Modern physics describes electrons and protons as particles, but it does not stop there. Physicists also describe force carriers as particles, and identify a host of particles that remain undetected such as axions, photinos, selectrons, and gravitinos[1]. Supposedly, the strong force is due to the exchange of particles. The photon designates a particle. The neutrino is a particle. Everything is a particle. It is as though the makers of Legos[2] developed modern physics.

The addition of all these particles has helped in one respect: it seems to be giving us an understanding of renormalization. For years scientists have been getting around the difficulties of infinities in their theories by subtracting them out—in essence, by sweeping them under the rug. The method they used worked, but they were not quite sure why. With supergravity it seems as if we may be able to get around renormalization. Crudely speaking, it turns out that for each infinity in the theory that is caused by a boson there is an infinity of the opposite sign caused by a fermion, and they cancel one another.

Despite the promise of explaining renormalization, the theory does have difficulties. The major one is all the particles that are predicted by it—selectrons, winos, and so on. They have never been found in nature. Scientists, however, have an argument for this: They say that they might have been generated with so much mass that we have not yet been able to observe them. But when we get larger accelerators we will be able to.[3]

In the Aether Physics Model, primary angular momentum is the absolute primary unit of matter. Yes, we can shatter the primary angular momentum of protons and neutrons and we can observe that the dying subatomic particles fall apart in regular patterns and these ephemeral pieces can designate as quarks, for whatever it is worth. And just for amusement, one can label characteristics of the quarks as colors, flavors, and up/down. However, when we understand the living nature of Aether, we find that particle smashing is neither instructive nor amusing.

Primary angular momentum absorbs into the Aether via the Casimir effect (page 213). It appears to draw from a huge sea of primary angular momentum (dark matter), which coexists with quantum Aether units. The so-called “Big Bang” appears to be nothing more than the continual appearance of Aether units, into which a quantity of dark matter flows. The Aether units themselves have a non-material origin.

Imagine the Aether units as measuring cups, and imagine angular momentum as something measured. The dynamic Aether unit can hold a specific measure of angular momentum in each of its four spin positions.

The angular momentum itself appears to be a specific mass that sweeps an area in a quantum time. Essentially, there are only two stable mass quantities existing in the normal portion of the Universe, those of the electron and those of the proton. These two mass values are very specific and are unchanging. But why are these masses what they are? Is there some kind of logical order underlying the proton to electron mass ratio?

Whatever may be the causes of mass and the Aether units, there are only four spin positions in the Aether that primary angular momentum can occupy in forward time direction. Only two of these spin positions allow for the existence of stable matter. The masses associated with these two spin positions appear to have a specific ratio. The rotating magnetic field of the Aether maintains the primary angular momentum, thus offering us the appearance of a stable, physical Universe.

## General Structure

Primary angular momentum already describes as a circle of mass moving at a velocity, thus scanning an area. As this primary angular momentum spins through the Aether unit, the conductance of the Aether produces magnetic charge. In addition, as the primary angular momentum spins through the Aether it picks up elementary charge. These three characteristics, primary angular momentum, magnetic charge, and elementary charge, make up the structure of the subatomic particle.

The ratio of the spherical elementary charge to the equivalent spherical magnetic charge produces the fine structure of the subatomic particle. The fine structure times \(8\pi\) is the point of balance where the elementary charge and strong charge interact with each other. This interaction, also known as the “weak force” of the electron, appears in the atomic spectra of isotopes. For atomic nuclei, the weak interaction determines the length of time a proton can remain bound to an electron before a neutron decays.

## The Electron

#### Brief History

The name electron was first used for a unit of negative electricity by the English physicist G. J. Stoney in the late 19th century. The actual discovery of the particle, however, was made in 1897 by J. J. Thomson, who showed that cathode rays are composed of electrons and who measured the ratio of charge to mass for the electron. In 1909, Robert A. Millikan measured the charge of the electron[4].

History credits J.J. Thomson with the discovery of the electron. Other researchers such as Nikola Tesla made similar observations. Tesla quotes in the New York Herald Tribune, September 22, 1929 pp. 1, 29:

“Up to 1896, however, I did not succeed in obtaining a positive experimental proof of the existence of such a medium [Aether]. But in that year I brought out a new form of vacuum tube capable of being charged to any desired potential, and operated it with effective pressures of about 4,000,000 volts. I produced cathodic and other rays of transcending intensity. The effects, according to my view, were due to minute particles of matter carrying enormous electrical charges, which, for want of a better name, I designated as matter not further decomposable. Subsequently those particles were called electrons.”

