16 ) A repulsive Fifth Interaction

A repulsive Fifth Interaction

Einstein was the first to suppose that equilibrium existed in the Universe as a repulsive interaction opposing the force of gravity.

He was seeking to understand cosmic phenomena in the context of General Relativity. Thus, as he was seeking to lay the foundations for an understanding of the state of the Universe, he proposed limits to the amount of concentration to which a mass would inevitably be subjected by the existence of the gravitational effect “alone”. He decided therefore that it would be better on the large scale to maintain the matter in the Universe at a constant level of density.

To this end, he described a repulsive force to balance the force of gravity, which would otherwise have quickly resulted in an uncontrollable increase in the density of mass in the Universe.

He therefore introduced a hypothesis into General Relativity that predicted the existence of a parameter that would block the concentration of bodies in the Universe by the force of gravity alone.

This hypothesis is known as the “Cosmological Constant   λ  ”.

The model of the Universe that resulted from it was inaccurately called “Einstein’s static Universe”. The conditions he posited resulted in a Universe that was stable but not necessarily static.

The history of this attempt is replete with misunderstandings and mysteries.
Shortly after the introduction of the cosmological constant into General Relativity, Hubble discovered that the spectrum of light from distant galaxies was shifted toward the red as if it had been emitted by a source that was moving away. It thus seemed that this would force us to observe a longer wavelength by the effect of Doppler decay.

A decay of the light from distant galaxies of this kind seemed to presuppose that the galaxies were systematically moving apart.  
It seemed logical to deduce from this that we could not consider the Universe to be static as it was in constant expansion. And this clearly disproved Einstein’s model of a “static” Universe.

After some time, Einstein very strangely abandoned the model he had derived from the cosmological constant without trying to defend it in any way. He even went so far as to say that the attempt to introduce it into General Relativity had been “his greatest mistake”.

This was moore strange because he was an extraordinary volcano of ideas and never hesitated to churn out vast numbers of attempts at theories that he might deny the following week. When someone asked him about this, he said he did it to make other people also think a little.

• It therefore seems a bit strange that he did not put up even the least resistance to preserve his cosmological constant.
• It would have taken so little to adapt it to the experimental discoveries of the flight of the galaxies.
• It would have been enough for its value to be greater than was required to establish equilibrium with the force of gravity while abandoning the concept of constant density.
• Or, to maintain the concept of constant density, it would have been enough to suppose the existence of some type of phenomenon that renewed matter and maintained its density constant.
• (These was in fact later done in the Stationary State Theory, which we will discuss below.)

The goal was to protect the Universe from a catastrophic concentration of mass that would have been the result if gravity alone regulated macroscopic bodies’ behavior.

Einstein had a clear idea that it was impossible for matter to concentrate infinitely and had often denied that the famous “Schwarzchild radius” could exist.

On the basis of an extreme extrapolation of General Relativity, Schwarzchild had calculated the smallest possible radius of the concentration of a mass below which the growing gravitational forces would force a particular mass to collapse in on itself.

Such a collapse would then continue toward an infinite concentration of mass. He had thus created one of those hypothetical phenomena “mistakenly” considered to be theoretically possible, which Weinberg later baptized “Black Holes”.

On another occasion, Einstein was even more explicit:

No mass could collapse infinitely as, if that happened, its parts would reach velocities close to the speed of light and that is physically impossible.

In 1939, he wrote in an article:

The Schwarzchild singularity of (the radius of mass) r = 2 G M / c2 does not exist (in nature) as matter cannot be concentrated ad arbitrio [. . .] as the particles that make it up would otherwise reach the speed of light.

This was not enough to stop Oppenheimer and Snyder from drawing the extreme conclusions they published two months later in an article on possible “stellar collapses”, however. This article was then followed by endless fantasies about Black Holes, which have provided matter for relentless theoretical investigations on an infinite number of hypothetical phenomena of the same type ever since.

Once and for all, we must reply that hypotheses of the existence of such phenomena involving the extreme concentration of mass lack any relativistic foundations.

They conflict with what people who have been studying the possible variants and developments of such phenomena have been saying for decades.

 The fact that it is impossible for matter to achieve the speed of light should have been argument enough to close the door to thoughts based on mathematical extrapolations involving the possibility of gravitational collapses.

But at the crucial moment when it might still have been possible to block astrophysicists’ extreme speculations, not even Einstein was able to supply proof. Not even he could raise logical arguments that went beyond the strict observation of the relativistic conditions governing mass or the invocation of the speed of light as a heuristic argument to explain that it was impossible to concentrate mass to infinity.

