each other. Ohm's law is simply:
Voltage equals Current times Resistance. V = IR
We can think of this relationship using our water analogy. If you have a garden hose turned on, a certain amount of water will flow out in an arc. The distance it can flow is related to the voltage, the amount of water flowing out is the current, and the size of the hose or hole out of which the water comes is like the resistance.
If we put our thumb or a nozzle on the hose, which restricts the flow of the water, we are putting resistance on the flow of water. By Ohm's law this causes an increase in Voltage, if the amount of water trying to flow( the current ) remains the same. Thus when you reduce the size of the hole the water has to come out of, its pressure increases and you can squirt or shoot the water much further.
We can think of a few examples to explain the voltage and current of electrical power.
- Low Voltage - Low Current : This would be like a drip from a tap, very low pressure of the water and a very small amount of water is flowing.
- High Voltage - Low Current : A good example of this would be a squirt gun. You can shoot the water at high pressure a long distance, but there is not very much water so you wouldn't get very wet.
- Low Voltage - High Current : A large flowing river would be a good example of this. There is a large amount of water flowing, with great power, but it is flowing very slowly and you could walk across it.
- High Voltage - High Current : A good example of this would be a large water fall. You have a large amount of water, falling under immense pressure. A fire hose would be another good example. Both would impact you with a great deal of force if you got in the way of the water.
Another important characteristic of electricity is whether it flows in one direction continuously, like a river or water in a pipe, or whether the flow oscillated back and forth, or flows in pulses. A continuous flow in one direction, is called Direct Current. We could have water which pushes forward, then is pulled backward, then pushes forward again, then pulls backward again. This type of electrical current would be called Alternating Current. This is the form most electrical distribution takes, and this alternating current or oscillating electricity does this back and forth change at a certain rate, measured in Hertz or cycles per second.
The Alternating current in your home usually alternates at either 50 or 60 HZ, or it pushes back and forth 60 times in one second. The last type of electrical current flow, is called Direct Current Pulsed. Direct Current Pulse, is where the flow surges forward in one direction, just for an instant but then stops, then surges again, then stops. This form has a frequency or cycle depending on how many times per second these surges or pulses happen. Thus direct current pulses have features of both direct current and alternating current.
Capacitors
A capacitor is a component which can store an electric charge or electrical potential, measured in Voltage. A capacitor is a very simple component, composed of some thin layer of insulating material, called the dielectric, sandwiched or in between two metal or foil electrodes. A wire or connection can be made to the two metal electrodes. Because the electrodes are separated by an insulator, the dielectric, normal direct current electricity cannot pass through a capacitor. However, the capacitor will increase in voltage.
An early capacitor, called a condenser or Leyden jar, was simply a glass jar with the inside and outside coated with a thin layer of metal. The glass acted as the dielectric, and the inside of the jar was one electrode and the outside the other. Many modern capacitors are made with a flexible insulator and metal foil, which can then be rolled into a cylinder shape, making the capacitor more compact.
When a voltage is applied to a capacitor, it will store up the voltage and hold it, even if the power is removed. You could think of a capacitor sort of like a bathtub, it fills up with water when water flows into it, but when the water stops flowing the bathtub just holds all the water. Then when you open the drain, the water can flow out again.
It is important to note, when a capacitor is charged by a voltage. All the electric field is contained entirely within the capacitor. Capacitors can be made very efficient at storing electric charge. The amount of charge they can store depends upon their size, the area of the dielectric between the electrodes and the distance between the electrodes or thickness of the dielectric between the electrodes. Large capacitors can store a large amount of electrical potential, whereas very small capacitors can only store a small amount.
Large, high voltage capacitors, like those found inside an old television or microwave oven can store a deadly amount of electrical power, even after the power is turned off from such devices, making them very dangerous. Care must be taken to discharge the capacitors, before working on such devices.
Inductors
Whereas a capacitor can store electric charge or electric potential, an inductor stores or holds a current and produces a magnetic field. An inductor is simple a coil of wire, sometimes wound around a Ferrite core, which produces a magnetic field when electrical current flows through it. At first the coil resists the flow of current, as the magnetic field builds to a maximum. When the current is stopped or removed, the inductor will try to maintain the flow of the current, as the magnetic field collapses.
Thus an inductor cannot hold a current for a long period of time, but it does try to maintain the flow of current and it does produce a magnetic field, which are useful properties in electronics which we will discuss.
Other Electronic Components
You can learn about other electronic components and even make your own circuits by doing simple research online. It is beyond the scope of this document to give a full grasp of electronics, but many concepts are discussed and mentioned. Here we will just give a brief overview of some of the most common electronic components and their use.
- Capacitor - stores or filters voltage
- Inductor - stores or filters a current
- Resistor - resists the flow of current
- Diode - allows current to flow in one direction only
- Transformer - used to increase or decrease alternating current or voltage
- Switch - disconnects the flow of current
- Battery or Power Source - provides the current to power the circuit
- Load - something which uses the power from a circuit
- Ground - a common connection in a circuit or a connection to an Earth Ground
- Integrated Circuit - an electronic chip containing many small components which can perform complex functions
- Transistor - a device to amplify or control a current, based on another smaller current
A Simple Radio Circuit to Produce Electromagnetic Waves
A simple radio circuit is capable of producing electromagnetic waves, at radio frequencies. These frequencies are between about 20,000 cycles per second ( 20 KHz ) up to 300,000,000 cycles per second ( 300 GHz ). This range includes microwave frequencies and ends where the electromagnetic waves known as infrared waves begin.

A Radio Circuit
In radio there exists what is termed the "tank circuit" or the "capacitive/inductive" tank." This part of the circuit consists of basically two components, a capacitor and an inductor. In most cases there is also a third component, the resistance but we are only going to focus on the capacitance and inductance in this brief explanation.
The capacitance stores and releases the electrical field component while the inductance stores and releases the magnetic field component.
An antenna is simply connected to one side of the capacitor/inductor and the ground is connected to the opposite side of the capacitor/inductor. As electrical oscillation occurs from one side of the capacitor to the other an electrical oscillation is set up in the antenna. As this electrical oscillation travels first one way through the inductor and then the other way, a magnetic field oscillation occurs. The magnetic field of the inductor contributes to the continued oscillation within the tank by maintaining the flow of current. In most radio transmitters this circuit can be energized by an input of oscillations of similar frequency.
It works in the following manner. The electric charge is stored in the capacitance and initializes current flow into the inductor as the charge attempts to neutralize in the capacitance. Once the current reaches its maximum the capacitance is now uncharged and the magnetic field is at maximum. As the magnetic field collapses it recharges the capacitance through its desire to maintain current flow until the capacitor is recharged with the opposite polarity. Once the magnetic field completely collapses the capacitor has reached its maximum charge. The cycle then repeats in the opposite direction causing an alternating electromagnetic field in the antenna. This oscillation can be maintained through the introduction of a resonant signal which has greater power than the losses of the system.
Since power transfer is at a maximum to this system only when the input power frequency is the same as the natural harmonic of the tank, a tank can be tuned to a selective frequency. By adjusting the tuning of the tank circuit, selective frequencies can be tuned in. Only a frequency which matches, or resonates, with the natural frequency of the capacitor/inductor circuit, will increase the power in the circuit. Thus we can receive that specific frequency, as it is the only one which increases the power in the circuit, which can be detected and the signal filtered out. In radio systems this signal is used to carry some sort of information and the reception or transmission of the electromagnetic energy is used to communicate that information over long distances.

The Radio Oscillator Circuit Formula
Microwave ovens and Microwave communication use a more complex device called a "Magnetron" to produce the high frequency microwaves. A capacitor and inductor would become too small to produce microwaves. Thus a special copper chamber is used, in which the electrons of the electricity themselves are made to revolve in circles, around a magnetic field, to get the desired frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

A Microwave Oven Magnetron
Principles of Electromagnetodynamics
Principles of Electromagnetodynamics
These electromagnetodynamic diagrams show the relative relationship of the forces at work surrounding electromagnetic fields. We try to maintain a convention on this site and will always show the electric field in blue, the magnetic field in red, and the resultant force in green. The principle at work here is the Lenz Law or Lorentz force. In all cases where an electric field exists perpendicular to a magnetic field there will be an associated force which is itself perpendicular to both the electric field and the magnetic field. This principle was first discovered by Michael Faraday.
The principles defined here are the means by which all electric motors and electrical generators work today. They are in a very real sense, the foundation upon which our modern electrical civilization has been built. Our civilization has progressed because we have greatly advanced and expanded on how these principles are applied and developed this technology to a great degree.
Lorentz Derivation of Lorentz Force - physics.stackexchange.com
Careful re-examination of Mr. Faraday's Simple Mercury Motor leads to a more generalized expression of the Lorentz force.


Faraday's Simple Mercury Motor Experiment
Link to a modern replication of Faraday's Simple Mercury Motor
Electromagnetodynamic Force

The Motor Generator Principle

Electromagnetic Field of a
Current Carrying Wire
Difference Between AC and DC Generator - geeksforgeeks.org
These three applets concern the generation of AC and DC electricity and the reciprocal of generation, Lenz's law which is how motors are driven with electricity.
Direct Current Generator
Alternating Current Generator
Lenz's Law ( Motor Rule )
Sci-toys.com
Understand electromagnetic theory instantly with these simple to build, hands on examples! Easily build a motor, an ion motor, a railgun, and other cool devices in just a few minutes. Don't just read about it, try it and see these principles work for yourself!
Electric Motor Principles - Electric Motor Principles from the University of Sydney.
Besides these common applications of generation and motive power from electricity ( which exist in everything from an electric toothbrush to a portable RV electrical generator, there are many more unusual applications of the motor principle, or Lenz's law. By examining some of the most complex uses of electromagnetism for motors and pumps, some very unusual and counter-intuitive applications of electromagnetic fields and their resulting forces.

Motor/Generator Principle
We can ask, "Explain why Fb = qv x B?" or more specifically, "Why is the force on a moving charge perpendicular to the electric field and perpendicular to the magnetic field?"
The solution, as defined within the context of this entire discussion, is because the force is a different component of electromagnetic energy. The Lorentz force is very much related to the concept of the Poynting Vector which defines how electromagnetic fields transfer energy. The energy is always transferred in the direction of propagation of the wave, yet the wave itself oscillates transversely or perpendicular to the direction of velocity.
The force is due to the direction of the transfer of energy, the transfer of the momentum of the electromagnetic wave, not due to the oscillation direction of the electric or magnetic fields themselves. The understanding of this concept, leads to a much simpler understanding of what electromagnetic fields really are and how they transfer momentum and acceleration or charged masses.
To clarify this explanation, just remember from our precious discussion on electromagnetic fields, It is the motion or change of motion of charged particles which create electromagnetic energy. The actual motion of the charges, creates electromagnetic fields which are perpendicular to that motion. The motion itself, is always perpendicular to the electromagnetic fields related to that motion. The charged particle may move back and forth in one direction, but this causes a change in electric field in a direction perpendicular to that motion. The magnetic field created by this motion and the electric field, will thus be perpendicular to both of these.
Visualize this relationship like this. If a particle moves back and forth, lets say up and down, the force it experiences, its change in momentum is in this same direction, up and down. However, the change in charge is seen from a different perspective, we see the charge move up and down, but this causes a wave which propagates right to left. So to the magnetic field oscillation, propagates then, front to back. The motion of the charge, causes waves in the electric and magnetic field, which move away in a different direction than the motion of the charge itself.
In the following animation, notice the particles are merely oscillating up and down, but this motion results in the appearance of a wave, which moves right to left. Thus the motion of the particle, is perpendicular to the resulting wave motion.