The electron has a very specific, unvarying mass equal to \(9.109 \times {10^{-31}}kg\). The mass is inseparable from the electron’s angular momentum. That is, one cannot dissect the electron and set aside its mass dimension apart from its length or frequency dimensions. Nor is it possible to remove the length dimension from a ruler, the mass dimension from your body, or the charge dimension from lightning.

In modern physics, we perceive electrons in several unnatural ways. We represent them in terms of mass only, electrostatic charge only, or energy. However, as explained earlier, mass is not a thing. Mass is a dimension, while energy is a unit of work.

We must see the electron for what it is to view it correctly. The electron is primary angular momentum. The Aether determines the electron's mass, length, and frequency dimensions. Altogether, the electron is a frequency, a surface area, a mass, and two types of charge; all rolled into one. When we analyze the effect of Aether conductance, the primary angular momentum is equal to magnetic charge, and elementary charge results from the electron’s existence in the Aether.

In the electron image to the right, the blue tubular loxodrome represents the spin position of the electron. The angular momentum of the electron spins in this spin position of Aether in the direction of forward time. The blue loxodrome's surface area represents the electron's magnetic charge during the interval the angular momentum spins. As the angular momentum spins, the electron also picks up the electrostatic charge of the blue sphere, which is actually distributed frequency. Thus, each subatomic particle will have a spherical electrostatic charge, cardioid (or toroidal) magnetic charge, and angular momentum.

The concept that physical particles forever divide is an error in human perception. Atoms comprise the smallest order of solid particles because only at that level are there three dimensions of length within the particle. However, the angular momentum continues to impart to atoms a quasi-particle or cloud-like state, which has confused scientists and resulted in wave/particle duality conclusions. Reductionism is not a process of cutting things in half but of reducing the complexity of a system to its simpler components; however, those simpler components may manifest.

The redundancy in the above description of the electron is intentional, as the nature of primary angular momentum is a new concept for most people. Understanding what primary angular momentum is takes time and reflection and how it represents the primary state of matter. Only then can we transcend the nonsensical popular notion that particles can exist in two places at once.[5]

The classical electron radius designates by NIST to be[6]:

\begin{equation}\label{classicalER}{r_e} = {\alpha^2}{\alpha_0} \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{r_e} = 2.817940325 \times {10^{-15}}m \end{equation}

And the Bohr radius designates by NIST to be[7]:

\begin{equation}\label{bohrER}{\alpha_0} = \frac{{4\pi {\varepsilon_0}{\hbar^2}}}{{{m_e}{e^2}}} \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{\alpha _0} = 0.5291772108 \times {10^{ - 10}}m \end{equation}

As shown in the Aether Physics Model, the shape of the subatomic particle is toroidal in nature. The formula for a toroid surface area is equal to the small radius times \(2\pi \), times the large radius times \(2\pi \). Since the Aether Physics Model posits the toroid surface area of the electron, based on the Compton wavelength squared in Planck’s constant,

\begin{equation}h = {m_e} \cdot {\lambda _C}^2 \cdot {F_q} \end{equation}

we can set up an identity with regard to the electron radii and the surface area of the electron:

Equation (\ref{classicalER}) for the classical electron radius can express in terms of quantum measurements as:

\begin{equation}{r_e} = \frac{{{\lambda _C}{\alpha }}}{{2\pi }} \end{equation}

Equation (\ref{bohrER}) for the Bohr radius can express in terms of quantum measurements as:

\begin{equation}{\alpha _0} = \frac{{{\lambda _C}}}{{2\pi \alpha }} \end{equation}

Application of these two radii for the surface area of a toroid, which must equal the Compton wavelength squared, gives:

\begin{equation}2\pi \left( {\frac{{{\lambda _C}{\alpha}}}{{2\pi }}} \right) \cdot 2\pi \left( {\frac{{{\lambda _C}}}{{2\pi \alpha }}} \right) = {\lambda _C}^2 \end{equation}

So it appears that both the classical electron radius and the Bohr radius apply to the electron. The results of these observations should be beneficial to Quantum Physics.