It is true that the astrophysicists at that time did not listen to him and set off on the tangent leading to the imaginary and improbable Black Holes.

We know much more now, however, than Einstein did at that particular time. We can use arguments from the Wave Theory of the Field together with the quantization of space-time to confirm whether the answers to the key questions involved support the infinite faith Einstein placed on his claim that the speed of light constituted a maximum.

And we can now ask ourselves, knowing why we are asking, why it is really that mass cannot move faster than the speed of light above and beyond the simple elementary postulate that light moves at the maximum speed.

In the context of the Wave Theory of the Field, let us ask the key question:

Is it possible for a mass in motion to achieve the speed of light?

This can be rephrased in terms of waves as follows:

Is it possible for a particle wave source to achieve

the speed of the waves it produces?

 If this were true, it would mean that the wave source would produce waves whose wave surfaces lay one on top of the other by the Doppler effect and thus had a wavelength of zero.

This certainly cannot happen according to the Wave Theory of the Field.

 Throughout the structure of discrete space-time and the theory that supports it, it makes no sense to speak of a mass with a wavelength of zero, just as it should make no sense in any other physical theory to speak of infinite mass.

It would be illogical to claim this as the increase in relativistic mass due to velocity would make the mass in motion possess infinite mass. Furthermore, paradoxically, its mass would be zero in the very direction of motion as even by de Broglie’s classical Wave Theory its waves would have a wavelength of zero in that direction.

The wavelengths in front of a body travelling at velocities ever closer to the speed of its waves would increasingly contract by the Doppler effect until they became superimposed on one another, which would nullify the wavelength in the direction of velocity.

Although these questions seemed hopeless, they can thus be answered logically and simply in terms of the discreteness of space-time and the relative quantization of length.

Given the way we have constructed our geometrical Universe and its geometrical and wave models of masses, “certainly no wave originating in a mass wave source could ever have a wavelength shorter than the discrete length L.

Picture 57.  A wave source that moved at the same velocity as its waves would force them to become superimposed on one another and reduce the Doppler wave length in front of the mass to zero.

• The minimum possible wavelength would thus be: λmin = L.
• No shorter Doppler wavelength could possibly exist.
• Zero wavelengths could never be observed that describe mass.
• Therefore, no mass wave source could ever reach the speed of its waves, c.

This provides a definitive response to the question of whether it is possible for infinite collapses of mass to exist.

Black Holes could therefore never exist, although they will remain an unverified and on principle unverifiable hypothesis.

This answer we have provided leads us to further questions, however, and takes us along a very promising path that opens the way to totally new and extraordinary speculation.

• Electrons at rest are the stable particles possessing the least mass that exist in nature, while protons possess a mass that is 1,836 times as great.
• In consequence, protons’ maximum speed is necessarily inferior to that of electrons.
• The wavelength of a proton at rest is less different from L than that of the electron. When its velocity increases, the Doppler wavelength it emits in the direction of motion, which must decrease gradually, will reach the minimum quantized wavelength  λmin= L beyond which it can never grow shorter sooner.
• A proton will thus reach its maximum velocity sooner than an electron.

As a result, the maximum velocity of a proton will necessarily be less great than that of an electron.

• As we gradually consider increasingly greater masses that emit elementary waves with ever shorter wavelengths, we will observe that their maximum velocity is also correspondingly lower and more distant from the speed of light.
• If we push our reasoning to the extreme, we find that a “Maximass” so large that its wavelength at rest is equal to the minimum length L could never possess any velocity in any direction and would be forced to remain forever at rest.

At rest with reference to what or whom?

We know from Relativity that no absolute reference system exists. It is therefore obvious that the “Maximass” can only be at rest with reference to other observers.

• Therefore, as the Doppler effect always exists in both directions, both when a wave source moves toward the observers and when the observer moves toward the wave source, no real, material observer (possessing mass) could ever approach a “Maximass” at any velocity.
• The observer’s waves of mass could never be summed together with those of the “Maximass”.
• As these waves have already reached their minimum length, no other wave surface could exist between them.
• As a consequence, no other mass could ever be attracted by a “Maximass”.
• Not only is the gravity surrounding the “Maximass” zero, but no other mass or wave source could exist near it.
• It constitutes the only truly isolated system in existence.