Transverse Electrical Wave
Magnetohydrodynamics
Magnetohydrodynamics

Creative Engineers Image
Flat Linear Induction Pump for Molten Aluminum
Magnetohydrodynamics is a field of electromagnetic pumping which uses the Lenz law and Lorentz Force to pump liquids using only an electromagnetic field. Although the word "Magnetohydrodynamics" sounds complicated, it is really quite simple. They are using a magnetic field, "Magneto", and a liquid, "Hydro" and their is a pumping motion "Dynamic", hence it is a "Magneto-Hydro-Dynamic" pump.
This unique concept allows magnetohydrodynamics to pump conducting liquids with absolutely
" No Moving Parts "
There is simply a changing electromagnetic field developed through the medium being pumped which will cause it to move.
The most common application of these electromagnetodynamic pumps is in the metal industry where molten metal can be pumped and stirred without contact, right through the walls of the vessel containing the molten metal. Pumps of this type are utilized in nuclear reactors where liquid sodium is pumped through the reactor core for cooling. The high temperature and reactivity of this molten salt would destroy any normal impeller. By pumping right through the walls of the piping the dangerously radioactive salt is isolated from the pumps themselves which is beneficial for safety and maintenance reasons. In fact, the rate of flow of these liquids can be measured without contact with the liquid by applying the reverse of this principle.
It should be stated here that although these Electromagnetodynamic pumps and propulsion methods work and their concepts possess very desirable characteristics for use in propulsion, there are considerable problems and new issues to resolve. In most cases magnetohydrodynamics relies on highly conductive media such as molten metal, sea water, or high temperature plasma. There is also the requirement for the production of large, powerful magnetic field, which is normally very heavy and power intensive. On the plus side, electromagnetodynamic action still applies to non-conductors( through the displacement current ), non-magnetic material( with intense enough magnetic fields ) and even in vacuum( as we know vacuum can carry electromagnetic field ).
The links below will introduce the Alternating Current Conduction Pump, which is unusual in it provides a unidirectional force from an alternating electromagnetic field, and some of the other more specialized and complicated magnetohydrodynamic designs, including those for ship and submarine propulsion.
Creative Engineer's Ltd AC Conduction pumps brochure
An excellent description of AC conduction pumps
Link to Creative Engineer's Ltd Homepage
Rex Research Electromagnetic Ship Propulsion Web site
Build your own MHD drive in a few minutes.

Another very simple, homebuilt example of Magnetohydrodynamics.
Popular Science Article on the Yamato A superconducting, magnetohydrodynamically propelled ship.
Popular Science Article called Jet Ships
Optimal Design of Thruster System for Superconducting Electromagnetic Ship Propulsion

A brief Popular Science article about the 1967 Magnetohydrodynamic Submarine called the EMS-1.
Note there are no propulsion intakes nor exhausts, no moving parts and no onboard propellant and no engine. The sub operates as the armature of a motor, the seawater as a stator.

Another image of the EMS-1, Electromagnetic Submarine
Here is the only video I could find of this electromagnetic submarine, developed by the University of California in Santa Barbara. EMS-1 Electromagnetic Test Video
Time Magazine article, Run Silent, Run Electromagnetic.
Discusses the EMS-1 Electromagnetic Field Propulsion Submarine. A silent propulsion system with no moving parts, no intakes or exhausts, no onboard propellant and no engine.
Quite Electric DriveDiscusses the existence of a top secret US Navy propulsion system, likely related to electromagnetic field propulsion. Thus research continued and this system likely represents a perfected form of the MHD thruster.
Types of Electromagnetic Pumps
Types of Electromagnetic Pumps
Diagrams from,"The Handbook of Electromagnetic Pump Technology",by Richard S. Baker and Manuel J. Tessier.Elsevier. New York. Amsterdam. London.
These are the five most commonly used electromagnetic pumps as explained in detail from researches being done at the "Energy Technology Engineering Center", while under the operation of Rockwell International in Canoga, California. Of particular interest to the discussion here is the AC conduction pump.
The ability of this alternate current powered electromagnetic pump to create a unidirectional flow in a medium without any rectification of the electric or magnetic fields is very interesting for numerous reasons. In fact this particular design could be split into two section and each half would still work although somewhat less efficiently than the design shown.
The helical induction pump was designed for use in nuclear power stations for its ability to pump reactive molten sodium metal without any outside contact. This was important as the molten sodium was being used as a coolant and heat transfer medium in early nuclear reactor designs, so this ability to pump the sodium through the walls of the containment systems was ideal, as the sodium would be in contact with the radioactive nuclear core. This isolation was safer and allowed maintenance of the system without exposing the sodium.
The Types of Electromagnetic Pumps
Alternating Current Conduction Pump
Direct Current Conduction Pump
Annular Linear Induction Pump
One-sided Flat Linear Induction Pump
Helical Induction Pump
Helical Rotor Induction Pump
Electromagnetodynamic Cosmology
Electromagnetodynamic Cosmology
To grasp electromagnetodynamics, the only thing you need to learn is the Right Hand Rule for the Lorentz Force. All electromagnetic propulsion, generators and motors rely upon this rule to operate. The right hand rule applies to all volumes of Space/Time, including the Earth, the Sun, Galaxies and further into the Universe. You can use the right hand rule to show the Lorentz force as the cause of the Earth's rotation, which you can see for yourself. This concept applies to your motion on the Earth at this very moment in time.

The Right Hand Rule
Magnetic Field direction
You can see for yourself the direction of the magnetic field acting on your body right now, with a simple magnetic compass, and you will find the magnetic field acts in the North/South direction.
Electric Field direction
There is a large electrical field acting in the vertical or Up/Down direction, from the surface of the Earth into space. This electrical field in the vertical direction is as atmospheric electricity. Lightning is considered responsible for this electrical potential around the Earth.
Lorentz Force direction
Knowing the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of the electric field acting upon you, we can use the Right Hand Rule to predict the direction of the Lorentz Force. The right hand rule predicts the force will be in the East/West direction, which is the direction in which the Earth rotates.
Using the Right Hand Rule, we can see the fundamental forces at work which define the space you sit in right now.
The only thing confusing about the Right Hand Rule is there are a few different explanations of it online. Sometimes it is called Fleming's Left Hand Rule, and there is another right hand rule for showing the direction of a magnetic field around a current, which is a little different.
Basically, the right hand rule is a way to show the relationship of forces in three different dimensions, x/y/z or Up/down Left/Right Front/Back, by pointing the digits of your hand in three different directions. The Lorentz equation states there is a specific relationship between these three forces, which always act according to this rule. They sometimes call this crossed fields or BxB or ExB or ExE where B represents the magnetic field and E or I(current) represents the electric field. The force is usually an F or v for force or velocity.
If you can use the Right Hand Rule and understand what it represents, then you have a fundamental understanding of Electromagnetodynamics. The science of electromagnetodynamics is a vast field of research encompassing many aspects of the Universe in which we live.
Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén
"A very few lonely pioneers make their way to high places never before visited . . . they create the living conditions of mankind and the majority are living on their work." — Kristian Birkeland
Kristian Birkeland is most famous for his development of the magnetic Terrella ( Latin for little Earth ) with which he was able to demonstrate many plasma phenomena on a small scale in his lab. Kristian Birkeland successfully demonstrated with his Terrella, the Aurora around the Earth were a plasma interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. Kristian Birkeland further proposed the idea of vast currents in space, which would interact with each other, forming immense plasma channels and vast electric circuits through space. He noticed there was a tendency for plasma channels to twist together due to their similar magnetic field directions, causing them to form filamentary, helical strings of plasma, rather than just random distributions in space.
"The magnetic globe was then made the cathode in the vacuum-box, and experiments were carried on under these conditions for many years. It was in this way that there gradually appeared experimental analogies to various cosmic phenomena, such as zodiacal light, Saturn's rings, sun-spots and spiral nebulae." - Kristian Birkland
Kristian Birkeland - from Wikipedia
Terrella - from Wikipedia


A Terrella and the real Aurora on various planets.
We can readily reproduce the Birkeland currents in any plasma globe or device, as we see the currents follow specific paths and are not just a diffuse glow. We can also see the effect, simply by passing current through two wires suspended vertically, their ends suspended in a conducting liquid so the hanging wires are free to move and twist together when current flows through them. We see through this effect, that not only are the magnetic fields attracting the wires together, there is also a angular or rotational character to the fields, causing them to take on this helical form.

Birkeland Currents


Filamentary structure in the Veil Nebula
Contrary to online misinformation, astronomers do recognize vast magnetic fields and currents flowing through long distances through space. They have recently determined there is a magnetic field in the filament or bridge between the Large Magellanic cloud and the Small Magellanic cloud, which spans an immense distance.
"Not only are entire galaxies magnetic, but the faint delicate threads joining galaxies are magnetic, too"
"Everywhere we look in the sky, we find magnetism." - Bryan Gaensler from the University of Toronto.
Detection of a Coherent Magnetic Field in the Magellanic Bridge through Faraday Rotation - J. F. Kaczmarek, C. R. Purcell, B. M. Gaensler, N. M. McClure-Griffiths, J. Stevens
Hannes Alfvén is a noble prize winner for his work on Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma physics. He proposed the current explanation we have for the Aurora and did extensive investigations of the Earth's magnetic field, the Van Allen Radiation belts, the effect of the Sun on the Magnetosphere and cosmic plasma dynamics. He proposed the idea of Alfvén waves, which are waves of plasma along magnetic field lines, which have been used to solve various cosmological problems.
Hannes Alfvén - from Wikipedia
In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure. - Hannes Alfvén