Since the above analysis indicates that the electron is toroidal in nature, which also supports the Aether Physics Model, we must examine experiments that measure one or the other radius in order to see why they measure either the small radius or large radius.

David McCutcheon inspired the concept of the classical electron radius and Bohr radius as the two radii of the electron toroid through his independent research and the resulting Ultrawave Theory[8].

## The Proton

Although the double loxodromes appear equal in the diagrams, this is only an artifact of the graphics. In reality, the electron and proton spin positions are not equal. Although the spin positions have the same length and frequency dimensions, they have different mass and magnetic charge dimensions. Also, the length dimensions of the two spin positions are only equal in their products. Both equal quantum lengths squared.

Let us assume that the electron and proton share the same structure. It should then be possible to model the proton similarly. In the Aether Physics Model, the mechanics of the proton are identical to those of the electron, except that the mass is about 1836 times greater. In addition, the proton spins in forward time in the opposite direction as the electron. The spin position is in the Aether's positive charge sphere, so the proton picks up a positive elementary charge. Because of these opposite spin directions, the electron and proton end up with the same spin direction when Aether units fold over to bind as a neutron.

The Standard Model presents a rather curious and counter-intuitive model of the proton. In general, it does not recognize the radius of the proton; rather, the proton and neutron present as two manifestations of the same particle, a nucleon[9].

Let us assume that the proton and neutron structure similar to the electron. We can then assume that the derived fine structures for the proton and neutron are correct because the same symmetry would apply.

Using the fine structure of the proton derived on page 170, the proton's small radius would be:

\begin{equation}{r_p} = \frac{{{\lambda _C}p}}{{2\pi }} \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{r_p} = 1.535 \times {10^{ - 18}}m \end{equation}

and the large radius would be:

\begin{equation}{r_{p0}} = \frac{{{\lambda _C}}}{{2\pi p}} \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{r_{p0}} = 9.717 \times {10^{ - 8}}m \end{equation}

The radii expressed in terms of quantum length would be:

\begin{equation}{r_p} = 6.325 \times {10^{ - 7}}{\lambda _C} \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{r_{p0}} = 4.005 \times {10^4}{\lambda _C} \end{equation}

These radii may only apply only to free protons, if at all. They are theoretical values since we have found no official published radii for the proton and neutron.

As can be seen from the proportion of the small radius to the large radius, if the above values are correct, the toroid of the proton is extremely thin, with a rather large circumference.

We know that the proton and neutron change shape depending on the isotope to which the nuclei belong. Scientists at Jefferson Labs have confirmed the various shapes of the proton, even though they attempt to explain these shapes through quark theory.

Depending on the angular momentum of the quarks, the proton could be spherical in shape or more like a doughnut, a pretzel or a peanut. Miller says the variety of shapes is nearly limitless, and depends on the momentum of the quarks and the angle between the spin of the quark and the spin of the proton[10].

## The Neutron

As with the proton, the Standard Model considers the neutron a nucleon. Similarly, the Standard Model does not attribute a specific radius to the neutron.

For the Aether Physics Model to prove correct concerning nucleon radii, nuclear data must support the theory. Perhaps such data does exist but was shelved because it was considered “anomalous”? The fact that the Standard Model does not publish a radius for either the proton or neutron does leave open the possibility that the Aether Physics Model is correct.

In the Aether Physics Model, the neutron is a composite of a proton and an electron. While the neutron remains intact, it behaves like a quantum subatomic particle. The neutron can remain a free subatomic particle for about 17 minutes[11] before decaying back into a proton and electron.

As depicted in the image below, the neutron involves two Aether units folded onto each other. In one Aether unit, an electron occupies the electron spin position, and in the other unit, a proton occupies the proton spin position.

The positive sphere of the proton attracts the negative sphere of the electron. And since the electron and proton spin in opposite directions, the two subatomic particles have the same spin direction when the Aether units fold over and can produce a neutron. Because the forward and reverse directions of frequency determine spin, it is independent of the subatomic particle angular momentum. The net spin of the two subatomic particles sharing folded space remains ½ while the folded Aether unit causes space to condense up to a factor of two, another effect of the neutron. This condensed space appears to be the mechanical cause for the circular deflection angle around the Sun and the precession of the perigee of planets orbiting stars.