If we then consider masses a bit less great than the “Maximass”, we can still consider small masses to be attracted to them. But the total force made up of repulsion and attraction would be extremely weak, and a mass of that size would attract small masses with more force than greater masses.

• Very large masses would be able to attract masses that were less dense more easily than ones that were more dense.
• This differentiated gravitational effect should exist in every case and for every mass such as that of the Earth.
• On Earth, there should thus be a difference in the degree of gravitational attraction on masses of different values.
• The greater the mass, the greater the small repulsive effect that resists the attractive effect of gravity.
• This effect could easily be attributed to a new repulsive force or Fifth Interaction.
• This would refute Galileo’s principle that “all masses fall with the same acceleration in the void of a gravitational field.”
• It would also have the effect of producing a differing degree of attraction between masses with the same value but with differing radiuses.
• Materials with the same mass but different molecular or nuclear structures would have different weights as they would be attracted in different ways.

At this point, someone might say, “Slow down! Slow down! We are getting very close to science fiction here! Eötvos’ experiments have proven the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass for orders of magnitude that are extremely great”
(1 _x 10 8).

Oh yes, that is true. And there is even more. Recent experiments have provided even more precise data that suggest inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent for orders of magnitude up to:  1.6 x 10 ¹¹.

The Principle of the Equivalency of inertial to gravitational mass remains a hypothesis nonetheless and may be refuted by facts.

It is not absolute, established and untouchable dogma.

There have in fact recently been disturbing scientific reports that have shaken the Principle of the Equivalency of inertial to gravitational mass and discomforted everyone interested in gravity and physicists generally.

In January 1986, Ephraim Fischbach along with several of his colleagues at Purdue University reported in an article published in the Physical Review that they had found systematic deviations in the gravitational effects measured by Eötvos on materials possessing the same mass but a different nature.

The deviations, contrary to what Eötvos himself had been able to conclude, indicated the existence of a slight repulsive interaction between the masses that appeared to provide resistance to the gravitational attraction.

Eötvos’ data, which have come to us through his notes, once analyzed using modern computerized systems of statistical analysis, had included all the deviations from the Law of Equivalency in a precise system by attributing them to defects inevitable in his system of measurement.

These systematic results were then compared to other data considered abnormal discovered in the orbits of satellites launched from Earth by NASA.

And the systematic results that were found appeared to concur in indicating the existence of a weak repulsive force that provided resistance to the force of gravity.

This announcement initially had a clamorous impact in Italy and the entire world.

Nobel prize laureate, Carlo Rubbia, who was attending a conference in Rome on the concept of the infinite, entered the congress hall announcing the explosive news that while they discussed research on a possible unification of the four fundamental forces there, the Americans had discovered a fifth interaction that could not be explained in any way by current scientific theory.

Recognizing that the new interaction could not yet be explained in the context of known theories, they were already trying to find a probable cause in some mysterious properties in the matter at nuclear level.

When their initial dismay had passed, the official representatives of physics there as later all over the world immediately reacted in their usual fashion: “There was insufficient data. The data were old and unreliable. And it may even have been no more than a joke in poor taste.”

When anything new turns up in physics that might disturb the blessed tranquility of the established picture, the initial and classic tendency is almost always to refute it a priori as irrelevant, insignificant or even false.

But this event had consequences. News of an anti-gravity experiment performed by P. Thieberger of the University of Seattle was announced at the Scuola di Cosmologia organized by the Italian Society of Physicists the following year in Varenna,.

• An empty hollow copper sphere was placed in a recipient filled with water.
• The thickness of the wall and the volume of the copper sphere had been chosen so that the sphere would weigh as much as an identical volume of water.
• As a result, the sphere could remain just as easily at the water’s surface, fully submerged or at the bottom of the recipient.
• The surrounding water did not react to the sphere’s presence, as it could not notice its presence, because the hollow copper sphere had the same weight as an identical volume of water.
• The copper sphere’s weight and volume stood to each other in exactly the same ratio as in the famous Archimedian principle and the copper sphere remained suspended in the water as if it were made up of the same volume of water.
• Absolutely no variation in gravity in the current theories could produce any variation in the rest state of that copper sphere inside that water.
• Nonetheless, when the recipient filled of water was brought close to the side of a cliff, it was possible to observe whether there really was any kind of anti-gravity that acted on different substances differently.
• If the anti-gravity had a greater effect on the copper than the water, the sphere would be “pushed back” from the cliff wall.