Hannes Alfvén's Heliospheric Current Circuit of the Solar System
Of interest is the work of Hannes Alfvén lead to the discovery of Magnetoacoustic or Magnetosonic waves, which in turn led to the development of the sciences of coronal seismology or the study of the seismology of the Sun from Earth through observations of the plasma effects from its surface. We elsewhere discuss the ideas of solar seismology and the concept of a sound from the Sun. There is a clear relationship between electric fields, magnetic fields and acoustic/sonic or pressure waves in the environment in which these waves propagate.
Both the work of Kristian Birkeland and then in turn Hannes Alfvén was criticized by the established scientists of the time, specifically Sydney Chapman "who argued the mainstream view that currents could not cross the vacuum of space". If only Mr. Chapman were alive today to see that established scientist consider electric fields to be able to cross space without any medium whatsoever. Chapman was obviously proven wrong when satellites proved such currents exist in space surrounding planets. There is little doubt such currents exist at all scales in the Universe and we find it puzzling why anyone would question this idea.
Despite the obvious experimental evidence for Birkland's work in being able to reproduce exactly the same effects of aurora and sun spots on a small scale, the Terrella is no longer widely used for the study of these phenomenon. We find similar experimental reproductions in the lab of artificial galaxy like structures and the idea of "plasmoids" or stable forms of "plasma and magnetic fields" a term coined by Winston H. Bostick, again which has been relegated to the realm of pseudoscience despite being to actually demonstrate and reproduce the effects in a laboratory. Our own opinion is a practical demonstration of an effect is worth a hundred times more than any purely mathematical or theoretical work.
The big argument against the existence of such large scale cosmological structures in the Universe seems to be an idea of "charge neutrality" where the division of charge is supposed to cancel and sum over large distances. However, astronomers admit magnetic fields exist across these vast distances, which by association confirms electric currents must exist as well. A magnetic field cannot exist without an associated electric current. We even associate the magnetic field in a permanent magnet as due to atomic electric currents.
We see further evidence for such electromagnetic structure through images of these filamentary structures connecting huge systems in space. Thus despite these objections to the idea, we are not sure how we follow that plasma currents which work at small and medium scales, suddenly stop working at larger scales. They clearly provide significant evidence and a practical explanation for many effects. Further the complete dismissal of the electric universe ideas is very unscientific, as there is clear relevance and evidence for many of the proposals of the theory. We are not saying the electric universe ideas are entirely correct and complete, but then again neither is modern established cosmology entirely correct and complete.
The primary argument against the electric universe idea, is the electric universe proposes the Sun gets its energy from an external electrical circuit with the galaxy, and scientist argue the Sun is clearly nuclear fusion powered. We do not discount the existence of nuclear power as a significant contribution to the output of the Sun, but neither do we discount the Sun as being part of a vast galactic electric circuit which plays some role in its processes. If we truly understood the fusion power of the Sun, we should be able to create stable fusion power sources now in the lab, which we have yet to accomplish, thus clearly some important factor is missing from our understanding of stable solar fusion.
Interesting, although of the utmost importance and relevance to cosmology and an understanding of the Universe the work of both Kristian Birkland and Hannes Alfvén always faced criticism and was considered fringe theory. Little if any reference is made to his work in modern textbooks and physics, despite is obvious relevance and significance. The modern concept of the Electric Universe follows the work of both these individuals and too is considered a fringe theory of little relevance. We are not sure why there is such a effort to discredit work in this field.
Scientists clearly know that electrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics must play a significant if not more powerful role in cosmology than gravity alone, yet continue to berate and dismiss efforts in the field. How puzzling.
Alfvén–Klein cosmology - from Wikipedia
Electricity in Space - Hannes Alfvén
"When I describe [plasma phenomena] according to this formalism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals." - Hannes Alfvén
Winston H. Bostick - from Wikipedia
Other people who are relevant and of interest in the electromagnetodynamic cosmology are Dr. Charles E R Bruce, Ralph E Juergens and Dr Halton Arp.
The Sonic Spectrum
The Sonic Spectrum
Besides the electromagnetic spectrum there is another spectrum of energy which is in need of introduction. The sound, phononic or mechanical vibration spectrum. Unlike the transverse nature of the electromagnetic waves, these sound waves, mechanical or phononic waveforms are longitudinal in nature. Sound waves require some medium, like air, water or even solid materials like metal, mediums which can be compressed to carry the wave energy. Whereas electromagnetic waves are thought to not require a medium.
Presently the sound spectrum covers a relatively small band of frequencies and wavelengths when compared to the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum is considered to extend from extremely long wavelengths of kilometers ( less than 1 Hz )or more to extremely short wavelengths of million, millionths of a meter( a million billion Hz ). The sound spectrum is only spoken of as ranging from Infra-sound which is less than 100Hz to Ultrasound which can be over 1 billion Hz. In most cases, when we talk about a sonic spectrum, or sound spectrum, we are referring to the range of sound which we can hear with our ears. This range of the sound spectrum the human ear can hear, is only between about 20 HZ to 20,000 HZ. Some animals are capable of hearing sounds lower or higher than what is audible to humans. Elephants have been proven to be capable of hearing infrasound over long distances and bats can here sound frequencies in the ultrasound range up to 100,000 HZ.
Since sound is very dear to our senses, we have developed many different ways to produce sound and more importantly we create music. There are certain qualities of music and sound which we would like to further explain.
Octaves in music are a series of 8 notes between two notes when one is double the pitch of the other. In music an octave would be the notes, C D E F G A B C. We can consider an octave, a doubling of frequency or a 2:1 ratio between successive notes or frequencies. An octave is the interval between the 1st and 2nd harmonics of a harmonic series. Musical notes, on progressively higher octaves have a tendency to sound similar even though they are different frequencies and have a harmonic sound when combined.
| Two Octaves of the Note C |
| C3 | C | C5 |
| 131 Hz | 262 Hz | 523 Hz |
The intensity or loudness of a sound, appears to increase as the pitch increases, even for a given volume. This seems to collaborate that higher frequencies carry more energy for a give amplitude.
The Tone or Timbre of a sound is the quality which distinguishes the differing sounds of the same tone when played on different instruments. We can tell the difference between the not C, played on a piano, guitar or flute and tone is the name for these differing sounds. The tone is due to a mixture of other frequencies and differences in the sound produced by specific instruments. Only a synthesizer is capable of generating pure tones.
The Harmonic Series is the range of frequencies which are some whole number multiple of a fundamental frequency. For a fundamental frequency of 1, the harmonics would be:
1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, ... etc.
It is interesting to note the concept of music and musical instruments goes very far back in the history of man. Music and sound has played an important role in society, science and the understanding of waves and their combinations has been developed for centuries. We can even consider there is some deep relevance to the concept called "The Music of the Spheres" wherein the principles of music, like octaves are considered important to formation and function of reality, including the positions of planets and other physical processes.
Indeed, we find the unusual situation of the Titus-Bode formula, capable of calculating the distances of the planets in our solar systems and its fundamental requirement for the doubling of distance plus some additional factor. The additional factor, is required to convert the resulting numbers to the current scale we are trying to use. These numbers in the Titus-Bode formula differ depending whether we are calculating planetary distances using Astronomical Units or Kilometers. Perhaps there is some scale in which we can utilize a pure doubling?
Infrasound and Ultrasound
Infrasound is sound much lower in frequency than the sounds we can normally hear with our ears. The human ear is capable of hearing sound as low as 20 Hz, or 20 cycles per second and up to about 20,000 Hz, but this is not a limit to the sound waves themselves. Sound can go much higher than the ranges the human ear can hear, but at this point can we still call it sound? Sound seems to apply to those frequencies of vibrations we can hear, although scientists do use the terms Infrasound and Ultrasound to denote frequencies of vibration higher and lower than the range humans can hear.
Infrasound - from Wikipedia
Ultrasound - from Wikipedia
It is interesting to note in this Wikipedia article they mention various physiological effects Infrasound can have on the human body, including causing feelings of unease or fear. There are also dangerous health issues from exposure to Infrasound, including damage to organs which shake or resonant with these low, powerful vibrations. There is likely much more research which could be done in the field of Infrasound and Ultrasound, possibly even into even lower ranges and higher ranges than previously explored.
Such extremely low frequency sound waves or extremely high frequency sound waves, even those into the same ranges as light, ultraviolet and x-rays, may not be capable of being propagated by air, but they may exist in other forms in other materials. Indeed, we speculate in this discussion on the existence of a full and complete spectrum of sound or mechanical vibration over the entire spectrum which exists for electromagnetic waves.
Infrasound refers to sound or vibration frequencies below 20 HZ down to about 0.001 Hz. Ultrasound refers to sound or vibration frequencies above 20 KHz up to a few Giga Hz, 10,000,000,000 Hz. We would ask, Do vibrations stop at these frequency ranges between 0.001 HZ and 10 GHz, or is there an even broader range of mechanical vibration frequencies?
Elephant Infrasounds: Long-range Communication - Michael Garstang on ScienceDirect.com
Hail the First Sound Lasers - Scientist create the first Saser or Sound laser.
The Wave/Particle Duality of Electromagnetic Radiation
The Wave/Particle Duality of Electromagnetic Radiation
When scientists first began to understand light, they considered it to be a very tiny, fast particle. Eventually, through experimentation and extensive debate, it was realized that light had properties of a wave. Further experimentation showed that light had both the properties of a wave and the properties of a particle. This is known as the wave/particle duality of electromagnetic radiation. The reason for this duality has never been completely explained and remains a perplexing problem in physics to this day.
Quanta
We often hear of people who consider quantum mechanics to mean, "energy is quantized" but this is considered a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. At present in our theoretical models of particle interactions all the variables are continuous, both space-time and energy momentum. This means they can take any value from the field of real numbers. It is the specific solution of quantum mechanical equations, with given boundary conditions that generates quantization of energy.
The same is true for classical differential equations, as far as frequencies go. Sound frequency can take any value, and its quantization in specific modes depends on the specific problem and its boundary conditions.
There exist limits given by the value of the constants that are used in elementary particle quantum mechanical equations. It is the Planck length and the Planck time and the reciprocal of the Planck time can be interpreted as an upper bound on the frequency of a wave. This follows from the interpretation of the Planck length as a minimal length, and hence a lower bound on the wavelength.
Thus energy is not quantized and we apply quantization primarily to the energy/absorption and radiation of photons from atoms. In reality, photons can take on any frequency/wavelength and are only restricted to specific quanta when they interact with matter. One should not confuse quanta with the particle nature of a photon or think of it as a limit to a photons energy.
- the electron can only have certain energy around an atom, can only occupy certain states
- there is a lowest state in every atom, no electron can occupy anything less than this
- the electron can only jump between these states
- the states can be changed by a magnetic field ( Zeeman effect )
- the states depend somehow on the fine structure constant
In the Universe there could theoretically, be electron energy transition levels which can release photons of increasingly higher and higher energies, up to some frequency approaching infinity, at which point a single emitted photon would have a wavelength approaching 0, and more energy than the total energy in the Universe. We can speculate on if the Universe is indeed some sort of single, immense, infinite energy photon, but this is pure speculation.
We can also consider the reverse situation where we have the frequency of the photon approaching zero, and thus its associate wavelength approaching infinity, which would then be a photon whose size is presumably larger than the entire Universe. We can speculate, perhaps there is some sort of Universe sized wave propagating back and forth between the origin and edge of the Universe, but again this is entirely speculation. It would be interesting to calculate the frequency of a photon which had the entire energy of the Universe or the energy of a photon which was the wavelength of the size of the Universe.
Can we explain how the energy of an electromagnetic wave depends on its amplitude, whereas the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency?