Also, note that the bound electron-proton produces what appears to be a normal Aether unit with no subatomic particle in the remaining sphere. The neutron can behave like an electron or proton and bind with other neutrons.

The angular momentum of the neutron is the sum of that of the electron and proton plus an extra amount named the “anti-neutrino” by the Standard Model. In addition, the electron has a wobble slightly different from the proton, caused by the difference between the masses and the different spin positions the proton and electron take in the Aether.

We can assume that the free neutron's small radius is:

\begin{equation}{r_n} = \frac{{{\lambda _C}n}}{{2\pi }} \end{equation}

and the free neutron's large radius is:

\begin{equation}{r_{n0}} = \frac{{{\lambda _C}}}{{2\pi n}} \end{equation}

In terms of the measurements of meters and quantum length, the neutron radii express as:

\begin{equation}{r_n} = 1.533 \times {10^{ - 18}}m \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{r_{n0}} = 9.717 \times {10^{ - 8}}m \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{r_n} = 6.317 \times {10^{ - 7}}{\lambda _C} \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{r_{n0}} = 4.005 \times {10^4}{\lambda _C} \end{equation}

We will note that the APM predicts the proton and neutron's small radii are much smaller than the electron's small radius, while the large radii of the proton and neutron are vastly larger. We predict these radii apply only to free protons and neutrons.

When protons bind with protons and neutrons bind with neutrons in a nucleus, the magnetic (strong) force could cause the large radius to shrink and the small radius to grow to the point that bound protons and neutrons would appear as spherical.

### Proton-Neutron Angular Momenta

Surprisingly, the angular momentum of the proton and neutron are subatomic characteristics ignored by the Standard Model.

According to the Aether Physics Model, angular momentum equals the mass of the subatomic particle times the quantum length and the quantum velocity (speed of photons). Thus, the angular momenta of the proton and neutron are easily calculated.

\begin{equation}{h_p} = {m_p} \cdot {\lambda _C} \cdot c \end{equation}

where \({h_p}\) is equal to the angular momentum of the proton, \({m_p}\) is the mass of the proton, \({c}\) is the speed of photons and \({\lambda _C}\) is the Compton wavelength. Similarly, the angular momentum of the neutron is:

\begin{equation}{h_n} = {m_n} \cdot {\lambda _C} \cdot c \end{equation}

where \({h_n}\) denotes the angular momentum of the neutron and \({m_n}\) is the mass of the neutron. The values of these angular momenta are:

\begin{equation}{h_p} = 1.217 \times {10^{ - 30}}\frac{{kg \cdot {m^2}}}{{sec}} \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{h_n} = 1.218 \times {10^{ - 30}}\frac{{kg \cdot {m^2}}}{{sec}} \end{equation}

### The Neutrino

When the proton binds with an electron, the Aether captures extra angular momentum between the electron and proton. This extra angular momentum likely comes from the primary angular momentum existing between Aether units in the form of dark matter. The extra angular momentum induces from the conservation of the known angular momentum[12]:

\begin{equation}{h_n} = {h_p} + h + {h_{ - 0}} \end{equation}

where \({h_n}\) is the angular momentum of the neutron, \({h_p}\) is the angular momentum of the proton, \({h}\) is the angular momentum of the electron (Planck’s constant), and \({h_-0}\) is the angular momentum of the anti-neutrino.

The anti-neutrino and neutrino have too much angular momentum to fit in an Aether unit. Therefore, the trapped angular momentum must confine between folded Aether units containing an electron and proton. Since the anti-neutrino angular momentum is much closer in value to that of the electron, the electron coupling to the anti-neutrino must be almost entirely responsible for keeping the anti-neutrino angular momentum spinning. (Since spin is a property that Aether imparts to subatomic particles, the anti-neutrino must couple to the electron to maintain its spin while trapped in a neutron).

The cavity that the anti-neutrino confines to are magnetic in nature due to the magnetic charge of the electron and proton binding. Therefore, the cavity must follow the spin position and geometry rules of magnetic charge, which, like all quantum geometry, describes in terms of unit radii.