Picture 58.  Container full of water with a hollow copper sphere and mountain in an experiment to test for the existence of anti-gravity.

• This is exactly what Thieberger observed. The existence of anti-gravity as a fifth repulsive interaction had again been confirmed experimentally in a new experiment.

Nonetheless, there were still die-hard partisans of orthodoxy who raised doubts about the experiment and argued that movements in the water and convenient differences in temperature could have provoked the apparent phenomenon of movement in the sphere and given the impression of repulsion.

It was certainly easier to raise doubts about the abilities of a serious investigator than to try to explain the existence of a new and unknown anti-gravitational force.

These people clearly did not realize that unfettered curiosity was still the spur and special characteristic of the true physicist. Another experiment was soon arranged to replicate Thieberger.

Paul Boynton, professor of astronomy at the University of Washington, constructed a special swinging pendulum with a ring made of two different materials, beryllium and aluminum, suspended on an axis made of a thin quartz filament.

 

 Picture 59.  The torsion pendulum has a ring made up of two different materials which should react differently when they are brought close to a mass that is not placed in the same direction as the gravitational mass of the Earth in the experiment.

• The length of this pendulum’s swing was carefully established and it was observed to remain fixed and invariable.
• But when the pendulum was moved close to the wall of a cliff, its swing changed in proportion to which of the two halves of the ring was closest to the cliff.
• The materials had been chosen intentionally to confirm Fischbach’s first attempt to explain this anomalous behavior of gravity by hypothesizing that the differences depended on the composition of the nucleuses.
• If the hypothesis that it depended on the composition of the components of the nucleuses, protons and electrons, was well-founded, the period of the pendulum’s swing would change.

Current theories could not explain any variation in the oscillation of the toroid, whose two halves were made of different materials.

And yet the pendulum turned out to react to the presence of a mass placed at a direction other than vertical and arranged parallel to its axis. This result was completely anomalous and yet completely consistent with the hypothesis that there is a repulsive force that resists the force of gravity and affects materials with a different nuclear composition differently.

At this point, it would have been interesting to hear what other excuses Thieberger’s detractors could invent to belittle his seriousness and deny the existence of the phenomenon discovered in the new experiment.

We are not aware of any further insults. Thieberger’s earlier detractors may have whispered them but they took great care not to repeat them publicly in the hope that silence would favor forgetfulness.

A combination of data from these two experiments with data from the computer analysis of Eötvos’ notes revealed that the force of gravity was more effective on materials with atomic nucleuses that contained more neutrons than on materials with the same atomic weight but with a greater number of protons.

According to Galileian practice, this observation would have remained here with an official physics that was more open as there was no theory to interpret this characteristic of the neutrons.

Nothing in the current state of the art can explain how and why the terrestrial mass would attract a nucleus made up of a greater number of protons with less gravitational force than another made up of the same number of nucleons but with a greater number of neutrons.

For the Wave Theory of the Field, on the other hand, the reason for the results of the experiment is obvious.

The effects of the fifth repulsive force on materials containing nucleuses made up of a larger number of neutrons is clear confirmation that nature is trying to avoid excessive density in mass even at the level of the concentration of atomic masses.

Indeed, what does it mean if two different nucleuses have the same mass but have nucleuses made up of more protons or more neutrons?

It means they have different density.

A nucleus made up of more protons must necessarily occupy a greater volume than one made up of a greater number of neutrons. This is because the equal charges of the protons produce an electrical repulsive force that tends to maintain the greatest possible distance between the equal charges of protons that are not immediately adjacent to each other.

 

Picture 60.  Two atomic nucleuses made up of the same number of nucleons but a different number of protons. The nucleus on the right, in which the protons are more numerous than in the nucleus on the left, is subjected to a repulsive electrical force that tends to force the protons to remain at a greater distance from one another although they are still bound by the nuclear force. 

 All protons at a distance greater than one fermi (1×10^-15 meters), the unit used classically in the context of nuclear physics within which the nuclear force maintains its full effect, are subject at least in part to an electrical repulsive effect that tends to distance them one from each other.

A nucleus made up of the same number of nucleons, but which has more neutrons that have no electrical charge, can remain more compact and thus more dense. It does not have to contend with the same number of equal charges emitted by the protons that seek to push each other apart electrically to distances that are even a little greater than the radius of one fermi.

Many other experiments are currently in progress at numerous universities to assess the dynamic and static weights of different materials. These will provide further data to confirm whether a fifth repulsive interaction actually exists.