There is a connection here to our discussion of the force field of a photon and the electromagnetic fields and amplitude of which it is composed. There seems to be some change in approach to the physics when discussing electromagnetic field energy and then the energy of a photon, but these two things are not separate. So there is some misinterpretation about why a photon's energy becomes limited to its frequency, rather then the amplitude of the electromagnetic fields of which it is composed.
There does not appear to be a straightforward answer to this question. The obvious answer is the the Poynting Vector determines an average intensity of the energy of the electromagnetic wave and this average energy can be converted to a number of photons of various frequencies which carry that same average energy. Thus the amplitude becomes a number of photons all of a given frequency whose energy added together approximates the average energy at that amplitude.
When we have an antenna, especially in the case of AM radio ( Amplitude Modulated ), then what is occurring is the antenna is said to be either emitting more or less photons as the amplitude modulation. Established physics states all electromagnetic radiation is caused by the relaxation of electrons (and other particles and quasi-particles ) and the emission of photons during this time. Another source of EM radiation does not exist. Therefor every EM radiation consists of photons. EM radiation is a stream of photons.
Introduction to the Physics of Atoms Molecules and Photons - phys.libretexts.org, Quantum Mechanics
What is the relationship between the Poynting Theorem and Reciprocity Theorem - Physics.StackExchange.com
An Interesting Problem of Light Intensity and Photons
In the classical theory of light as a wave, as light propagates its intensity decreases with the square of the distance. Intensity is power over area, as distance increases the area increases at the square of the distance, thus intensity decreases at the square of the distance.
However, in Quantum mechanics, light is composed of photons, so when a source emits light, it emits a fixed number of photons, the photon flux. Thus the photons must spread out as they travel a distance from their source. The same number of photons, becomes spread out, as their distance increases, and the area they must cover increases as the square of that distance. Thus at some far distance it is possible the photons would become so far apart you would find places where there was no light detected anymore, no photons would be seen from that source.
Quantum mechanics solves this problem by suggesting, a photon has a wave function with a spherically shaped, probability distribution. This means that the probability of finding a photon when measuring for it, is the same on any point of the surface of the sphere. Therefore the bigger the sphere, the greater the area, the less probability you will have of finding a photon. Photon flux is defined as the number of photons measured in a point in a period of time, therefore it diminishes proportional to the square of distance to the source. Thus even though the space between photons becomes so great as it should be unlikely to find a photon at every point on the surface of the sphere, you still can as there is always some probability of find one.
This seems though to present a problem. This seems to suggest the photons are particles only when detected, but waves otherwise. This is the wave/particle duality problem of quantum mechanics. Which is it? Quantum mechanics says it is both, until you measure it.
The problem with this is, if photon's are indeed particles, and this is how light is propagated, then there should be regions at great distance, where we can no longer detect a photon, due to the diminished intensity and the very low probability. This seems highly unlikely. We would here predict, there is no possibility of not detecting light at great distance in which the intensity is greatly diminished. That is the light is propagating as a wave front, and the detection of a photon is the detection of a specific characteristic of that wave front, not the detection of a particle.
Light propagates as a wave, a wave which has an energy component which can interact as a particle of specific energy. Thus even at extreme distance and extremely diminished intensity, if one were to attempt to detect the light at that far off point, one would always discover a photon of energy ( E=hf ) for that light, at every point on the wave front. The probability is %100 a photon is detected and the intensity of light is not equivalent to a "photon flux". Although this can work mathematically, a "photon flux" does not represent reality.
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics
This is just some brief interesting concepts from quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is exceedingly complex and we would never profess to be able to cover its concepts sincerely, but we definitely want to touch on the idea of 'hidden variables'. In order to discuss 'hidden variables' we need to cover some fundamental developments and experiments in quantum mechanics.
The Photo-Electric Effect
This effect concerned certain metals emission of electrons when exposed to light. The effect became significant as the forerunner to the ideas of quantum mechanics and put an end to fully wave theories of light. It is mostly due to the discovery of the odd nature of the photoelectric effect, an effect we consider the best evidence for electromagnetic waves to have a quantum, particle nature. The photoelectric effect has these characteristics.
- The Kinetic Energy of the emitted Electrons is independent of the brightness/intensity of the light, but the number of electrons emitted was effected
- The Kinetic Energy of the emitted Electrons is dependent on the Frequency of the light, where increased Frequency caused increased Kinetic energy
- Below a threshold frequency, no electrons would be emitted regardless of intensity
- The duration of the applied light had no effect
This led Einstein to suggest light consisted of 'photons' or particle like packets of energy and thus had particle characteristics. He developed the equation to calculate the energy of a photon which used the newly discovered Plank constant and related the frequency of the photon to its energy.
Ek = hf Where Ek is the kinetic energy of the electron, h is Plank's constant and f is the frequency of the light
Plank Values
The four universal constants that, by definition, have a numeric value 1 when expressed in Plank units are:
- c, the speed of light in vacuum
- G, the gravitational constant
- ħ, the reduced Planck constant
- kB, the Boltzmann constant
Frank-Hertz experiment
The Frank-Hertz experiment was an attempt to disprove the idea's proposed by the Bohr-Sommerfeld paper in 1916, but instead confirmed the reality of Quantum Mechanics. The experiment demonstrated that when electrons were passed through a mercury gas, it was found the electrons lost a specific amount of energy equivalent to a spectrum line of mercury. Classical theory predicted the electrons could have any energy value and would not lose discrete values of energy. This was an attempt to disprove "Bohr's nonsense" or quantum mechanics, but the results supported quantum theory. The electrons did not have just any energy values but id lose discrete values of energy.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment
The Stern-Gerlach experiment used a gradient of magnetic field to deflect the path of silver ions and the results were collected on a plate. Classical predictions were the distribution would be uniform, but quantum theory predicted two distinct lines should occur. The experiment was based on the following concepts, very greatly simplified here.
There was mathematics defining the Quantization of space using three quantities, K=r, K= Φ, K=θ which represented the 3 axis ( for elliptical orbits ). This leads to three principles for those axis, n=principle, k=azimuthal, and m=magnetic and if we have cos alpha = mh/l vector, then we develop a 'quantization of space', which was considered only a mathematical curiosity at the time. Since in a magnetic field the momentum was considered quantized, only two states where predicted by quantum theory, whereas classical theory predicted any momentum was possible.
For for n=1, quantum theory predicted spin up and spin down, and the third state was unstable, ( this is related to the Zeeman effect as a magnetic field is involved ).
The results supported quantum theory, as two distinct paths were shown on the plate, demonstrating the electron only had two states and the energy was not continuous as predicted by classical theory.
Magneton
mu = IA where I ( current ) = charge/orbital period, A = area
Pauli developed Bohr's magneton
mu B = eh / 2me
This formula became important for the Stern-Gerlach experiment
The Ultraviolet Catastrophe
This problem is given as one of the failures of classical theory requiring the introduction of quantum mechanics to resolve. For Blackbody radiation, the energy released increases as you go into higher and higher frequencies, so we would expect energy output from Blackbody radiation to increase to infinity as the frequency of the emitted radiation approached ultraviolet frequencies. This does not happen in reality though, so there must be something preventing the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. Because it was determined energy can only be emitted in quanta this was used to explain the detected energy curve emitted by Blackbody radiation and is used as evidence why classical theory had to become quantized.
It was determined the probability of an oscillator to emit energy of a high amount, as a single high frequency photon, was much lower than for many smaller energy, lower frequency photons to be emitted. This was how the quantization of electromagnetic radiations solves the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. There seems to be a deeper implication or meaning behind this, for what mechanism causes this probability to exist?
Quantum Spin
Quantum spin is a state, not a physical spin. Thus according to established physics, although they use this idea of a "Spin State" and find correlation to its existence in experimentation, they would say it is not real and there is no understanding of what quantum spin actually represents in reality. The "Spin State" is a mathematical representation of various states and how much rotation is required to return to a specific state. This led to concepts like Spinors. There are animations of things like spin one half online, but these animations are not necessarily representative of the reality of what a spin state is.
- Photon is spin 1, light is polarized, alternating magnetic field
- Speculated Higgs is spin 0
- Gravity is spin 2, like a rectangle shape spun
- Electron, Proton and Neutron are spin 1/2, or Plank's reduced constant over two
Belt Trick - Jason Hise on YouTube
Belts attaching a spinning cube to the environment do not become tangled or twisted up as the cube continues to rotate. The cube must rotate a full 720 degrees before the belts end up back where they started.
We see in the following video, how angular momentum of spinning bodies can produce very odd effects. Despite scientists claims the "quantum spin" states have no physical representation, there clearly must be something physical going on to produce the behaviour being modelled by the mathematics for the quantum spin states. If these quantum spin states have no physical representation, then we must assume they are purely a mathematical convenience which although useful to predict experimental behavior, tells us nothing of the reality which exists to cause these results. The ideas of quantum spin point out a major problem with quantum mechanics.
These quantum spin states, must have some representation in reality, contrary to what physicist say. If their mathematics is so convoluted and complex they can do longer give an example of this quantum spin behavior in reality, then it obviously the theories no longer represents the reality which it is supposed to model. The characteristics of quantum spin are attempting to explain some real experimental results, no? The math is attempting to explain reality is it not? Then how can there be no way to grasp the real situation which quantum spin represents? It is clear the underlying reality of the situation has been entirely lost in the mathematics. Are the physicists really proposing that what exists in reality can only be represents by complex math which has no real interpretation? The stance of quantum mechanic physicists has been, no one really understands why quantum mechanics behaves this way or what it represents in reality, but it is useful for predicting the outcome from experiments. This is a ludicrous stance to take showing a deep, underlying problem within quantum mechanics. We see clearly why Albert Einstein felt that, quantum mechanics would be left behind at some point.
Perhaps this quantum spin can represent similar situations to the odd physical states spinning bodies can take in reality. However, rather than purely physical mass in rotation, within an atomic system the fields play a very significant role, so the result could be slightly different than the purely physical case.
We give this video example of the Dzhanibekov Effect, where due to a slight imbalance in the mass of an object in rotation, we find the spinning object in zero gravity will oscillate between two different states of rotation.
Dancing T-handle in zero-g, HD - Plasma Ben on YouTube
Albert Einstein and Wander Johannes de Haas experiments.
Einstein and de Haas published two papers in April 1915 containing a description of the expected effect and the experimental results. In the paper "Experimental proof of the existence of Ampere's molecular currents" they described in details the experimental apparatus and the measurements performed. Their result for the ratio of the angular momentum of the sample to its magnetic moment (the authors called it λ ) was very close (within 3%) to the expected value of 2m/e. It was realized later that their result with the quoted uncertainty of 10% was not consistent with the correct value which is close to m/e. Apparently, the authors underestimated the experimental uncertainties. This was dubbed the the "gyro-magnetic anomaly"
Thus the resulting angular momentum was almost twice what was expected by just the orbital electron magnetic moments alone. It was later determined that the electrons themselves had a magnetic moment due to intrinsic electron spin, which added to the effect. In fact more recent tests have determined, Therefore, in pure iron 96% of the magnetization is provided by the polarization of the electrons' spins, while the remaining 4% is provided by the polarization of their orbital angular momenta. - Reck, R. A.; Fry, D. L. (1969). "Orbital and Spin Magnetization in Fe-Co, Fe-Ni, and Ni-Co". Physical Review. 184 (2): 492–495. Thus a iron permanent magnet, gets its magnetic field almost entirely from the electron spins, not the electron orbits.
This brings up the question as to whether we have the capability, with magnetic resonance devices, to significantly alter not only orbital spins, but the electron spins themselves. What happens if intrinsic electron spin is altered?
Bose-Einstein Condensates
We have proven matter can be combined and act as a single wave function. When super cooled, and all atoms are at the same ground state, they can appear as one single atom.
