2. Ontological Foundation for Quantum Structure

Ontology defines as “the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being[1].”Physics is “The science of matter and energy and interactions between the two[1].” Physics is the study of mechanics and has provided little insight into the ontological foundation for quantum structure; however, the Aether Physics Model reveals the ontological foundation for the quantum structure and that its existence has a non-material cause. The APM reveals a true ontology based on physical data.

Scientists claim that their physics models predict the data, a recurrent theme throughout the Standard Model and Special Relativity Theory. However, the data results from the truth of existence, not from the creation of experiments and theory. The experiments measure existence; they do not construct it. Theories and models merely explain the data. If the theory does not appeal to common sense, then what prevents us from replacing it with a better theory that does? The Aether Physics Model is the better theory.

Scientists claim the Standard Model is convincing even though it defies common sense when explaining quantum structure. There is no attempt to correct the logic of Standard Model structural theories, as the underlying physics assumptions will not allow it. Instead of finding better explanations for quantum structure, we hear the only important factor is a usable result concerning quantum mechanics.

The Standard Model of physics lists the elementary particles as quarks, leptons, and force carrier particles[2]. Quarks seem to appear to scientists when two stable protons or neutrons slam together. The protons and neutrons break apart with the same behavior each time and the resulting pattern of debris results in what physicists call quarks. The quarks have a life span of about 10^-12 seconds, and an isolated quark has never been found[3]. Protons have a “half-life” of 10³² years or more[4]. Is it likely that such extremely short-lived quarks produce extremely long-lived protons? 

If neutrons are made of quarks, what about observations of neutrons decaying into protons and electrons[5] and protons and electrons binding to produce neutrons[6]? Likewise, there is the force carrier “particles.” Physicists speak of gluons[7] as real particles[8], but what evidence is there for a gluon particle? Does it really make sense for force to manifest as a particle?

Quantum Theory[9] (Quantum Mechanics) examines the structure and behavior of atoms and molecules. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle[10] states that subatomic particles only exist as probability functions. Wave-particle duality theory (complementarity principle[11]) states that subatomic particles can behave like both particles and waves. Einstein’s \(E=mc^{2}\) has been interpreted as stating the dimension of mass and the unit of energy are equivalent.

Of course, in recognition of the irrational nature of many Standard Model principles, any respectable physicist will tell you not to take Standard Model physics concepts literally concerning quantum structure. We hear that physics models are abstract concepts of poorly understood topics.

Modern physics ignores any hint of a non-material, creative force for the Universe; it too closely resembles Deity as described in many world religions. Yet physicists invent hypothetical particles with color, flavor, up-down characteristics, and gluons, that may or may not exist due to probabilities. It is as though the Standard Model exists to deny the Universe has a Creator, only to spread belief in its own myths.

As we entered the 21st century, our measurement equipment and the materials we worked with had reached a very high level of sophistication. We now know the constants of the subatomic realm to a much greater degree of accuracy than did the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th centuries. Beginning with a fresh look at the precise values and dimensions of the quantum realm, the Aether Physics Model gives the world real quantum structural physics and, thankfully, real physics based on a real non-material existence.

It is not enough to point to the weaknesses and inconsistencies of an established or proposed theory. A convincing argument requires the enumeration of the questioned theory’s weaknesses and a better theory to take its place.

And therein rests the general purpose of this book. Presented are the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the Standard Model concerning quantum structures as well as a better theory to take its place. This better theory, however, is not necessarily new. For thousands of years before Albert Einstein, it was widely accepted that the physical Universe constructs from the existence of Aether in one manifestation or another.

Albert Einstein did not disprove, nor did he attempt to disprove, the existence of the Aether. In fact, on May 5, 1920, at the University of Leyden [12], Einstein gave a lecture in which he defended the existence of Aether.

What Albert Einstein set out to do in his earlier work was to explain the observed physical phenomena without invoking the Aether. Einstein found limited success, but he could not develop a Unified Force Theory or Grand Unified Theory based on his Relativity theories. This was because the forces are inherent to the structure of existence, whereas the Relativity theories are nothing more than reinterpretations of Aether theories altered by unproved postulates.