The geometry of the neutrino must be toroidal \(\left( {4{\pi ^2}} \right)\) if it exists within the Aether structure. Moreover, since the neutrino couples to the electron, it exists between half of the electron and proton Aether units minus half-spin \(\left( {\frac{{4{\pi ^2}}}{2} - \frac{1}{2}} \right)\). In addition, since the neutrino exists between proton and electron magnetic charge binding, it must have a steradian angle. This gives the neutrino angular momentum, in terms of coupled electron angular momentum, as:

\begin{equation}\frac{1}{{4\pi }}\left( {\frac{{4{\pi ^2}}}{2} - \frac{1}{2}} \right)h = 1.53h \end{equation}

Simplified we get:

\begin{equation}\label{neutrino}\frac{{4{\pi ^2} - 1}}{{8\pi }}h = 1.53h \end{equation}

Equation (\ref{neutrino}) reflects the observed behavior of the neutrino when it releases during beta decay. Because the beta decay is due to the “weak interaction,” the neutrino can violate the conservation of parity. This means that spin from the electrostatic binding is due to two subatomic particles mirroring each other, as with spin from magnetic charge binding. However, the spin due to the neutrino in a decay process involves only one subatomic particle (the neutrino), and therefore there is only one spin parity. \(8\pi\) is the weak interaction constant.

A neutron is a proton with bound electron and captured neutrino angular momentum. As long as the neutron remains part of a nucleus through magnetic charge binding, the neutron will not normally decay.

Since the neutrino angular momentum does not reside in Aether and exists between the Aether units of the Aether fabric, the neutrino is vulnerable to displacement by other neutrinos passing through. And since neutrinos do not exist within the Aether fabric and therefore do not have magnetic or electrostatic charges, they can easily pass through dense planets and stars. Thus, there should be an increase in nuclear beta decay during geomagnetic storms since proton plasma striking the Earth’s upper atmosphere generates an increase of muon neutrinos.

Neutrons occasionally release from a nucleus and decay in about 11 to 17 minutes. Still, there is no law governing the half-life of a neutron, and a particular neutron may decay at any given time. The decay process may result from a collision with another neutrino or an electron’s magnetic moment reaching beyond the binding range of its magnetic charge attraction to the proton.

In addition to decay from natural collisions, it may be possible to bombard a neutron with neutrinos and initiate beta decay within an atomic nucleus[13]. Of course, certain isotopes will be less stable than others. When the electron escapes from the neutron, the neutrino angular momentum also escapes, thus providing another opportunity to initiate beta decay.

### Further Neutrino Insights

No experiment has ever conclusively detected a neutrino or anti-neutrino particle, even though the neutrino should have more angular momentum than an electron.

Neutrinos possess still another unique characteristic: they are very light. We do not know whether they possess any mass at all. It is quite possible that they have none, like photons. Still, many physicists are convinced that they do possess some mass, even if only an infinitesimal amount. In 1979, physicists at the ITEP research institute of the Academy of Sciences at Moscow claimed to have found proof that neutrinos possess a mass of about 20 eV. To date, this finding has not been corroborated by any other research center, and it most likely will be some time before we will know unequivocally whether or not neutrinos possess mass. But we do know that their mass cannot be very great, at most about 30 eV. At any rate, neutrinos are very light particles, more than ten thousand times lighter than electrons.[14]

Interestingly, the neutrino is supposed to have a mass ten thousand times lighter than the electron, but its angular momentum is about 1.531 times larger than the electron. Here is a simple equation you will not see in the scientific literature. Since angular momentum conserves, the neutron's angular momentum minus the proton's angular momentum minus the electron's angular momentum gives the total remaining angular momentum attributed to the neutrino.

\begin{equation}{h_n} - {h_p} - h = 1.53h \end{equation}

The angular momentum of the neutrino is about 1.531 times greater than the angular momentum of the electron. According to the Aether Physics Model, if the neutrino were a true subatomic particle, it would have a mass equal to 1.531 times greater than the mass of the electron.

\begin{equation}\frac{{1.531h}}{{{\lambda _C}^2 \cdot {F_q}}} = 1.531{m_e} \end{equation}