We can speculate if this process is more pervasive in reality then previously expected and discuss this effect in relation to the existence of the Strong force in the nucleus of the atom and the 'cloud' nature of electrons orbiting the atom.
We can further speculate, this process does occur to some extent at the macroscopic level and could be applied in some fashion to the galaxy rotation problem. Obviously, not directly, but there does seem to be suggested a more general form of this concept of condensates, or a conglomeration of fields to appear as a single larger coherent entity. If the Earth were to collide with another body in space, the collision occurs as if between two objects, not between innumerable smaller objects. We understand the Earth as a singular thing. Thus there is some mechanism for forms to take on more general or condensed appearances, even at the macroscopic level.
There is much more to this concept than we currently realize.
Measurement in Quantum Mechanics
The concept of a measurement in Quantum mechanics is ANY interaction with the environment which can be detected. We consider the definition of measurement to be exceedingly important when considering the 'probability' and 'non-locality' experiments of quantum mechanics. For measuring one state, may preclude the ability to measure another state.
We can consider the possibility a 'particle' is oscillating in time between two completely different states, once you measure one state the other state no longer exists, making it impossible to measure the other state, and vice versa. For example, consider a photon is oscillating between two state, an electromagnetic wave as one state and a mechanical wave of force as the other state. It is not both these states at the same time, but oscillating between them.
If we measure the photon electromagnetically, as a wave, the mechanical state no longer exists as the energy has been extracted as electromagnetic energy. If we measure the state as a particle with the mechanical wave component, then we have taken the energy of the photon as mechanical energy, and thus the electromagnetic energy no longer exists to be measured. By the very nature of it having two states in oscillation, readily explains why only one or the other can be detected.
Further, all measurement involves matter and electromagnetic energy itself. It is entirely possible there could be non-magnetic energy components to matter and photons, which would be exceedingly difficult to detect. We would only see the 'shadow' of such a field in our three dimensional world, and its existence and behaviour would be exceedingly puzzling. There is no question the very concept of measurement must be very rigorously defined in physics or we may be led astray.
Quantum Zeno Effect
The quantum Zeno effect is an interesting postulate related the concept of measurement in quantum mechanics. The basic idea is, since the collapse of the probabilities of a quantum system is due to a measurement of the system, it would be possible to 'force' a quantum system into a specific state using the measurements. Under the precept of the quantum Zeno effect, we could keep a quantum system in a specific state, just be repeatedly observing or measuring it rapidly over and over.
Quantum Jumps
The idea of electrons or energy, jumping from one state to the next, without occupying the states or spaces between these jumps poses a problem in physics. How can something move or change, without occupying any of the intermediate positions or states. This is akin to the planet Earth suddenly jumping to a new orbit. Most physicists just dismiss this as a problem and consider it a philosophical issue at this point, saying it does not really matter how the jump occurs only that it does.
The quantum Zeno effect has been proposed as a solution to this problem, that we cannot measure a 'jump' in any intermediate state, simply because the act of measurement itself, forces the result into the final state. Thus measurement itself is responsible for seeing quantum states occur in discrete jumps.
The more logical proposal, involves the ideas of classical resonance and fundamental vibrational modes and there is a quantum trajectory theory. It is highly likely there is some inherent fundamental property in the Universe, which institutes or limits these "quantum" leaps or discrete jumps.
Venn Light Polarization Problem
We are confronted with a very interesting situation, called the Venn Problem. If we have 2 polarized filters and light is applied, the first filter will only let through light polarized in a single direction. If we then pass this same light through a second polarizing filter which is rotated 90 degrees to the first, the light will be blocked. However, if we then add a third polarizing filter rotated 45 degrees to the second, we will then see some light pass through.
This result is very difficult to explain with any classic understanding of particles and waves, as how can something be blocked by the second filter, then unblocked by a new filter added after the blockage? Quantum Mechanics also has difficulty resolving this result and resorts to some very convoluted explanations and math to propose a resolution.
A single hidden variable resolves this with ease and is likely the Occam's razor solution. Consider the following explanation.
If light has a third property which is unaffected by the polarization filters, so although we consider the visible light to be 'blocked', something is still getting through, then this third property is converted back into electromagnetic light when it encounters the third filter. That is, polarizing filters do not entirely block light, they only block the electromagnetic component of light and a non-electromagnetic third component of the light still passes through all filters. This is a much simpler explanation, but contrary to established physics at this time.
Non-Locality Experiments
Experiments are performed with 'quantum entangled' particles, wherein when the state of one entangled particle is measured, it collapses the state of the other particle to which it is entangled. This happens regardless of distance. The method used a special crystal to split/entangle the photon. Bell's Inequality theorem (dependent on there not being SuperDetermism and no statistical independence) mathematically demonstrates it is very unlikely there is any 'hidden variables' and thus strongly suggests the Universe is Non-Local. That is there is no physical connection between the two entangled particles, they are somehow non-locally interacting.
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox and Bell's Inequality theorem
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox and Bell's Inequality theorem depends on there not being SuperDetermism and no statistical independence. It does not prove there is no free will if Bell's Inequality theorem holds despite many physicists who claim it does and ignore the possibility of SuperDeterminism and statistical independence. Spooky action at a distance is not the correspondence of two states unknown until observation, which the quantum entanglement truly is, but something more physical than that.
In brief the experiment does the following:
By passing particles through a double slit experiment, we see the particles produces an interference pattern, as if they were waves. To explain this quantum mechanics introduced the concept of the "wave function" and explains all particles as "wave functions" represents by Greek symbol psi. However, if we measure which slit the particle goes through at the slit, then the particle loses this wave characteristic, in quantum mechanics this is described as collapsing or reduction of the wave function. If the particle is at both slits, like a wave would have to be for it to produce interference, then collapsing the wave function at one slit, means it must have also collapsed at the other slit some distance away, instantly. This is Einstein's definition of spooky action at a distance.
You can attempt to reconcile this behaviour with the concept of "hidden variables" but these variables would have to account for the behaviour seemly knowing before hand which path it was going to take, before the measurement was even made. That is when the measurement at one slit is made, that particle at the other slit must already be in the state it must be because of the measurement at the other slit, but that measurement may not even have happened yet.
This idea that the path is decided and known before the measurement is even made is what is called, "Super Determinism" and is considered ruled out by Bell's Inequality theorem. Bell's Inequality theorem states the probability of an outcome, which depends on hidden variables, with measurements applied does not equal the probability of an outcome which depends only on hidden variables and no measurement applied. However, it has been pointed out by Sabine and others, the result depend on what and when the measurement is applied and there are more cases then covered by Bell's theorem. It has been proposed experiments on very COLD, SMALL and FAST measurements, would not adhere to Bell's Inequality theorem. Further a mathematical paper was released, which is not well known, which disproved some of the conjectures of Bell' Inequality theorem.
Hidden Variables
Again, we will propose here the nature of the 'hidden variable' to be an additional field component of the Universe, related to electromagnetism, but itself is non-electromagnetic. Both particles and photon would have this component. When a particle passes through a slit, this component is broader in scope then the electromagnetic field and behaves much differently. Since it is non-electromagnetic, it unfortunately cannot be readily measured using electromagnetic measurement devices. We can think of this third component like a pervasive, scalar component to all particles, which only upon measurement collapses into electromagnetic components.
Loosely, this concept is like Einstein-Rosen's ideas of a 'wormhole' or tunnel through regular space/time between two points and it is interesting to consider this original paper suggested this concept as the fundamental mechanism of particle creation. Although the original theory could not properly account for particle masses and sizes, there does appear further merit to this direction of inquiry. We find some reference to the possibility of this additional component possibly occupying another dimension in the Universe, like a fifth dimension, as discussed in Einstein Unified Field Theory Completed - by James E. Beichler.
Despite how difficult it is for us to grasp the concepts of four dimensions, let alone five, evidence is mounting that this is indeed the reality in which we find ourselves. Especially when confronted with such 'non-local' and 'spooky action at a distance' problems. It really appears as if there must be some further underlying component to the Universe, which connects everything, is related to the density of mass/energy, but is not electromagnetic and is not limited to the speed of light. These characteristics show in themselves the difficulty we would have discovering such a component, for if it is not electromagnetic or mass/energy in the ordinary sense how do we measure it? It would be like trying to hold air in a fish net.
Hidden variable alternative to quantum spookiness fails - BigThink.com
Quantum Gravity
For all discrete points in the Universe to interact, there must be some mediator which 'communicates' the action between the discrete particles. The mediation problem was proposed with the idea of a field, which can carry the forces through free space. Thus the concepts of a field, and the gravitational field and electromagnetic field were postulated as mechanisms for their actions at a distance. At the time these ideas came to be, the fields were thought to be propagated through some medium, the ether. Now we consider the fields themselves to be independent of any medium, capable of propagating themselves.
We could ask though, what is the mediator for something like conservation of energy. Say we add energy to the Sun, is it logical to say the Universe takes time to propagate the conservation of energy out to the remaining mass in the Universe, so that it takes 8 minutes for the principle of conservation of energy to reach the Earth?
Interestingly, no mediator has been proposed for gravity, other than gravitons. Since they are so weak, gravitons are even considered to have no real influence on the standard model and are often not even included anymore in in diagrams of the standard model. It seems very hypocritical to claim the Standard Model is a complete description of particles and yet it completely disregards the force of gravity upon those particles. How can a theory of mass, disregard the fundamental force upon which mass interacts? Established physics has even gone so far as to claim mass, and thus gravity, is a property which particles need not even have. There seems to be a huge oversight here and a large elephant in the room of the Standard Model, that no one wishes to acknowledge. They have even recently stopped using the graviton in images of the Standard Model particles.
Quantum theory shares this idea, of gravitational field being too weak to be of consequence in quantum mechanics and thus it is disregarded in most cases. There are efforts to try to find the connection between gravity and quantum theory, thus the proposal for a theory of "Quantum Gravity". However, the search for such a theory will ever remain elusive, even some obscure connection between entanglement and masses in crystal is discovered as per recent efforts
Recent paper discusses the mediation of entanglement may happen through gravity. Currently it is speculated in The Standard Model, that gravitational force is mediated through the "graviton" which has never been detected. The explanation for the lack of detection, is the graviton energy would be exceedingly weak, required very high power colliders to detect it. They have determined, photons cannot mediate entanglement, thus cannot be responsible for the results.
We would speculate, although gravitational field may potentially be related to entanglement, gravity cannot have a quantum nature. The mediation of gravitational field is through characteristics which must be continuous by there very nature and thus cannot be quantized. This mediator would be responsible for the continuous nature of energy itself.
We also further speculated, we are already aware of a quantum nature to gravity, at least in terms of mass seeming to form into very specific quantities. Proton, electron, neutron always have very specific mass in the Universe, we do not see some proton of heavier or lesser mass, but assume all protons have a very similar specific mass. Is this not the definition of quanta, that there are specific, discrete amounts? Otherwise we would expect a whole spectrum of proton masses depending on some other variables in the Universe.
The Problem with Quantum Mechanics