Einstein was successful enough to advance science to its present condition. Still, with today’s developments in nanotechnology and interplanetary and interstellar explorations, we desperately need a more accurate description of quantum structure. As it turns out, this more accurate theory of quantum structure once again invokes the existence of the Aether.

The Quantum Aether Unit

The concept of the Aether was dominant in the physics theories from ancient Greece and India until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The concept of the Aether took many different forms. Taking advantage of Albert Michelson's failure to measure a rigid Aether independent of physical matter, Albert Einstein developed a new approach based on his now famous \(E=mc^{2}\) expression. Mr. Einstein did not claim to disprove the Aether. Still, he did usher in a new physics that excluded the Aether from science and thus prevented the development of any ontological foundation for quantum structure[13].

Some early theories of the Aether presupposed a stationary particulate medium. The light seemed to travel as a wave in the Aether medium, much as water ripples travel on the water's surface. When Michelson and Morley experimented to identify the particulate medium as absolute space, resulting in Earth drifting through the Aether as the Earth moved through space, they found no overwhelming evidence for the magnitude of Aether drift they expected. However, they did measure an Aether drift. Dayton Miller later conducted extensive tests that verified an Aether drift relative to the Earth at about ten kilometers per second [14]. The results indicated that if Aether exists, it must drag relative to the Earth [15], which Augustin Fresnel also posited{[11]}.

Since the prevailing understanding did not allow Aether to drag along with the Earth, many touted this as evidence against the existence of the Aether. This prejudice toward a dragging Aether also caused many to proclaim the erroneous assumption that the Michelson-Morley experiments showed no Aether drift, despite Albert Einstein using the exact data and resulting Lorentz transformations used to quantify the dragging Aether hypothesis as his Special Relativity theory. The only change to the Aether physics of Hendrik Lorentz was Albert Einstein adding two postulates that forbade any discussion of the Aether and which forced the results to be interpreted as time dilation instead of Aether drift.

With the Aether Physics Model, the existence of Aether is an essential aspect of explaining the phenomena within the Universe. Now that we have exact measurements of certain constants, we can deduce that the Aether is not in the form of a physically detectable particle but in the form of a non-material Aether unit of the 2-spin rotating magnetic field. A quantum Aether unit has a precise value equal to Coulomb’s constant times \(16\pi^{2}\).

\begin{equation}{A_u} = rmfd = {k_C} \cdot 16{\pi ^2} \end{equation}

The rotating magnetic field concept of the Aether presented in this book is not much different from John Bernoulli’s “whirlpool Aether” concept:

The Aether has a non-material nature revealed through Coulomb’s constant, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the permeability constant, and the permittivity constant. The Aether's newly defined and important conductance constant relates directly to the electromagnetism of subatomic particles and consciousness.

As for evidence proving the existence of the Aether, it does exist. Anybody can do these two simple experiments to see visual proof of the Aether. The first experiment requires a magnet and cathode ray tube. The cathode ray tube could be your computer monitor, TV, or oscilloscope screen. Before this experiment, ensure your cathode ray tube has a degaussing feature, or you may permanently disfigure your viewing screen.

Place the magnet against the cathode ray tube with the north or south pole facing the screen. You will notice a pattern seemingly caused by the magnetic flux of the magnet as it reorganizes the electron beams. Once the magnet is flush against the screen, twist it back and forth. You will notice that the pattern on the screen does not change. Had the magnet been the source of the magnetic flux, the pattern would have changed since the magnetic flux would link to the molecules and atoms of the magnet. However, the magnetic flux arises from the Aether and thus exists relative to the Aether. Twisting the magnet will not affect the magnetic flux of the Aether. This experiment will work regardless of the shape of the magnet.

The same experiment works with ferrofluid. Ferrofluid is a liquid substance that reacts to a magnetic field. Position a magnet below a dish of ferrofluid and twist the magnet back and forth, as in the above experiment. The magnetic flux will not move, as observed by the ferrofluid not moving. Once again, the magnetic flux associated with the magnet comes from the Aether, not the magnet.