This is happening despite the fact that Fischbach and others have unfortunately abandoned the argument in the face of persistent pressure in the academic field.

The Wave Theory of the Field does not need other confirmation, however. The experimental data merely confirm predictions it had already made.

Its premises naturally lead to the existence of a precise law based on the quantization of space and the Principle of Relative Symmetry to describe an anti-gravitational repulsive fifth interaction.

If, by a struck of good and equally improbable luck, the scientific world had taken the Theory immediately into consideration at the time of its publication in the book Il Campo Unificato [The Unified Field] in October 1984, it would have received almost immediately thereafter a prominent confirmation. Its prediction of the existence of a repulsive fifth interaction would have provided a first proof of its descriptive powers.

As anyone might easily imagine, the effects of the repulsive fifth interaction have disruptive consequences on the cosmic scale.

Real material observers would have to confirm that all masses were moving rapidly away from masses possessing closest to the maximum possible mass, as in such cases the repulsive force could become even greater than the attractive force of gravity.

Furthermore, the observer will find the speeds at which these bodies rush apart to be even greater the farther away they are on the cosmic scale as by increasing his field of observation, he includes a greater number of masses in his observation.

The consequences of all this for the Universe can easily be imagined. Black Holes and neutron stars would be rather unlikely to exist. And it would no longer be indispensable to resort to the anti-scientific hypothesis of a Big Bang to explain the expanding Universe.

• This naturally upsets the picture that astrophysicists and cosmologists have been giving us up to now.
• It destroys decades of research into the first micro-nano-pico seconds after the birth of the Universe in the mythical Big Bang.
• And it invalidates entire lifetimes of research work devoted to the hypothetical structures resulting from the extreme concentration of matter in Black Holes.

 It is very unlikely that one of these astrophysicists or cosmologists who have carefully built up their fame piece by piece in long years of academic publications, conferences, articles in professional journals, successful books, classes and seminars will deny a whole lifetime of study and dedication to these questions, even if it has been dedicated to researching a phantom that does not exist.

On this issue, we must send a message to a personage who by now has been famous for some time and is considered the new Messiah of the Standard Model of cosmology.

We are sorry to have to do this, but we must inform Stephen Hawking that he has definitely won the mythical bet he made in 1975 with his friend Kip Thorne to reassure himself about the possibility that Black Holes might ultimately prove to be no more than “holes in water”.

He should therefore get his friend to pay for the four-year subscription to Private Eye (if it still exists) as a consolation prize for a life dedicated to “something that does not exist”.

No astronomer will ever be able to identify a Black Hole in Cygnus X-1 for the simple reason that Black Holes cannot exist.

 We are in fact truly sorry about this, because it seems to us that Fate has dealt shabbily with a man who has dedicated himself with conviction to researching something that appeared to be a promising and authentic road toward the truth.

We naturally do not ask him to accept this death sentence graciously. We invite him to step into the ring to face the theories. This especially as he would also have to defend all his other cosmological theories on the Big Bang.

And … “may the best theory win”.

We have no very excessive illusions that this challenge will be answered, but we remain convinced it is extremely improbable the new model of the Universe can be introduced immediately and without a bitter fight and an in-depth examination of its advantages.

Unless that is there really is a mind superior “even to itself” on the other side of the wall.

The alternative must not only be better, it must be overwhelming and offer to resolve the very issues that had remained unresolvable in the Standard Model to have any chance at being taken into consideration.

Unfortunately, even this is no guarantee. They often accept shaky responses if only to have some kind of response, even if it is only based on the weak foundations of the current paradigm, to the must difficult and urgent questions about nature, and there are few questions they would openly declare that they had not resolved.

To present the new cosmological model, we must therefore undertake an examination of the Theory’s consequences within a broader context that at the same time includes explanations of the basic forces of nature.

We must therefore show the advantages of the wave model of elementary particles in the context of a quantum theory of space-time, discuss all the implications the new model entails and show that they result in better explanations of astronomical observations.

There are many examples of how difficult it is to convince people of a different explanation of a particular phenomenon even when the new explanation appears clearly to be more logical and explanatory. This is especially the case when the old explanations have had the psychological support of a group with the power to shape opinion such as the one in the current Standard Model that includes Quantum Mechanics.

Eddington said:
Observation alone is not enough.  We are not inclined to believe our eyes only when that which they are showing us is credible.

NEXT PAGE