We can readily measure the spectrum of elements by putting the light through a prism and then measuring the frequency/colors of the resulting lines we see( or missing lines ). However, the real question and something which should provide a tremendous simplification to the entire problem is to reconsider what it is exactly we are seeing and measuring. It seems like the atoms want to absorb or emit energy only at specific wavelengths and thus we go down the road of quantum mechanics which lays down the rules as to what these quantum energy levels are, the well known E=hf.
What no one yet to this day can really explain in simple terms is "Why this atomic energy should be quantized?" What is bounding the energy into these discrete frequencies within the atoms? Of course mathematicians and physicists will immediately embark on extensive mental gymnastics regarding ground states, Pauli exclusion and so on an so forth, but all these answers evade the real important and simple question with complex, long winded and circular arguments. The questions remains, Why would energy become quantized? What is the real underlying mechanisms which bounds the energy? We can ask why an electron has a quantized charge, a fixed mass, why a proton has a fixed mass and all proton and electron mass are the same throughout the Universe. These very fundamental questions remains unanswered.
Perhaps there is yet a simpler answer. Quantum mechanics explains the spectrum, it explains experimental results in many cases where current classical theory fails, but it cannot be certain it is the "best" and is definitely not the "simplest" answer. It is the answer we chose to pursue and today there is little effort to discover a better, simpler solution.
Electrons and Electricity
Electrons and Electricity
Here we will discuss some interesting information about Electrons, Electricity and Electric Charge
Established physics has defined many characteristics of the electron and is yet to define other characteristics of the electron. Long touted as the primary carrier of electric field and electricity, electrons are critical to the physics of the Universe, but many unsolved questions remain. Currently we have been unable to determine the size of an Electron, yet we know they take up volume. Through the Millikan Oil Drop experiment we have determined electrons have mass, about 10^-31 Kg, and have the fundamental unit of electric charge, about 1.6×10−19 C. However, our attempts at determining the size of an electron have been met with failure.
In order to determine the actual size of an electron, the method we are employing is to just shoot two electrons at each other. If we shoot them toward each other with enough energy, their kinetic energy should be sufficient to overcome the repulsion of their charge and get them to collide. The energy required to do this, tells us an approximate size for the electron. As of yet, they have been unable to detect or collide electrons together to determine their radius even at 10^18 eV of energy. It is estimated they would get this collision at 10^23 or even 10^35 eV. Thus as of 2024, the true size of an electron is unknown. Whether the radius of an electron is ever determined, may itself be up for debate.
Another unusual characteristic of an electron is its quantum spin of ½ which means an electron must be rotated 720 degrees ( 2 x 360 ) to return to the same state. Thus quantum mechanics talks about spin up of an electron when it is in the first 360 of its rotation and spin down is an electron is the second 360 of its rotation. There is no known physical analog of this quantum spin ½.
When we speak of static charge, we must be speaking of it in a relative sense to our own local reference frame. As a static charge on the surface of the Earth, is from an outside reference point a charge moving with the rotation of the Earth, moving in orbit around the Sun, etc etc. In different inertial frames, the forces appear and are calculated differently, this is one of the principles set down in special relativity.
From Feynman lecture 13-6
When we said that the magnetic force on a charge was proportional to its velocity, you may have wondered: “What velocity? With respect to which reference frame?” It is, in fact, clear from the definition of B given at the beginning of this chapter that what this vector is will depend on what we choose as a reference frame for our specification of the velocity of charges. But we have said nothing about which is the proper frame for specifying the magnetic field.
It turns out that any inertial frame will do. We will also see that magnetism and electricity are not independent things — that they should always be taken together as one complete electromagnetic field. Although in the static case Maxwell’s equations separate into two distinct pairs, one pair for electricity and one pair for magnetism, with no apparent connection between the two fields, nevertheless, in nature itself there is a very intimate relationship between them that arises from the principle of relativity. Historically, the principle of relativity was discovered after Maxwell’s equations. It was, in fact, the study of electricity and magnetism which led ultimately to Einstein’s discovery of his principle of relativity. But let’s see what our knowledge of relativity would tell us about magnetic forces if we assume that the relativity principle is applicable—as it is—to electromagnetism. - Richard Feynman
In 1931, Paul Dirac speculated the quantization of electric field appears to require magnetic mono-poles to exist, yet none have ever been found. We would here suggest magnetic mono-poles do not exist, as this is like saying you can have a vector with only one component. A magnetic field is polar and it really makes no physical sense to have one pole, just like it makes no sense to talk about the magnitude of a vector without its associated direction. A magnetic mono-pole would be like having an axis of rotation, with only one pole. A magnetic mono-pole is like saying you can have up without down. The suggestion of magnetic mono-poles shows a misunderstanding of what magnetic field truly represents. If the theories of quantization of electric field require magnetic mono-poles, then we would conclude the approach of said theory is somewhere mistaken.
We can ask, "What does an electron actually look like?" and go down an deep rabbit hole of conjecture and mathematical complexity. The simple answer to this at present, is no one knows. We have an incredible amount of information about electrons and electricity, and yet even today we cannot for certain say we KNOW what electricity or electrons truly are.
One of the most interesting explanation of electrons, comes from quantum physics and the standard particle model, which demonstrates how electrons can form from "pair production" of energetic properties of the vacuum. Such electron's can the self annihilate back into these pairs of particles, which then go on to form a new electron. Thus electrons are constantly being recreated all the time and no single electron every exists as the same electron for an extended period of time. They describe this as electrons being smeared across the space, or as if there is a cloud of electron probability but not really any definite electron. We have even seen demonstrate, how the electrons seem to behave as waves and can diffract and interfere like electromagnetic waves.
What Does An Electron ACTUALLY Look Like? - from PBS Space Time on YouTube
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging
The main concept upon which a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine or any magnetic resonance imaging machine works, is the existence of atomic magnetic fields. In order to induce nuclear magnetic resonance, the atoms we wish to resonate with our external magnetic fields, must have a magnetic field or magnetic moment themselves.
The magnetic properties of all materials are related to the behaviour of the electrons in the atoms of the material. An electron in orbit can be thought of as a miniature loop of electric current. According to the laws of electromagnetism, such a loop will create a magnetic field. Each electron in orbit around an atomic nucleus produces its own magnetic field, and the sum of these fields, together with the intrinsic fields of the electrons and the nucleus, determines the magnetic field of the atom. Unless all of these fields cancel out, the atom can be thought of as a tiny magnet.
In ordinary materials, the magnetic fields of the atoms making up the material, are usually very disorganized. The magnetic fields of the atoms in something, do not all line up, but point in somewhat random orientations. In order to get a clear picture, out of all this random magnetic noise, we need to create some alignment within the material we wish to image. In MRI machines, this alignment is done with a large superconducting electromagnet. When an object is placed in this powerful magnetic field, the magnetic fields of each atom in the object, will try to line up with the magnetic field direction of our powerful electromagnet. The atomic magnets line up with our big electromagnetic field, exactly the same way a compass aligns itself with the magnetic field of the Earth.
"The main element of an MRI machine is a massive electromagnet coil that fills most of the enclosure. The ability to capture detailed images quickly depends on having a very powerful magnetic field, usually in the range of 1 to 3 Tesla. (1 Tesla = 10,000 Gauss.) Some specialized machines designed for super-detailed images inside a patient's head can be as high as 7 Tesla. Generating that kind of field requires superconducting coils cooled with liquid helium. This giant magnet is the part of a MRI machine, we see when we get a MRI."
Now, this is the technical explanation of how this magnetic alignment is used to create an image in MRI.
"Inside the magnet, we have the RF antenna (anatomically shaped surface coils), which picks up the MR signal, emitted from the tissue sample, and then we have a gradient coil which helps us find the spatial location where the signal is coming from. The gradient coil is made up of three groupings of coils, oriented on the X, Y, and Z axes. With three axes, you can construct a volume. We have our RF signal, and at the same time, we superimpose this gradient over it. This gives us three orientations to work with. If we want to make a horizontal 'cut,' we make the gradient in the horizontal direction a uniform value. If we want to look at the thickness of that volume, we vary the other planes, the Y and Z, and slowly move them around through a 360 degree change in gradient strength. We control the amount, so we know exactly how the plane is rotating. The only thing that is moving is current inside the coil."
The average person will not immediately see how this is possible, because an important piece of information is left out of the previous explanation. What the average person needs to understand, to fully grasp the operation of MRI, is one of the basic principles of quantum mechanics. We need to understand what exactly is meant by a "quantum". A quantum is a discrete bundle or packet of energy. The atomic magnetic fields cannot exist at all possible strengths of magnetic field, but must occupy distinct quantum's or levels of energy. If an atom wants to change how much magnetic field it has, then it must absorb or emit a distinct photon of energy. Each atom will emit or absorb different photons of energy, depending on the atoms magnetic field strength. This is the basis of all spectroscopy.
In a material, in which the atoms are not magnetically aligned, these photons will be emitted or absorbed from all directions. Not only in all directions, but at all energy levels each atom is capable of emitting. When we magnetically align these atoms, as we have done with our strong electromagnetic field, we get these emissions or absorptions to occur in a specific direction and at specific frequencies.
So whereas before we could not detect these emissions, because they were in random directions and at random energies( random frequencies and wavelengths ), by aligning the atomic magnetic fields we get more of these signals to line up, and thus the signal or photons emitted are in the same direction and the total signal will be strong enough to detect.
So the magnetic alignment of a strong electromagnetic field has allowed scientists to tune into the signals emitted by the atoms themselves. You can receive this atomic transmission exactly like in an ordinary radio, with a Radio Frequency or RF antenna or coil. This is the Magnetic Resonance signal, or RF signal and is receive by the RF antenna or coil discussed in the previous explanation of MRI.
In addition to a strong electromagnet and an RF antenna, there is one more component of our MRI machine, the Gradient Coils. If you think about the previously described case, you may have noticed a problem. Although, we have used a strong electromagnet and a RF antenna to receive a signal from the object we are imaging, we will receive this signal from all the atoms in the object at once. Not that this is not useful for spectroscopy and other applications, but for medical imaging we would want a more precise image of a specific part or section of the object.
In order to receive a signal from only certain atoms within the object we are imaging, we need a way to isolate signals coming from a specific point. This can be done, using 3 more electromagnetic coils, which in MRI machines have been named the Gradient Coils. In a modern MRI machine, there are usually 3 pairs of electromagnetic coils( for a total of 6 coils ), with their axis of alignment arranged along each of the 3-dimensions( the X,Y and Z axis ). You can visualize this easily, as a cube, with a circular magnetic coil pasted flat to each face of the cube( 6 faces on a cube gives us 6 coils.)
To understand how the Gradient Coils work, we only need to consider what happens when we use one set of gradient coils, as the same concept applies to the other two sets of coils. With a pair of coils, we can create a magnetic field in a specific direction. If we apply electric current to our coils in one direction, we get a magnetic field in one direction. If we reverse the electric current, we reverse the direction of the magnetic field. Likewise, if we put more current through one coil than the other, we can produce a magnetic field which is stronger at one end than the other. This is a magnetic field gradient.
When our object being magnetic resonance imaged, is placed in a magnetic field gradient, there is a different magnetic field strength across the object. This causes a different signal to be emitted from the atoms at one end of the object versus the signal emitted from the atoms at the other end of the object. So using the application of a magnetic field gradient, produced by our gradient coils, we can isolate different sections of our object. By using a three dimensional arrangement of gradient coils, we can isolate a signal from any 3-dimensional point within our object.
If nothing's moving, why the noise?
"Metellus says MRI machines make a loud acoustic noise because, when you pass current through the gradient coil that lies within the electromagnetic field, the currents are opposing each other, resulting in a sound of varying intensity. Depending on the scanning algorithm, it has a different rhythm. While the sound suggests something is spinning inside the housing, there are no moving parts. In fact, keeping everything still, especially the patient, creates the highest quality images."