In the Michelson-Morley experiments, the Aether follows along with the matter of the Earth and the atmosphere. The Aether is not a wind that blows freely through matter, except as matter becomes less dense. This is contrary to the expectations of some scientists in the 1800s. In addition, Aether gives form to matter, but matter also occupies and manipulates Aether. The situation is more complicated than an assumed fixed Aether with an independently existing matter.

An important early prediction of Einstein's General Relativity was the advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, whose measurement provided one of the classical tests of Einstein's theory. The advance of the orbital point of closest approach also applies to a binary pulsar system and an Earth-orbiting satellite. General relativity also predicts that the rotation of a body like Earth will drag the local inertial frames of reference around it, which will affect the orbit of a satellite[17].

“Frame dragging” is another euphemism of the Standard Model intended to acknowledge the properties of Aether, but without calling it Aether. The frame-dragging of General Relativity theory is tantamount to the notion of Aether moving with matter.

Einstein’s Aether

In the previous section, we provided an experiment to prove the existence of the Aether using a permanent magnet and a CRT. Although cathode ray tubes did not exist in the late 1800s, Albert Einstein wrote a paper at the age of 16 which essentially made the same observations about magnetic fields and Aether. In "The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics"[18], Jagdish Mehra translates Albert Einstein’s first paper from German. We provide the full text of the paper as it supports and relates to the Aether Physics Model's ontological foundation for the quantum structure.

The Foundation of Dynamic Space

Three length axes in three-dimensional coordinate systems compose a volume and generally represent the concept of space. This implies that space is equal to volume. And for general purposes, if we talk about a room with space, we only talk about volume.

In the Aether Physics Model, space-time is more than just the three dimensions of length and one dimension of time. Space is united with time, so the two are inseparable, producing a single Aether unit. However, the coordinate systems still in use only include length dimensions. We need a coordinate system that includes space (volume) and temporal dimensions (but not the Minkowski coordinate system). Further, whereas perception of volume-time through our bodies’ senses gives the appearance of just one dimension of linear time, linear time is an illusion. In reality, the temporal dimensions of Aether are actually frequency dimensions, and there are two of them. Together these two dimensions of frequency produce a spherical unit of resonance. While in reality, the quantum Universe has the qualities of volume-resonance, we perceive the physical, macro Universe within the limited qualities of volume-time.

Another intriguing notion of Aether is that space and resonance integrate through a shared geometry. In other words, volume and resonance are the same entity but viewed from two orthogonal perspectives.

Geometric Structure of Aether

Non-material Aether having geometry might seem a bit strange. However, this key component of the ontological foundation for quantum structure is exactly what empirical data suggests. In fact, after one has reviewed the Aether Physics Model in totality, it is impossible to think of the Aether without geometry.

The Aether's geometrical constant is \(16\pi^{2}\), translating to a geometrical shape of a tubular loxodrome[19] distributed over two adjacent spheres. Further induced is that the spheres have electrostatic polarity, the whole structure has a magnetic polarity, and the spin directions have gravitational polarity.

One-fourth of the total loxodrome surrounding both spheres is a tube with a surface constant of the toroid constant of \(4\pi^{2}\). Because toroids have two radii, the minor radius and the major radius, they can have varying radii lengths but still have the same surface area. The toroids in the left image have different radii but identical surface areas. This is why all subatomic particles share the same quantum surface area as the Compton wavelength squared. Because all subatomic particles have the same surface area, we can graphically represent them as twin tubular loxodromes (referred to simply as “loxodromes”) while using the quantum distance squared as their surface area.

The perfectly symmetrical representation only applies to the surface areas and the electrostatic charges. The mass, distributed frequency, and magnetic charge dimensions are not symmetrical in a given Aether unit. The unequal distributions of quantum distributed frequency affect the general form of the physical Universe and give us shapes like flowers, butterflies, tree branching, leaf patterns, snail shells, skeletal structures, body organ composition, and every other pattern that arises from growth processes.  The unequal mass division reflects the observed difference between electron and proton masses and their proportional magnetic charges.

The toroid constant \(4\pi^{2}\) represents the surface geometry of ½-spin subatomic particles. The electron and proton are examples of ½-spin[20] subatomic particles. Half of the double loxodrome has the geometrical constant of \(8\pi^{2}\), either the loxodrome around a single sphere or half a loxodrome around two spheres. A full loxodrome represents 1-spin, such as the photon possesses. The full loxodrome around both spheres represents 2-spin, such as the Aether unit and supposed “graviton” possess.