And if the masses of the proton and electron are subtracted from the mass of the neutron, we get the same result:

\begin{equation}{m_n} - {m_p} - {m_e} = 1.531{m_e} \end{equation}

If the neutrino is said to have a mass ten thousand times lighter than the electron, then the Standard Model interpretation of neutrinos must be wrong. Alternatively, where is the missing mass[15] if the Standard Model were correct? Relativity theory might claim that the mass converts into energy. But remember, energy is not a thing; mass is merely a dimension. In addition, energy is time-dependent and finite. If mass were converted to energy in a subatomic particle, it can only exist for so long before it expands. Mass cannot be converted into energy for 1 million years in one instance, and the same mass only exists as energy for 17 minutes in another instance. For the interpretation to be correct, the missing mass must explain in terms of angular momentum.

Mass is simply inertia. Mass is in many other units than energy, such as potential, resistance, momentum, and magnetic flux. Mass means that when something exists, it remains until something else causes it to change. Dark matter has mass, and while dark matter is captured between a proton and an electron, that mass will contribute to the mass of the neutron by contributing to the neutron's angular momentum and magnetic charge. However, when the dark matter is freed from the neutron, no magnetic charge is associated with the neutrino dark matter, and it goes "dark" from the Aether-based Universe. The neutrino mass remains dark matter, but it is no longer measurable.

## The Photon

In the Standard Model, the photon is a discrete parcel of energy.

#### Photon – Standard Model Definition

The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.[18]

The Standard Model does not describe the photon as an actual entity but as the energy quantum, a supposed photon would contain. In other words, the photon remains undefined even when acknowledged as possessing energy. If the definition states that the photon is a discrete particle, the particle must have some physical property. Yet the mass is zero. What kind of particle has zero mass even though mass is supposed to be one of its dimensions (as evidenced by the unit of energy)?

Look at it this way. Energy defines as a unit of work, which is equal to the dimension of mass times the velocity squared:

\begin{equation}joule = \frac{{kg \cdot {m^2}}}{{se{c^2}}} \end{equation}

If \(E = m{c^2}\) were a real equation that described the energy of a photon, the photon would have energy equal to:

\begin{equation}\begin{array}{l} E = 0kg \cdot {c^2} \\ E = 0joule \\ \end{array} \end{equation}

The photon has zero energy if it has zero mass. At least, that is how we learn to do the math in algebra class. However, our scientific community tells us that mass converts to energy due to relativistic effects. Somewhere we are supposed to forget what we learned in algebra class and believe that zero mass can still amount to a huge amount of energy. In other words, the photon is pure energy, which is supposed to explain why it has zero mass. The math does not support that claim; nonetheless, it is the current mainstream scientific explanation.

Therefore, there is a paradox. Energy is equal to mass times velocity squared, but the photon energy does not equal zero. We normally call such theories “mistakes.” However, modern physics calls it the Special Relativity theory. Perhaps that is why the word “special” is in the name of the theory. We allow this theory to break the rules of mathematics and defy common sense, while other theories must hold to exact specifications.

If energy is just a unit of work, what did the mass become? Apparently, nobody knows because the definition of the photon relates to the amount of energy it possesses, not to the quantification of the photon itself. Therefore, we really have the question of whether or not Einstein truly quantified the photon.

As mentioned (page 120), in the Aether Physics Model, the photon is the angular momentum of an electron moving away at the speed of photons. The photon's angular momentum must conserve, so it takes the form of an expanding double cardioid with a decreasing small radius. The photon is merely a line with an incredibly short, minor radius at extreme distances.

When a photon materializes according to the Aether Physics Model, the angular momentum of the electron radiates at the speed of photons and the photon is equal to:

\begin{equation}phtn = h \cdot c \end{equation}

According to the Aether Physics Model, it would appear that the photon seems to have zero mass because half of its angular momentum is in the electron spin position and the other half is in the positron spin position. Just as a particle and anti-particle annihilate, it could be that half-filled spin positions would neutralize their oppositely spinning inertias rather than annihilating each other. However, if an atom absorbs the photon's angular momentum and merely fills an electron spin position, then the mass and charge would be available for physical interaction.

Another way to look at this is with the cup and water analogy. The Aether has four cups. There are two different sizes, of which the electron and positron are the same. Of these, one is spinning with left torque while the other is spinning with right torque. The angular momentum flows divides between these two cups, and thus the photon can easily convert to an electron or positron, which can convert back to a photon.

Rarely does nature send out just one photon from an atom. According to the Aether Physics Model, atomic structure determines light frequency by the photon production rate. To increase the intensity of the photon stream (light), one would increase the number of excited atoms. To achieve maximum light intensity for a given substance, one would excite 100% of the atoms of that substance.

In the Standard Model, the increase of light intensity explains as the increase of input energy. When the energy input to a substance is increased, the energy output naturally increases. Depending on whether there is a valence electron in an atom, certain atoms absorb photons whilst others reflect. Only a portion of the original photon angular momentum is absorbed when a given photon reaches a receiving atom. The greater the distance between the emitting atom and the receiving atom, the less angular momentum from a given photon will be absorbed at the receiving atom.

Angular momentum arrives from all directions at varying rates for a given receiving atom. The portion of angular momentum that arrives at the atom decelerates and then stores within the atom in a valence position containing no subatomic particle. This valence position is receiving angular momentum, and depending upon the atomic structure, there may be several scenarios as to what happens next.

- the received angular momentum can be accumulated to form an electron, or
- the received angular momentum can be accumulated to form a positron, or
- the received angular momentum can be accumulated as a combination electron and positron.

As accumulated angular momentum increases, it eventually reaches a point where its electron and/or positron spin position fills with angular momentum. The total energy of the filled valence position is a constant value equal to the mass of an electron (or positron) times the speed of photons squared. An atom cannot fill a valence position to any other energy value.

It is the absolute value of a filled valence position that is considered to be a received photon in mainstream physics. However, mainstream physics quantifies the photon as an energy packet equal to:

\begin{equation}E = hf \end{equation}

where \(E\) is the energy packet, \(h\) is Planck's constant, and \(f\) is the inherent frequency of the energy packet.

Several facts need proper analysis concerning the mainstream concept of energy packets.

- The energy is constant, which is needed to fill an atom's valence position.
- The \(h\) of Planck's constant is also a constant.
- The so-called inherent frequency of the energy packet is variable.

To claim the energy needed to fill the valence position is constant, the angular momentum cannot be equal to Planck's constant but must be variable. This is consistent with the Aether Physics Model interpretation of photon physics.

To claim that \(h\) is Planck's constant, the energy quantity at the receiving atom cannot describe a quantum packet of energy since the energy value will always be variable due to the frequency being variable.

Again, the mainstream view of the photon adds nothing to understanding what a photon is.

In the Aether Physics Model, a photon is emitted as Planck's constant times the speed of photons, and since both are constants, the photon itself is a constant. In the Aether Physics Model, the photon is, therefore, a true quantum of light.

The photons are emitted as light at exact frequencies by atoms according to the individual atomic structures.

\begin{equation}ligt = phtn\cdot freq \end{equation}

The photons spread out according to the Compton function and the distance between the emitter and receiver. Thus the amount of angular momentum from any given photon arriving at any given atom is very small. Due to the frequency at which the photons are emitted, a constant train of small amounts of angular momentum arrives at the receiving atom and gradually fills an empty valence position. Since we know the energy must be exactly equal to the mass of an electron times the speed of photons squared, which happens to be the definition of the \(enrg\) unit in the Quantum Measurements Units, then the energy received is equal to:

\begin{equation}enrg = \frac{ligt}{c} \end{equation}

where the light is giving up its velocity to impart energy to the valence position. The energy equation is also equal to:

\begin{equation}enrg = angm \cdot freq \end{equation}

which is similar to \(E=hf\) except that the angular momentum is variable and is not the angular momentum constant of \(h\).

## Graviton

According to modern physics, the graviton may be the quantum of the gravitational field[19]. The language differs from the Aether Physics Model, but the graviton resembles the Aether unit. The Aether unit and the graviton have a spin of 2 and zero physical mass.

Nevertheless, unlike the Standard Model, the Aether unit is not only the quantum of the gravitational field; it is the quantum of all the fields. In fact, in the Aether Physics Model, the Aether unit is the only quantum that can produce a field of any kind since it also is space.

## Positron

The positron has the same mass (and therefore the same magnetic charge) as the electron and the same quantity of electrostatic charge as the proton but exists in the opposite spin torque direction of the electron and proton. Due to being of opposite electrostatic charge value, the positron exists in the opposite electric charge sphere of the electron and in the same electric charge sphere as the proton.

## Anti-Proton

The anti-proton has the same electrostatic charge as the electron and the opposite spin torque direction as the electron and proton. As the electron and proton can bind and thus cause their spin directions to be the same, the positron and anti-proton can do the same and produce an anti-neutron.

In addition, similar to the gravitational repulsion of the positron and electron, the anti-proton and proton would also gravitationally repel each other. It could very well be that many of the far away galaxies are actually anti-galaxies.

Furthermore, since the electron works with the positron to produce photons in the proton-based portion of the Universe, we can assume that positrons work with electrons to produce photons in the anti-proton-based portion of the Universe. Thus, we should be able to see anti-galaxies if they are not too far distant, as the photons of matter and anti-matter are the same. Theoretically, we should be able to receive signals from civilizations made of anti-matter via radio transmissions.

## Exotic Collision Effects

The Aether Physics Model is a true quantum model that explains the structure of stable subatomic particles that make up the physical Universe. So-called “particles” that last for less than a minute are not the primary building blocks of a stable Universe; they are the temporary effects of collisions. The Aether Physics Model focuses on establishing a structural model for the stable forms of existence that make up the vast portion of the visible Universe.

When sufficient resources and access to data have been obtained, there can be further research into muons, tau particles, and other collision effects within the paradigm of the Aether Physics Model.

[1] It suffices for our purposes to notice that there is no empirical evidence that any of these particles exist; they are discussed in elementary particle physics because they appear in theories that are untested but attractive generalizations of successful theories, and they are considered in cosmology because they have some interesting and conceivably beneficial properties. Morton S. Roberts, ed., Astronomy & Astrophysics (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1985) 285.

[2] LEGO is a trademark of the LEGO Group.

[3] Barry Parker, Einstein's Dream: The Search for a Unified Theory of the Universe (New York: Plenum Press, 1986) 265.

[4] "Electron ," The Columbia Encyclopedia , 6th ed.

[5] A Dial-Up Quantum Reality (in Research News) David Kestenbaum, Science, New Series, Vol. 279, No. 5356. (Mar. 6, 1998), p. 1457.

[6] The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?eqre|search_for=radius

[7] The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?eqbohrrada0|search_for=radius

[8] Web page archived at: http://web.archive.org/web/20040923070747/http:/davidmac_no1.tripod.com/.

[9] "…the proton and the neutron are different states of the same elementary particle, the nucleon." Walter C. Michels, International Dictionary of Physics and Electronics (New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1956) 726.

[10] Zooming in on a proton packed with surprises, 2003 JLab News Release http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/dir_off/public_affairs/news_releases/2003/03protonshape.html

[11] "In a nucleus the neutron can be stable, but a free neutron decays with a half - life of about 17 min (1,013 sec), into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino." "Neutron ," The Columbia Encyclopedia , 6th ed.

[12] Because the neutrino itself cannot be detected easily, inasmuch as its interaction with matter is so weak that it will usually pass through any detector untouched, the neutrino helicity is best measured indirectly through measurements of the momenta and angular momenta of all the other particles taking part in the decay. Assuming the conservation of momentum and angular momentum, any missing momentum and angular momentum must be assigned to the neutrino. Robert K. Adair, The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) 284.

[13] "an energetic neutrino can induce the reverse of the decay that produced it. " "Neutrino ," The Columbia Encyclopedia , 6th ed.

[14] Harald Fritzsch, The Creation of Matter: The Universe from Beginning to End, trans. Jean Steinberg (New York: Basic Books, 1984) 122.

[15] To add a disconcerting touch to the mystery of beta decay, it was found that microcalorimetric measurements of the heat given up by the disintegration of RaE showed that the effective energy in heating is the mean energy of the beta particles. Thus it appeared that an energy of Emax was given up at each disintegration, but only a variable fraction of this energy was ever measured; the rest of the energy mysteriously vanished. Lapp and Andrews Nuclear Radiation Physics (New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1948) 172

[18] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[19] "…the quanta of the gravitational field, which we name the graviton, must have a spin of 2." Robert K. Adair, The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) 217.