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Machine ( MRI )

Inside a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Machine ( MRI ) Simple Hardware Diagram

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Machine Gradient Coils
(note the 3-Dimensional arrangement)

Medical images taken of the human body are acquired or displayed in three main orientations:
- Coronal orientation: in a cross section (plane), for example, across the shoulders, dividing the body into front and back halves
- Sagittal orientation: in a cross section (plane), for example, down the middle, dividing the body into left and right halves
- Axial orientation: in a cross section (plane), perpendicular to the long axis of the body, dividing the body into upper and lower halves

Magnetic Resonance Spectrometry Simple Diagram

Magnetic resonance Imaging Electronics and Digital Signal Processors (DSP)

A pallet jack pulled into an MRI magnet.
Palm Sized MRI Machines?
How to build and test a small Magnetic Resonance Device
How Magnetic Resonance Amplification Works
Heat
Heat
The ideas of heat and temperature cannot be left out of all this. Heat is the thermal energy transferred between systems due to a temperature difference.
The Laws of Thermodynamics
- The zeroth law of thermodynamics defines thermal equilibrium and forms a basis for the definition of temperature: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
- The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system's internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy.
- The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.
- The third law of thermodynamics states that a system's entropy approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses), the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero.
Entropy and Gravity
Of importance to this document, is the relationship between Entropy and Gravity. We should understand that Entropy is not disorder or chaos as many think, Entropy is actually a measure of uniformity or can even be considered a balance. This is contrary to most peoples idea of entropy as chaos or disorder. This is a misunderstanding of Entropy. If we shuffle a deck of cards, the mixture is not more chaotic, it is more uniform and consistent, not necessarily more chaotic. It is no longer in numerical order, but the state has become more spread out and averaged. This is a better way to think of entropy.
The Universe is completely in balance in its energy, the law of conservation of energy, but it is also completely in balance in terms of its entropy. Established physics tells us the entropy is constantly increasing, but what this really means, is there is a force tending to make the Universe uniform in structure, to make it all the same. The entropy of the Universe is not tending towards heat or cool, it is tending towards uniformity, it is tending to want to all be the same temperature, it is tending to be warm, or grey, a perfect mix of hot and cold or a mix of black and white. This is what Entropy is and any other notions merely confuse this concept of entropy as uniformity, not order or chaos.
"Isolated systems evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, where the entropy is highest."
There is further development of the ideas of entropy as related to the statistic of the kinetic energy of the atoms in a region, from where these concepts of entropy applied to order and disorder stem, but even the statistical explanation should not refer to the differences of states as being order or disorder as this confuses the real concept of entropy. You cannot really say a box at a higher temperature is more ordered or disordered than a box at a lower temperature, it may have more total kinetic energy and thus a difference in state, but temperature is not a measure of order or disorder, it is only a measure of kinetic energy of the constituent atoms, which has nothing to do with the order or chaos of the system.
If we have a box where a gas is confined to one side of the box by a barrier, then remove the barrier, the entropy increases as the gas spreads throughout the box. Thus the box in its previous divided state, had less entropy. The division is a decrease in entropy. The perfect mixing is an increase in entropy.
When we consider any process, such as gravity or better even a pressure wave in space, we find that as there is a entropic balance being maintained. Although the compressed matter in body formed by gravity, can be considered reduced entropy by becoming a smaller hotter state, there is an equal and opposite tendency for gravity to expand and cool the space around it which increases entropy. Thus from a total the entropy of such a situation appears to remain balanced.
However, on closer inspection we now have a division of energy, the energy separated into two regions and this not being a uniform condition represents a decrease in entropy. The Second Law of thermodynamics requires entropy to always increase for every process, thus the total entropy of the system must have increased. This occurs because the expansion is asymmetric from the contraction, by a certain ration, thus causing a slight unbalance in the total entropy, to cause an increase in entropy.
We find a great deal of confusion online and continuous debate and circular arguments about entropy and gravity and the reason for this is the lack of understanding of what the second law of thermodynamics truly represents, an asymmetry in the flow of energy in a system. Although entropy is a tendency for uniformity, it can never be completely uniform due to the asymmetry. We see the confusion in responses such as the following. Where one comment states the entropy must increase in the case of gravitational collapse, but another mathematically proves the entropy does not change at all.
The following two quotes on Entropy are contradictory and show the significant confusion regarding the concept of Entropy.
"For low enough initial temperature, the self-gravitating cloud cannot be stable because when any given part of the whole cloud loses energy, that part gets hotter and shrinks, while another part gains energy, gets colder and expands. The temperature difference is now enhanced so the process continues. The net result is that the fluctuations in density or temperature in the cloud grow, and the whole process is called condensation. The parts that shrink lose entropy, while the parts that expand gain entropy, and there is a net entropy increase because, as usual, the direction of heat flow at any time is such as to guarantee this. There is no violation of the Second Law. On the contrary: the Second Law is fully obeyed, as it is in all of physics."
"The entropy of a collapsing gas cloud is calculated in detail at http://rickbradford.co.uk/AppendixB1_EntropyofCollapsingGasCloud.pdf . The main result is
"...we find the change in the total entropy of the gas plus the radiation for a change in gas volume of dV to be zero
dStotal=dSgas+dSrad=0"
Thus, the overall change in entropy is zero, consistent with the second law of thermodynamics in the limiting case of a reversible change."
The conflict seems to arise due to the second individual considering this as a limiting case which is reversible, when the reality is it is not reversible. Further as we have pointed out, the whole event is asymmetric and causes an expansion of the size of the total system, which by its very nature implies an increase in entropy.
Thus we can conclude, for the most part gravity does in a sense appear to decrease entropy, but from a broader perspective there is still a slight increase in overall entropy which holds the second law of thermodynamics. The the Universe can tend to ordered states such as the formation of Stars, planets and solar systems which we see exist, but this comes at the cost of an increase in the size of the entire Universe and thus a net increase in Entropy.
Why there is an asymmetric expansion, and even why entropy tends to increase at all, is another problem of cosmology and the reason for the introduction of the concept of "dark energy". Although we touch on this concept elsewhere, we could suggest that "dark energy" is entirely due to the second law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics is due to an asymmetric nature of the Unified Field.
Relationship of Temperature to Pressure
Pressure = Force * Area.
As a volume decreases for a given force, the pressure increases. Pressure is distributed over the volume it occupies against the confining surface. Interestingly the pressure at the bottom of a thin tube of water, increases dramatically with height, as the area of the output remains small and the force increases with height?
pressure = density * force of gravity * height
The pressure for a given amount of liquid on the wide side of a conical vessel will not be equal to the weight of the same volume of water on the narrow end of a conical vessel.
Hydraulic pressure principle. A small force on a small area can produce a much large force on a larger area when confined to the same volume. In a hydraulic system, the smaller area must move further, then the larger area, which is why you can get the mechanical advantage. So for this to work in a spherical volume, the larger volume moves more and slower, than the smaller volume.
There is an absolute zero temperature at which matter must become dissolute. We see too a boundary as the heat death or complete entropy of the Universe. The two concepts must be taken account in any Unified Field theory. Why in the early Universe, did it not experience immediate heat death? Where did the initial heat come from, why was the original Universe not just at absolute zero or became absolute zero almost immediately after the apparent Big Bang is puzzling.
We see here there does seem to be some difficulty determining the real situation in the Big Bang and we some some very convoluted mathematics to explain the situation. We find some sanity in this quote from Penrose, "The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy can only increase, so if the early universe had been in a state of maximum entropy, then the cosmos would have experienced its heat death immediately after being born. This contradicts the observation that the present universe contains burning stars, heat engines, and life. These observations imply that the early universe was in a very low-entropy state, which shows that its initial conditions were extremely finely tuned. The reasons for this fine-tuning are not explained by general relativity or the standard model. Adding inflation to the model does not cure this fine-tuning problem." - Penrose 2005
We also find this interesting bit of information:
"The belief in a heat death was based on an idea that I call the cooking rule. The cooking rule says that a piece of steak gets warmer when we put it on a hot grill. More generally, the rule says that any object gets warmer when it gains energy, and gets cooler when it loses energy. Humans have been cooking steaks for thousands of years, and nobody ever saw a steak get colder while cooking on a fire. The cooking rule is true for objects small enough for us to handle. If the cooking rule is always true, then Lord Kelvin’s argument for the heat death is correct.
We now know that the cooking rule is not true for objects of astronomical size, for which gravitation is the dominant form of energy. The sun is a familiar example. As the sun loses energy by radiation, it becomes hotter and not cooler. Since the sun is made of compressible gas squeezed by its own gravitation, loss of energy causes it to become smaller and denser, and the compression causes it to become hotter. For almost all astronomical objects, gravitation dominates, and they have the same unexpected behaviour. Gravitation reverses the usual relation between energy and temperature. In the domain of astronomy, when heat flows from hotter to cooler objects, the hot objects get hotter and the cool objects get cooler. As a result, temperature differences in the astronomical universe tend to increase rather than decrease as time goes on. There is no final state of uniform temperature, and there is no heat death. Gravitation gives us a universe hospitable to life. Information and order can continue to grow for billions of years in the future, as they have evidently grown in the past. - Freeman Dyson
This seems to be the best answer as to how the Universe did not immediately die a heat death:
It's an example of adiabatic expansion. If you have a container full of gas and you expand the container, the gas cools. Entropy is preserved.
Adiabatic processes preserve entropy. Any decrease in entropy due to lowered energy, and correspondingly fewer possible velocities for the particles, is offset by an increase in entropy due to the expanding volume, and correspondingly increased possible positions for the particles.
The reason adiabatic expansion loses energy is due to energy being absorbed by the expanding container. It may seem confusing for this to apply to expanding spacetime, since you can't push on the universe and get it to absorb energy. My knowledge of general relativity is pretty much limited to what I found on Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell, the answer is that the universe totally does work that way. The stress-energy tensor, which controls the shape of the universe and how it changes, includes pressure. As far as I can understand, an object under pressure causes the universe to expand and the energy is absorbed by the gravitational field. - From DanielLC (https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/64166/daniellc), How can it be that the beginning universe had a high temperature and a low entropy at the same time?, URL (version: 2015-03-02): https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/167855
The cooling method known as Laser cooling is important to understanding heat in materials.
Laser light of a specific infrared frequency is used. The specific frequency is one just below the absorption frequency of the specific materials atoms which are being cooled. Since this frequency is just below the absorption frequency, the energy is not immediately absorbed when this laser light is shone on the material to be cooled. Due to the Doppler effect, the motion of the atoms in the material can cause the frequency to match the absorption frequency. This occurs when direction of motion of the atom is into the direction the laser light is shining onto the material. Thus when the light is absorbed from this specific direction of motion, this difference in energy due to the Doppler effect is lost by the atom and its velocity decreases, thus its heat decreases. The energy gained by the absorption is eventually lost by the emission of a different photon in a random direction, thus the heat is lost even though energy was absorbed. If this principle uses laser light applied from all 6 directions it can cool the matter to very low temperatures. Of course the material is cooled as much as possible using normal methods prior to the application of laser cooling. This demonstrates how electromagnetic fields like light, can directly influence the energy of atoms, even causing the atoms to lose not gain energy.
Just for fun:
In general, substances that burned in the air were said to be rich in phlogiston; the fact that combustion soon ceased in an enclosed space was taken as clear-cut evidence that air had the capacity to absorb only a finite amount of phlogiston. When the air had become completely phlogisticated it would no longer serve to support the combustion of any material, nor would a metal heated in it yield a calx; nor could phlogisticated air support life. Breathing was thought to take phlogiston out of the body.
Gravitational Radiation
Gravitational Radiation
Quoted from: Universe Second Edition by William J. Kaufmann III. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. 1988.
A gravitational wave is a ripple in the overall geometry of space and time. As an example of how these ripples are produced, think of a man who is 80 kg. All matter has gravity, and general relativity tells us that gravity curves space and time. Thus, the 80 kg man is surrounded by a slight warping of space and time commensurate with his mass. Now suppose that this man begins waving his arms. Although his total mass does not change, the details of how his mass is distributed do change. The geometry of space and time must adapt to these changes, because the gravitational field of the man with his hands over his head is slightly different from that of the man when he has his hands at his sides. These minor readjustments appear as tiny ripples in the overall geometry of space and time surrounding the man. In the same way, a bouncing ball, the Moon going around the Earth, or two stars in a binary all produce gravitational waves. From the equations of general relativity, it is possible to prove that gravitational radiation moves outward from its source at the speed of light.
Gravitational waves are difficult to detect, because they carry very little energy. To appreciate how weak gravitational waves are, imagine two electrons separated by a short distance. Because they each posses mass and charge, these electrons exert both gravitational and electric forces on each other. The gravitational force is about 10^42 times weaker than the electric force. If these two electrons are made to wiggle back and forth, they will radiate both gravitational and electromagnetic waves. Because gravity is so much weaker than electromagnetism, the resulting gravitational waves are subdued by a factor of 10^-42 compared to the electromagnetic waves.
Processes involving dramatic changes in intense gravitational fields produce the strongest bursts of gravitational radiation. For example, the collapse of a massive star's core during a supernova explosion emits substantial gravitational radiation. Of course, we cannot observe the actual core collapse with ordinary telescopes, because the outer layers of the supernova emit such an overpowering amount of light. However, gravitational waves from the collapsing core carry detailed information about how this dense matter is being rearranged. With a gravitational wave antenna, we should thus be able to observe directly the creation of a neutron star or black hole.
Although an actual burst of gravitational waves has not yet been conclusively detected, many astronomers feel that the effects of gravitational radiation have been observed. In 1974, Joseph Taylor and his colleagues at the University of Massachusetts discovered a pulsar in a binary system. The system apparently consists of two neutron stars separated by only 2.8 solar radii. One of the two stars emits radio pulses every 0.059 sec, and the orbital period of the two stars about each other is only 7.75 hours. The average orbital velocity of these stars is thus about 0.1 percent of the speed of light. Because these two stars have strong gravitational fields and are moving so rapidly, this entire binary system should be a substantial source of gravitational waves. As gravitational radiation carries energy away from the system, the two stars gradually spiral in closer and closer to each other, so the orbital period of the two stars should decrease. Because one of the stars is a pulsar, radio astronomers have been able to measure its orbital period with extreme accuracy. These observations suggest that the two stars are indeed spiralling in toward each other, because of their emission of gravitational waves.
Mathematics
Mathematics
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. - Albert Einstein
We would like to discuss some mathematics, as is required to explain any complex physics theory, but have no fear we are going to keep things simple. It is the belief here, mathematics is a tool by which we can understand and is not in and of itself an explanation. If we can only grasp something through pure mathematics and thus have lost touch with the reality that mathematics is meant to model or explain, then our mathematics is no longer serving its intended purpose. Thus here we are really going to try to keep things real and no resort to pure mathematics to explain things. We will leave the complex mathematics for the physicists to figure out later. Our concept does not require overly complex math, but we do need some fundamental math. We likely need go no further than calculus and the principle of least action, so we will here explain these concepts as simply as possible.
Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnez developed Infinitesimal calculus as a way to solve a mathematical problem. Like the mathematics of geometry defines dimensions of space, shapes and volumes, algebra defines relationships between quantities and probability defines the concepts of chance and uncertainty, calculus is the mathematics of defining all things which change. Since physics is very much about how things change, calculus has been widely adopted to physics.
Introduction to Calculus - Seeing the Big Picture - Eddie Woo
As we can learn in the excellent video link above, by Mr. Eddie Woo, calculus arose from a desire to determine the instantaneous values of various curves. When we have two values changing relative to one another, we can plot these changes on a graph and for values which change in the same ratio over time, this graph would be a straight line with a slope or gradient. We can use the terms slope, gradient or tangent interchangeably, as they all represent the same concept, a ratio of change between two values. So long as this ratio is constant, the slope or tangent is imply the rise over the run of the slope. The change in x over the change in y, if those are our two values of which we want to know the ratio. The problem which arises and which Newton and Gottfried needed to solve, was how do we determine this slope or tangent, when the ratio is not constant and rather than a nice straight line we have a curve or a function which changes the ratio over time.
The way this was approached is to realize the tangent to a curve, only touches or is tangible to that curve at one point, so we want to calculate the tangent at that point. However, to calculate the slope we need a change between two points, and a single point does not satisfy this requirement. Newton saw that if we wanted to calculate the tangent for a point on a circle, we could see a possibility in using the secants of a circle which are parallel to the tangent we wish to find. Each secant of a circle does pass through two points, and as we get secants which are closer and closer to the tangent line, we get closer and closer to our solution. The problem is once we get to the final point, so calculating the slope of the secant we have a certain rise over run calculation and can get a value, but as these secants get closer and closer to the tangent, the run gets closer and closer to zero. Thus in their wisdom, they chose to discuss the results in terms of the value as the run approaches a limit, the limit of 0. This is where the name infinitesimal calculus derived. It was performing calculations as a value approached an infinitesimally small value, without actually reaching zero.
However, when we think of slope as rise over run, we cannot really think of a run of zero, and so they chose to use the terminology of change in y divided by change in x, as x approaches zero. This is the well known equation in physics of dy/dx the derivative. Thus taking the First Derivative of anything, is simply determining its slope or the tangent of some ratio of change.
Thus when we are talking about the tangent of a ratio, we are talking about the first derivative of that ratio. The gradient or slope of that ratio, its instantaneous value of change.
Integrals
The integral usually refers to the area under a curve. An integral is like the sum of the value of each of the points along the curve over the small instances of time dt.
We write the integral as the integral symbol, with two values which mark the region we are taking the integral of, then some function and the small instances we are taking the integral over.
Thus for example if you plot some curve, such as the speed or distance over time, and take the integral of that curve over a certain amount of time, it will give you the distance you travelled in that amount of time. Thus the integral is a ways to extract out one of the components of your curve to get more information about the function.
The Principle of Least Action
The principle of Least Action defines how a system will always take the most efficient path or transfer of energy in a system. All physical laws of motion, the transfer of force, the interaction of electrical charges, can be defined as processes which take the Least Action, or processes which minimize the 'action'. For example, when we use vector mathematics and the ideas of potential and kinetic energy to calculate the trajectory of rocket, we could also use the principle of Least Action to calculate that same path.
There is much more to this concept, then even physicists today yet realize. They know it can apply and explain the motion of most processes in physics, but as of yet no formal explanation as to why it is relevant has been proposed.
The Simple Math Problem That Revolutionized Physics - Veritasium on YouTube
The principle of least action - PhysicsHelps on YouTube
Space Propulsion
First if your unfamiliar with the concepts of interstellar space and the huge distances involved when travelling to another star, you should read the following articles. They will clearly illuminate why an advanced form of propulsion is required for interstellar travel to be possible.
The first step to understanding a means to travel to another star is to understand the difficulties, limitations, and potential hazards. A look at all the present and proposed methods will provide a solid foundation with which to continue the explanation.
A basic overview of the problems is listed below:
- The speed of light barrier and Relativity
- The incredibly immense distances involved
- Mass and Energy Requirements
- Time limitations
- Escaping Gravity
Two articles which are an excellent technical summary of the problems facing interstellar propulsion and the possible solutions being researched.
PDF File documenting the
Critical Problems for Interstellar Propulsion Systems
PDF File discussing all Aspects of Advanced Interstellar Propulsion Systems
Practicality of Present Interstellar Proposals
Rocket technology is presently the mainstay of our entire space program. Due to a rocket having to carry its own fuel as propellant, its payload and range are very small, even for very large rockets. Most current interplanetary missions depend entirely on long duration coasting and gravitational assists to increase speeds sufficiently to reach the outer planets or leave the Solar System. Although some new technologies like the ionic propulsion used in the Deep Space 1 probe have begun to be proven in space, these still require rocket technology to launch them into space. The thrust of most ionic and plasma propulsion systems is just too small to provide the acceleration to break the force of gravity on Earth. Other than nuclear rockets, which are extremely hazardous and toxic, there has been few attempts at new surface to orbit space propulsion technologies. Of note is one interesting scheme called "Lightcraft" which uses land based microwave lasers to power a electrodynamic craft into orbit. Such a craft would require very powerful lasers and be very lightweight to be successful and there are limits to the range at which such a system could operate. Solar sails are a viable, albeit very small and slow way to send probes to deep space. What we need to really enter the space age is a powerful, safe, economical, reusable, efficient and ecologically friendly form of space propulsion technology.
The most serious proposals for an interstellar vehicle to date have been the Daedalus and Orion projects. Personally I find the very ideas proposed by the Daedalus and Orion Projects completely ridiculous. Both of these use a form of nuclear detonation as a propulsion system. A small nuclear explosion occurs behind an enormous blast shield. This explosion pushes on the blast shield accelerating the spacecraft. To slow down the ship rotates around and uses the explosions in the opposite direction.
To use the effects of an explosion of any kind, let alone thermonuclear explosions, as a form of space propulsion is dangerous to both ship and crew, extremely inefficient, nearly uncontrollable, environmentally toxic and is at best an engineering abomination. The fact these ideas are still even considered makes me question the imagination and intellect of today's space scientists. To me it seems painfully obvious that the Daedalus Project demonstrates our true ignorance of the Universe around us much more than it demonstrates a viable propulsion system. A radical new understanding of space and time and the world around us will most certainly lead to a much more beautiful and elegant solution to the exploration of the last great frontier.