\(16\pi^{2}\) is the square of \(4\pi\), which is the spherical constant. The \(4\pi\) spherical constant is also related to the \(c^{2}\) (speed of photons squared) constant and describes the \(c^{2}\) geometrical qualities (page 156). The mathematical function of the loxodrome path over the spheres is:

\begin{equation}f\left( \theta \right) = \pi \sin \frac{\theta }{2} \end{equation}

All physical existence ultimately derives its geometry from the Aether. The images above show that the geometry represents the available spin positions for the angular momentum to reside in the Aether unit. The Aether images do not represent some particle or otherwise solid entity. The color coding is intended to show that each spin position is a unique “pathway"; the blue path is for the electron, gold is for the positron, aqua is for the anti-proton, and red is for the proton. The blue sphere is the negative electrostatic sphere, and the red sphere is the positive electrostatic sphere.

It is important to remember that the tubular loxodromes shown in the drawings are accurate only concerning the surface constant. The surface area of each half-spin loxodrome is always equal to the Compton wavelength squared. However, the minor and major electron and proton radii vary in length, and so do the sphere radii. The Aether, being a 2-spin rotating magnetic field, is flexible and allows for centrifugal expansion as envisioned by Bernoulli.

The Aether is thus a “field” in which subatomic particles can exist. Because of this geometry of Aether, it is possible to model the structures of electrons, photons, protons, and neutrons and their interactions.

Further, the Aether includes the dimensions of mass and charge. An enormous reciprocal force (Gforce) emanating from a non-material Source acts upon the strong charge dimensions giving rise to the Aether.

The Ontological Foundation of the Fundamental Forces

The preceding section is about the non-material Aether. To coherently present the ontological foundation for the quantum structure of the physical Universe, we must understand the non-material “field,” or environment, in which physical matter exists. Once we know the non-material Aether structure, we can easily produce a mathematically correct and discrete view of the physical world. The reader should understand that the phrase “mathematically correct” in the Aether Physics Model means that not only the values and operators are correct but also the dimensions. In other words, all the mathematics used in this book reflects real-world structures.

At the core of the Aether Physics Model is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, the first such theory to exist in modern science. The Unified Force Theory develops from the concept of distributed charge and fine structures of the subatomic particles (fine structures are proportions of spherical elementary charge to equivalent spherical magnetic charge). The magnetic force is mathematically (since 1950) and experimentally (since 1996) proven to have a charge that complements, but is different from, elementary charge. But, the theory and the experiments that proved the existence of electron magnetic force were not seen for what they were because of the investment in the pi meson (pion){10} hypothesis of a strong force carrier. The Casimir equation proves that the electron has a magnetic charge and obeys a magnetic force law.

When examining Newton's gravitational law, Coulomb's electrostatic law, and the magnetic force law, what seemed to be four distinct forces demonstrate three different manifestations of the Gforce with three different dimensions. The Gforce is comparable to the Sun, and the three aspects of subatomic particles (electrostatic charge, magnetic charge, and mass) are comparable to three different glass colors. We see three different forces in the physical world. Still, they are all manifestations of one Gforce, as three different colors of light emanate through three different colored panes of glass, even though they are manifestations of one light source. This is an example of how force evolves into complexity, similar to how subatomic particles bind to become atoms. The so-called “weak force” is really a proportion of the electrostatic charge to the magnetic charge.

Primary angular momentum explains the structure behind all matter and light interactions, eliminating the mysterious wave-particle duality theory. Primary angular momentum is the primary form of material existence and explains the photoelectric effect, pair production, and Compton effect in units that directly relate to the electron and photon.

We hypothesize new equations that predict the nuclear binding forces and electron binding energies of all isotopes (page 234). In addition, the preliminary steps toward discovering an atomic spectral equation, which predicts the spectra of all isotopes and their ions, become apparent. The electron and nuclear binding energy and atomic spectra equations will be the new “holy grail” of physics. We have already had significant success with the electron binding energy equation. From these three equations, we will likely develop molecular equations, which can predict the properties of any substance before it is known to exist.

Unified Force Theory

The Unified Force Theory is the foundation upon which the Aether Physics Model rests. The UFT will appear in detail later; since it, too, is a key component of the ontological foundation for the quantum structure, the core concepts are introduced here.

The Standard Model of physics recognizes only one type of charge, the elementary charge, which has a single dimension of charge. The torsion balance devised by Charles Coulomb is an electrostatic apparatus demonstrating elementary charge[21]. Therefore, it is appropriate to identify elementary charge as the carrier of the “electrostatic force” since that is what the torsion balance measures in this instance.

In the Aether Physics Model, we notate all charge as distributed, just as it appears in nature. A charge is not a point; by treating it as a point, we ignore its structural characteristics. Charge always appears over the surface of an object, even if the object is a single electron. Therefore, the correct dimensions of charge are charge squared.

Instead of presenting elementary charge as \(e\)[22], elementary charge should present as \(e^{2}\).

\begin{equation}e = 1.602 \times {10^{ - 19}}coul \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{e^2} = 2.567 \times {10^{ - 38}}cou{l^2} \end{equation}

According to the Standard Model, gluons[8] carry a strong force in quarks, and pions [10] carry a strong force in nuclei. In the Aether Physics Model, the strong force (actually magnetic force) carries by magnetic charge. The magnetic charge is related to elementary charge but has a different geometry, spin, and magnitude. Magnetic charge notates as \({e_{emax}}\) for the electron, \({e_{pmax}}\) for the proton, and \({e_{nmax}}\) for the neutron. But as in the case of elementary charge, the magnetic charge is always distributed. So, for example, electron magnetic charge would notate as \({e_{emax}}^{2}\).

The weak interaction is the proportion of the elementary charge to the magnetic charge. The weak interaction equals \(8\pi\) times the fine structure of the subatomic particle. The relationship of the elementary charge, magnetic charge, and weak interaction for each subatomic particle appears as follows where \(\alpha\), \(p\), and \(n\) are the fine structures of the electron, proton, and neutron, respectively:

\begin{equation}{\rm{Electron: }}\frac{{{e^2}}}{{{e_{emax}}^2}} = 8\pi \alpha \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{\rm{Proton: }}\frac{{{e^2}}}{{{e_{pmax}}^2}} = 8\pi p \end{equation}

\begin{equation}{\rm{Neutron: }}\frac{{{e^2}}}{{{e_{nmax}}^2}} = 8\pi n \end{equation}

Later we will examine the relative strengths of the forces between the electrostatic charges, magnetic charges, weak interactions, and masses to see how close the calculated forces agree with empirical measurements (page 210).

Primary Angular Momentum

The problem with the wave-particle duality theory is that subatomic particle dimensions are neither waves (frequency) nor solid matter. (The Standard Model does not quantitatively define matter[24].) Since subatomic particles are not the dimensions of matter or waves, the Aether Physics Model does not equate electrons, protons, and neutrons with either solid matter or waves.

In a 1996 journal article[25], Phil Berardelli reports:

It turns out that atoms, far from being the tiny billiard balls we commonly see in illustrations, are more like multilayered, discrete, shimmering clouds. Each layer contains proportionately enormous amounts of energy and shimmers - a different but precise electromagnetic frequency. Only when atoms interact with one another in large numbers do they behave as expected in their "classical" state, as scientists call the visible world.

As an important element of the ontological foundation for quantum structure in the Aether Physics Model, these multi-layered clouds are the angular momentum of individual subatomic particles. And since these subatomic particles are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to view the subatomic particles as primary angular momentum.

The angular momentum of a two-body system, such as a satellite in orbit around a planet, involves two distinct bodies. Free electrons, protons, and neutrons are single-body systems yet have angular momentum[26]. Therefore, consistent with the earlier discussion concerning the relationships among different orders of existence, we can propose that primary angular momentum has a different structure than two-body angular momentum.

When we take the literal dimensions of primary angular momentum, we find that there is a mass dimension, two length dimensions, and a frequency dimension. Expressed in terms of quantum measurements, angular momentum is:

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

One way to visualize this is to see a line of mass moving perpendicular at a velocity. Take a straight object, like a pencil, and hold it before you. The pencil represents a mass times length. Now move the pencil at a velocity perpendicular to its length in one quick motion. The blurred image you see graphically represents the nature of primary angular momentum.

Of course, an electron is not literally a straight line moving sideways. It is necessary to consider the curvature of the Aether double loxodrome structure. Since the subatomic particle mass has to fit in the small circumference of the loxodrome “tube,” the line of mass would appear as a circle. Ligamen circulatus (LC) names this line of mass. The perpendicular path of the line of mass as it moves sideways also traces out a circular path. The resulting geometry is toroidal. The toroid, however, traces on a sphere and from pole to pole when viewed in volume-resonance coordinates. When viewed in volume-time coordinates, as with human perception, the shape is actually that of a cardioid, as in the image to the left.

The Aether imparts, and thus accounts for, the spin in the loxodrome structure of the subatomic particle. We will view the equations that support the toroid-like geometry of primary angular momentum and its relationship to spin later (page 205).

For now, let us explore the general characteristics of primary angular momentum. Since primary angular momentum is a circumferential line (ligamen circulatus) moving sideways, the subatomic particles have only two length dimensions. The curvature of Aether acts as a mold and imparts geometry to the subatomic particle. The ligamen circulatus moves in time, meaning that the subatomic particle exists as a function of time between one moment and the next. Time is consequently a component of subatomic particles and manifests as duration. In fact, we could not perceive time and space if our bodies and senses were not composed of primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is the first cause of physical perception, intimately related to the Aether's distributed frequency (or resonance).

The subatomic particles are not solid because the ligamen circulatus moves perpendicular to its circumference to scan an area (magnetic charge). They more closely resemble a cloud, as does the scanned-pencil-area moving back and forth in our vision. It is the scanning of primary angular momentum, which gives subatomic particles the appearance of a wave and particle.

So primary angular momentum explains why subatomic particles can appear as particles when we look at their magnetic charge and as waves when we look at the moving ligamen circulatus. Yet these are only appearances. The particulate and wave natures of primary angular momentum are illusions having meaning only from our macro perspective. The reality of the subatomic particle structure is primary angular momentum and nothing else.

Interestingly, photons can also appear as primary angular momentum, except that they also explode outward at the speed of photons. A detailed exploration of the photon follows later (page 192).

[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[x] A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity by Sir Edmund Whitaker; published 1951 by the Philosophical Library (copyright 1987 by American Institute of Physics); p. 5

[2] "…This evidence allowed scientists to develop the Standard Model theory of matter, which states that all matter is made up of combinations of six quarks and six leptons that interact with three types of force particles." "Taylor, Richard E.," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[3] "Quarks appear to always be found in pairs or triplets with other quarks and antiquarks—an isolated quark has never been found." "Elementary Particles," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[4] Barry Parker, Einstein's Dream: The Search for a Unified Theory of the Universe (New York: Plenum Press, 1986) 257-8.

[5] "In beta decay a neutron within the nucleus changes to a proton, in the process emitting an electron and an antineutrino" "Radioactivity," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[6] “Other, less common, types of radioactivity are electron capture (capture of one of the orbiting atomic electrons by the unstable nucleus) and positron emission—both forms of beta decay and both resulting in the change of a proton to a neutron within the nucleus—an internal conversion…” "Radioactivity," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[7] Definition: Gluon - A hypothetical massless, neutral elementary particle believed to mediate the strong interaction that binds quarks together.

[8] “Gluons are massless, travel at the speed of light, and possess a property called color. Analogous to electric charge in charged particles, color is of three varieties, arbitrarily designated as red, blue, and yellow, and—analogous to positive and negative charges—three anticolor varieties. Quarks change their color as they emit and absorb gluons, and the exchange of gluons maintains proper quark color balance.” "Gluon," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[9] "Modern physical theory concerned with the emission and absorption of energy by matter and with the motion of material particles; the quantum theory and the theory of relativity together form the theoretical basis of modern physics." "Quantum Theory," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[10] “…on the scale of atoms and elementary particles the effect of the uncertainty principle is very important. Because of the uncertainties existing at this level, a picture of the submicroscopic world emerges as one of statistical probabilities rather than measurable certainties.” "Uncertainty Principle," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[11] Complementarity Principle - physical principle enunciated by Niels Bohr in 1928 stating that certain physical concepts are complementary. If two concepts are complementary, an experiment that clearly illustrates one concept will obscure the other complementary one. For example, an experiment that illustrates the particle properties of light will not show any of the wave properties of light. This principle also implies that only certain kinds of information can be gained in a particular experiment. Some other information that is equally important cannot be measured simultaneously and is lost. "Complementarity Principle," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[12] Michel Janssen, Robert Schulmann, József Illy, Christoph Lehner, and Diana Kormos Buchwald, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein VOLUME 7, The Berlin Years: Writings , 1918 – 1921 (Princeton University Press, 2002) 305–309; 321

[13] “However, all attempts to demonstrate its [Aether’s] existence, most notably the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, produced negative results and stimulated a vigorous debate among physicists that was not ended until the special theory of relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905, became accepted. The theory of relativity eliminated the need for a light-transmitting medium, so that today the term ether is used only in a historical context.” "Ether, in Physics and Astronomy," The Columbia Encyclopedia , 6th ed.

[14] Dayton C. Miller, Science, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 1635 (Apr. 30, 1926), 433-443 It is also noted in an article by Robert S. Shankland, Science, New Series, Vol. 176, No. 4035 (May 12, 1972), 652-653 that at the strong encouragement of Albert Einstein, the Miller data was re-examined posthumously and judged to be questionable due to the claim that Miller’s results correlated with the temperature gradient across the interferometer table. For all of Miller’s extensive experience, it seems highly suspect that Miller did not notice what should have been an obvious flaw in the results, were it true.

[15] “The outcome of the Michelson - Morley experiment would, therefore, suggest that the ether is dragged along with the earth, as far as the immediate neighborhood of the earth is concerned.” Introduction to the Theory of Relativity Peter Gabriel Bergmann (New York, Prentice Hall Inc., 1947) 27

[16] Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity; The Classical Theories (London; New York, American Institute of Physics, 1987) 95-96

[17] Letters to Nature, Nature 431, 958 - 960 (21 October 2004); doi:10.1038/nature03007

[18] Jagdish Mehra, The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics (March 2001, World Scientific Publishing Company) pp 9-10

[19] Dr. Lester Hulett raises the point that the loxodromes of the Aether unit are not exactly the same as loxodromes on a Mercator map.  He suggests they be called something else to clarify the subtle differences in geometry.

[20] Wolfgang Pauli was possibly the most influential physicist in the theory of spin. Spin was first discovered in the context of the emission spectrum of alkali metals. In 1924 Pauli introduced what he called a "two-valued quantum degree of freedom" associated with the electron in the outermost shell. This allowed him to formulate the Pauli exclusion principle, stating that no two electrons can share the same quantum numbers. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)#History

[21] Morris H. Shamos, Great Experiments in Physics “Firsthand Accounts from Galileo to Einstein” (New York, Dover Publications Inc., 1987) 62-3

[22] NIST CODATA Value: elementary charge, May 27, 2004 http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e|search_for=elementary+charge

[23] “Quantum mechanics, the final mathematical formulation of the quantum theory, was developed during the 1920s. In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed that not only do light waves sometimes exhibit particlelike properties, as in the photoelectric effect and atomic spectra, but particles may also exhibit wavelike properties.” "Quantum Theory," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.

[24] Matter. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[25] Phil Berardelli, "Physicists Prove That Matter Can Be in Two Places at Once," Insight on the News 15 July 1996: 36, Questia, 19 July 2004 <http://www.questia.com/>.

[26] “We find that photons and also other particles carry an intrinsic angular momentum or spin." Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, "10 Quantum Mechanics-- Determinism to Probability," The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) 177.

[27] Wendy Freedman, "The Hubble Constant and the Expanding Universe: A Newly Refined Value of [H.Sub.0] the Expansion Rate of the Universe, May Herald a First Step toward a New Era of "Precision" Cosmology," American Scientist Jan.-Feb. 2003, Questia, 27 May 2004 <http://www.questia.com/>.