Project Orion
This video never ceases to make me laugh. Lets send a nuclear propelled vehicle out into the unknown. What a nice thing to use to explore space, a deadly radioactive bomb ship. This guy is nothing but a nuclear filibuster but its not his intention as he knows we have no other way to conceivably produce the energy required to travel the immense distances through interstellar space.
"The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun's energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun." - Ralph Juergens
List of Electric or Magnetic Space Propulsion Systems
- Electrothermal Thrusters
- Resistojet
- DC Arcjet
- AC Arcjet
- Magnetically Diffused & Magnetically Focused Arcjet
- E-Type KHz AC Electrodeless Gas Discharge Thruster
- H-Type KHz AC Electrodeless Gas Discharge Thruster
- Microwave Gas Discharge Thermal thruster (also called Microwave Electrothermal Thruster)
- Waveguide Thruster
- Resonant Cavity Coaxial Thruster
- Pulsed Microwave Electrothermal Thruster
- Supersonically Heated Microwave Electrothermal Thruster
- Laser Gas Discharge Thermal thruster
- Cyclotron Resonance Microwave Accelerators
- Electron Cyclotron Resonance (ECR) Thruster
- Ion Cyclotron Resonance (ICR) Thruster
- Whistler-wave Electron Cyclotron Resonance Heater (ECRH) Thruster
- Electrostatic Thrusters
- Surface Contact Ion Thruster
- Tungsten plate
- Tungsten Wire
- Porous Tungsten
- Electron Bombardment Thruster
- Magnetron Gaseous Discharge
- Filament Cathode
- Autocathode
- Oscillating Electron
- von Ardenne Low Pressure Duoplasmatron Arc Thruster
- Colloidal/Macromolecular Electrostatic Accelerators
- Atomizer Spray Charging of Dielectric Fluids
- Colloidal Condensation from Supersaturated Vapor
- via Supersonic Nozzle Geometry
- with ionization by Electron Bombardment
- with ionization by Corona Discharge
- via Condensation Shock Wave
- with ionization by Electron Bombardment
- with ionization by Corona Discharge
- Ion nucleation of Pre-ionized Supersaturated Vapor Stream
- Surface Condensation of Supersaturated Vapor with perpendicular E-field Ionization
- Acceleration of pre-formed particles
- via Vaporization of a Solid (C60 Propulsion)
- via Mechanical Breakdown of a Solid
- via Liquid Chemical Reaction
- via Gaseous Chemical Reaction
- Electromagnetic
- Steady State Electromagnetic Thruster
- External B-Field
- External Ionization Source
- Rectangular Channel Thruster
- Coaxial Channel Thruster
- Constant Cross-section Thruster
- Variable Cross-section Thruster
- Internal Ionization Source
- Self-Induced B-Field
- Internal Ionization Source
- Rectangular Channel Thruster
- Coaxial Channel Thruster
- Constant Cross-section Thruster
- Variable Cross-section Thruster
- MPD (Magnetoplasmadynamic) Arc Thruster (also called Thermionic Accelerator and High Impulse Arcjet)
- Pulsed Plasma Thruster (Self-Induced B-Field)
- Direct Contact Electrode Discharge Thruster (Usually called "Pulsed Plasma Accelerators")
- Hybrid Coaxial Pinch Thruster
- Linear Pinch Thruster
- Coaxial Plasma "Gun"
- Parallel Rail Accelerator Gun
- "Button Gun"
- "T-Tube" Plasma Accelerator
- Solid Ablation Thruster
- Hydrodynamic Plasma Gun (developed for thermonuclear fusion experiments)
- Inductive Discharge Thruster(Usually called "Induction Accelerators")
- Theta Pinch Thruster
- Conical Pinch Thruster
- Loop induction Thruster
- Pulsed Inductive Thruster
- Travelling Wave Accelerator
- Rectangular Channel Travelling Wave Thruster
- Cylindrical Channel Travelling Wave Thruster
- Cylindrical Duct Coil-driven Travelling Wave Accelerator
- Cylindrical Duct Helical Transmission Line Accelerator
- Coaxial Channel Travelling Wave Thruster
- Constant Cross-section Travelling Wave Thruster
- Variable Cross-section Travelling Wave Thruster
- Conical Duct Coil-driven Travelling Wave Accelerator
- RF Fringe Field Accelerator
- Glow Discharge Magnetic Expansion Thruster
- Rail Gun
- Hall Accelerator
- Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster