A PLANCK-LENGTH ATOMISTIC KINETIC 
MODEL OF PHYSICAL REALITY 
Frank M. Meno 

A model of physical reality is presented that combines the ancient 
atomistic hypothesis with modern kinetics and wave mechanics; it agrees 
with experimental findings, and is intuitively comprehensible. Electric 
charge and grav- itational mass are shown to be expressible in terms of 
fluid mechanics, and all physical quantities solely in terms of length 
and time. 

Laboratory for Computational Neuroscience 
Department of Neurological 
Surgery Suite B-400, 
Presbyterian University Hospital 
200 Lothrop Street 
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2582 

INTRODUCTION 
Among the queries with which Isaac Newton (1642-1727) concluded his book 
on optics is the following statement: 
``To tell us that every Species of Things is endow'd with an occult 
specifick Quality by which it acts and produces manifest Effects, is to 
tell us nothing: But to derive two or three general Principles of Motion 
from Phenomena, and afterwards to tell us how the Properties and Actions 
of all corporeal things follow from those manifest Principles, would be a 
very great step in Philosophy, though the Causes of those Principles were 
not yet discover'd: And therefore I scruple not to propose the Principles 
of Motion above-mention'd, they being of very general Extent, and leave 
their Causes to be found out.''[1] 
This shows clearly that Newton was already searching for something 
analogous to a unified field theory. Even earlier, the concept that a 
fundamental substance produces all observed natural phenomena gave rise 
to the ancient Greek atomistic hypothesis attributed to Leucippus and 
Democritus (400 B.C.), and similar ideas pervade the Hindu and Chinese 
cosmologies. Subsequently, MacCullagh, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Lorentz, 
among others, attempted to describe electromagnetic phenomena in terms of 
various aether models, but these efforts failed to produce a theory that 
agreed with experimental findings reported by Oersted, Biot, Savart, 
Ampere, Arago, Fresnel, Faraday and Henry. Nevertheless, James Clerk 
Maxwell (1831-1879) concluded his 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism' 
with the following paragraph: 
``But in all of these theories the question naturally occurs: - If 
something is transmitted from one particle to another at a distance, what 
is its condition after it has left the one particle and before it has 
reached the other? . . . Hence, all these theories lead to the conception 
of a medium in which the propagation takes place, and if we admit this 
medium as an hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in 
our investigations, and that we ought to endeavor to construct a mental 
representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my 
constant aim in this treatise''[2]. 
Although Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853-1928) derived the correct 
mathematical representation for moving electrons, and the apparent 
absence of Doppler effect in the aether, as evidenced in the 
Michelson-Morley experiments, could have been accounted for by accepting 
Fitzgerald's idea on ma- terial contraction, no sensible explanation was 
found for the obvious absence of aether drag on matter. Albert Einstein 
broke this stalemate in physics by rejecting concepts based on 
comprehensible physical models, and instead postulated mathematical 
concepts based on ideas introduced earlier by Bernhard Riemann and Ernst 
Mach. The success of Einstein's special theory of relativity, and 
explanation of the photoelectric effect, in conjunction with the 
development of quantum mechanics with its peculiar views on physical 
reality, directed physics away from classical mechanistic modeling. 
However, Einstein still pursued the goal of developing a unified field 
theory by formulating his general theory of relativity but, to this day, 
this approach has not yielded a theory that accounts for all known 
experimental facts. The major obstacle seems to be the lack of a 
comprehensible adequate model upon which the mathematical structure could 
be erected. 
The purpose of this paper is to reintroduce the concept of a universal 
aether into physics, thus providing a physical substrate from which 
various manifestations on a larger scale can be explained. However, it 
must be emphasized that the structure of the aether introduced here 
differs substantially from that of the luminiferous aether intended to 
account exclusively for electromagnetic phenomena. An excellent review of 
this subject was made by Whittaker [3], while recently Builder [4], 
Dewdney, Edmonds, and others [5], have anticipated some aspects of the 
model proposed here, and Honig [6] presented a succinct outline of the 
criteria that a viable new model must possess. It is assumed that all 
known physical phenomena can be derived from the proposed model when a 
mathematical formulation that connects the kinetics of the aether with 
field representations of the various manifestations of kinetic energy is 
developed. 
Thus it will be shown that the putative aether, consisting of very small 
immutable oblong particles, can qualitatively generate all observed large 
scale phenomena. Particularly, it is demonstrated that the 
electromagnetic field is completely equivalent to the velocity field of 
the aether. Furthermore, it is shown that this equivalence can exist only 
when the mass is described in kinetic terms, yielding a system of 
measuring units expressed in terms of length and time only. It is also 
shown how the gravitational field can be described in terms of fluid 
dynamics without the need to introduce either singularities or 
non-Euclidean geometries. The validity of the principle of least action, 
and hence the Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics, is ascribed to the 
phenomenon of minimum in phase space describing the aether kinetics; and 
Heisenberg's indeterminacy relations are viewed as a natural consequence 
of density fluctuations in the phase space. 
The probability density of quantum mechanical states is shown to be 
proportional to aether den- sity, and the \Psi function to represent the 
number of fundamental aether particles that move in a given orientation 
with respect to their velocity in a given volume of space. It is also 
pointed out why the \Psi function, being a complex scalar quantity, 
cannot adequately describe phenomena that are consequences of directed 
transport in the aether, hence explaining the difficulties in attempts to 
incorporate quantum mechanics into unified field theories. 
The Lorentz transformation and special theory of relativity are shown to 
be consequences of the Doppler effect in the aether, while the 
Michelson-Morley results are accounted for through the Fitzgerald 
contraction of all material structures. Material particles and charge are 
modeled as vortices in the aether, and a field equation is derived that 
seems to describe the velocity field of the electron vortex. Efforts are 
under way to solve and model this non-linear partial differential 
equation, but larger composite dynamic structures, describing heavier 
material particles, such as the proton, present much greater 
difficulties. The other major challenge is the development of the 
kinetics that will be applicable to the aether. 
To handle non-spherical particles with gyroscopic effects in phase space representation is clearly not 
a simple task. Unfortunately, the precise field representation can probably be derived only from ki- 
netics but, since we have no direct information on the particle parameters, the kinetic formulation will 
have to depend on observations of large aggregates of particles. Clearly, the kinetic models that deal 
with quantized molecular parameters are not applicable to the gyrons, but in a series of papers Curtiss 
[8] provided a derivation of the Boltzmann collision equation for rigid nonspherical rotors, based on 
Newtonian mechanics, that appears suitable for the task at hand when suitably modified. 
The model introduced here is basically a synthesis of the Greek atomistic hypothesis and modern 
kinetics and wave mechanics. The ``atoms'', being the ultimate indivisible entities, are endowed with 
appropriate physical properties, and constitute a compressible fluid that used to be called aether, but, as 
will be shown, the proposed model of this fluid overcomes all the difficulties for which it was rejected 
at the turn of our century. 
Since we are faced with Dalton's misappropriation of the term ``atom'', it is probably better to rename 
the putative fundamental material entity. A good descriptive choice is ``gyron''. In connection with 
this I want to mention Joseph Newman's book on his ``Energy Machine''[7], where he uses the term 
``gyroscopic action particles'' to designate the basic material entities. Although I disagree with a number 
of his concepts, he should be given credit for insisting on the existence of such fundamental entities. 
In the model outlined below all observable forms of energy and matter consist of dynamic states in 
the aether that, in its steady state, represents the vacuum. It turns out that, aside from the specification 
of the gyron's form, the separate conservation of linear and angular momenta is the only assumption 
required to derive all known physical phenomena. Individually, the gyrons obey Newtonian mechanics, 
while collectively their kinetics produces wave phenomena in the fluid that they comprise. Thus, with 
this model it is not necessary to invoke the incomprehensible particle-wave duality, and the uncertainty 
principle can be explained on a physical basis. 
The postulated gyrons have a size around 10 cm 
(the Planck length), so that the ``elementary par- 
ticles'', with sizes around 10 
to some mys- 
terious relationship between space and time, but occurs naturally as a consequence of wave mechanics 
in the aether. 
Thus, space and time can fundamentally be considered as Euclidean Continua that, in conjunction 
with the kinetics of the gyrons, produce the phenomenologically observable wave phenomena in the 
aether governed by the Lorentz relationships. 
The above reasoning, however, was secondary in the construction of the proposed model, the pri- 
mary aim of which was to find a mechanism that explains gravity. It turns out that this phenomenon can 
also be attributed to the aether if the gyrons have an appropriate geometrical form, and this in turn is 
related to neutrinos. 
This model can account qualitatively for all known physical phenomena, and the restoration of 
common sense notions to physics should facilitate the quantitative testing of this hypothesis. This task 
nevertheless presents considerable difficulties, as currently there are no known analytical procedures for 
solving the non-linear partial differential equations that describe the behavior of this fluid; however, the 
powerful modern computational facilities offer some alternative possibilities. 
1 The Fundamental Relationships 
In the proposed model, space and time are considered to be Euclidean Continua to which no size 
or direction can be assigned. Embedded in these continua are permanent three-dimensional objects (gy- 
rons) with a well-defined form and inertial parameter M that move with various translational velocities 
~j and angular velocities ~ !: Thus, these objects correspond to the ``atoms'' postulated by the ancients. 
For reasons that will become clear later, the following assumptions are made: the gyrons (atoms) are 
completely rigid; they have an axially symmetrical form with a length ff and a much smaller diameter 
fi; and they are in perpetual motion, conserving momentum and energy in mutual collisions. Since these 
objects have five degrees of freedom, this kinetic process can be described in terms of a ten-dimensional 
phase space: 3 location, 2 orientation, 3 linear momentum, and 2 angular momentum coordinates. 
The gyrons constitute a compressible fluid, called the aether, that permeates all of the known uni- 
verse. All physical phenomena are the result of the dynamics in this fluid which is homogeneous but, 
unlike a molecular gas, exhibits anisotropic properties due to the shape and spin of its constituents, the 
gyrons. It will become clear later that the aether must be a relatively tenuous fluid, that is, the fraction of 
space occupied by the volume of the gyrons is much smaller than the available space in which they move. 
The density of the aether, corresponding to the number of gyrons per unit of space volume at a given 
location, is nevertheless very large, possibly on the order of 10 90 in each cubic centimeter. This number 
is subject to statistical fluctuations, as is the mean free path and time between collisions. In phase space 
these fluctuations cause the uncertainty relations of the form \Deltap x \Deltax = h=2ß = ¯h. Also, the kinetic 
fluid aggregate always tends toward a minimum in phase space density, giving rise to the principle of 
least action that was originally propounded by Maupertuis (1698-1758), and mathematically formulated 
by Euler (1707-1783) and Lagrange (1736-1813). 
An exact deterministic kinetic description of the aether is clearly not feasible, consequently a statis- 
tical collision approach analogous to that developed by Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782), Maxwell, Lud- 
wig Boltzmann (1844-1906), and elaborated upon by Joseph Liouville (1809-1882) and Josiah Willard 
Gibbs (1839-1903) must be employed. The aether presents a more difficult problem, mainly because the 
exact shape of the non-spherical gyron is still unknown, however, some simplification results due to the 
fact that no forces aside from the collision events need be considered. Nevertheless, based on analogies 
to an ideal gas model and known physical laws, it is possible qualitatively to explain all known physical 
phenomena in terms of the behavior of the aether. To do this it is necessary to provide some further 
details on the parameters describing the gyrons. 
The moment of inertia I, which is specified by a 3 x 3 tensor, plays the central role in characterizing 
the dynamic behavior of the aether. Let the z-direction coincide with the vector ~ 
ff and assign it to the 
long axis of the gyron. Due to the assumed axial symmetry, the moments of inertia along the principal 
axes bear the relationship I xx = I yy AE I zz . The dynamic behavior of a single gyron is then described 
by Euler's equations for a symmetrical top under no forces. Between collisions the spin momentum 
S = I ~! maintains its direction in space, while ~ 
ff and ~! in general precess around it. 
The gyron thus can spin in two stable orientations, namely, either with ~ 
ff and ~! lined up in nearly the 
same direction or nearly perpendicular to each other, but since I zz is much smaller than I xx and I yy , the 
latter orientation is more stable and will, therefore, be predominant in the aether, except in a conceivable 
condensed state in which the less stable orientation is maintained by mutual steric constraints. In the 
longitudinal, less stable orientation, ~! lies between S and ~ ff, while in the transverse orientation, S lies 
between ~! and ~ 
ff. In contrast to molecular gases, in the aether the mean free path between collisions is 
not merely a function of the density, but instead depends strongly on the orientation between ~ ff and the 
velocity ~j . The failure to realize this was the major reason for the unsuccessful modeling efforts during 
the nineteenth century. I cannot yet ascertain that all the laws of thermodynamics are applicable to the 
aether, or that equipartition of energy is valid, but it is intuitively clear that energy in the rotational and 
translational forms is exchanged between the gyrons. 
Let us now examine the motion of a gyron in greater detail, and from this infer the properties of 
the aether. It turns out that this simple model explains the paradoxes of Zeno, Berkeley's objections to 
calculus, as well as most of the mysteries of current quantum mechanics. 
It must be realized that the moving gyron represents the only measure of extension in space and 
time, and that this extension is manifested to us only indirectly through the kinetics of large assemblies. 
Thus, while the motion of gyrons never begins or stops, the center of mass of a dynamic assembly can 
be at rest or it can move with a speed that does not exceed the RMS speed of the gyrons in the assembly, 
that is the speed of light, corresponding to the speed of wave propagation in this medium. Furthermore, 
since the space continuum is not densely packed, the moving gyrons represent the physical differential 
geometry of space and time, and as already stated by Parmenides (450 B.C), it is hard to conceive of 
a different arrangement that is not completely static forever. In calculus, higher order differentials can 
be neglected because the fundamental processes can be described in linear terms. It actually turns out 
that the mean orientation of the gyrons is congruent with the field vector operator r. Also, Eddington's 
conjectures regarding fluctuations in physical measurements have some validity [9, 10]. 
During the inter-collision time \Deltat, the gyron moves a distance j\Deltat, and rotates an angle !\Deltat, but 
how much space is swept out depends on the mutual orientations between ~j, ~ ! and ~ ff. The amount of 
space swept out in turn determines the mean free path and inter-collision time. Consequently, one must 
consider separately the longitudinal and the transverse modes of travel because they yield enormously 
different values for the mean free path, and this in turn produces very different large-scale phenomena. 
Let us first consider the stable, transverse, mode of travel. In this case, during the time interval \Deltat 
the gyron sweeps out an area \Sigma(1=2)~ff \Theta ~ ff \Theta ~!\Deltat due to rotation, and a volume \DeltaV = \Sigma(1=2)(~ff \Theta 
~ 
ff \Theta ~!\Deltat) \Delta ~j \Deltat due to the simultaneous travel over the distance ~j\Deltat. The \Sigma signs of this pseudo- 
scalar represent the two possible directions of a gyron's spin. This expression relates space and time to 
the fundamental parameters associated with the gyron that impart a metric to these continua in phase 
space, but these relationships become manifested only indirectly in various large-scale phenomena. 
For example, in Kepler's third law a 
3\Omega 2 = G(m + M), space and time are related with these same 
dimensions. Gravitational mass and electric charge are also consequences of this relationship, which 
can also be written as: 
\DeltaV =(\Deltat) 2 = \Sigma(1=2)(~ff \Theta ~ ff \Theta ~!) \Delta ~j 
= \Sigma(1=2) 
Ÿ 
(~ff \Delta ~ 
ff)(~! \Delta ~j) 
the total angular momentum is conserved in the aether but not that of the spin 
separately. Actually, in the vacuum, where the gyrons exist in an equilibrium distribution, the angular 
momentum averages out to zero, while the net linear momentum could differ from zero, but this is not 
observable on a finite scale. 
The remaining task is to relate the above kinetic parameters to various large-scale phenomena. In 
mathematical terms this requires deriving the field equations that govern the behavior of the aether as a 
fluid from the kinetics of the gyrons. Before this missing link is established, it is nevertheless possible 
to relate these phenomena in semi-quantitative terms through various known relationships. 
The total energy in the aether resides in two forms of kinetic energy, translational and rotational, 
expressed as Mv 2 = (1=2)M! j 2 ? +(1=2)I ! ! 2 ? 
and consequently the MS speed is 
v 2 = (1=2)[! j 2 ? +(I=M) ! ! 2 ?] (1 : 2) 
where ! j 2 ? and ! ! 2 ? represent the mean of the square values of the translational and angular 
velocities of gyrons. Thus, v is the effective RMS speed, and in the equilibrium state, that is, in the 
vacuum, represents the speed of light c, but this can vary wherever this distribution changes. In the 
undisturbed vacuum the vectorial means ! ~j ? and ! ~! ? are both zero; only when linear momentum 
is imparted to a group of gyrons does the kinetic equilibrium change, and consequently ! ~j ? and 
! ~! ? also change so that their vectorial sums do not vanish, and hence are manifested in the aether. 
Such a disturbance can appear in three forms: 
1. waves 
2. creation of a pair of opposite vortices 
3. reorientation of the gyrons from the transverse to the longitudinal mode of travel 
On a large scale these kinetic processes manifest themselves as: 
1. electromagnetic waves, corresponding to gyron spin waves; and deBroglie material waves, corre- 
sponding to aether density waves 
2. creation of matter and anti-matter with associated charge 
3. production of neutrinos, and gravity 
Process 2 always gives rise to process 3, but not the reverse. 
If in the aether we designate the momentum density by the vector ~ g and stress by the tensor T, then 
one would expect the dynamics of this fluid to be described by the generalized Euler fluid dynamics 
equation d~ g=dt = r \Lambda T . This equation, in conjunction with the equations of state and continuity, 
should in principle yield the field equations for the aether. The divergence of the tensor deals with the 
anisotropic properties of this fluid in contrast to the gradient of pressure that applies to the isotropic 
ideal gas. Also, on account of the possible longitudinal travel of the gyrons, both ~ g and T will in 
general contain complex numbers or even quaternion components. Complex numbers were introduced 
by Johann Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), and quaternions by William Rowan Hamilton (1805- 
1865). 
From the above, it is clear that we are faced with formidable mathematical complexities. Also, this 
model shows clearly why the efforts to describe the dynamics of physical reality solely in terms of the 
scalar wave function, \Psi, cannot succeed. 
2 The Electromagnetic Field 
Maxwell has already shown that the electric E, and the magnetic B, fields can be specified in terms of 
the scalar potential V, and the vector potential A, that was introduced by Franz Neumann (1798-1895). 
E = 
(2 : 2) 
@V=@t = 
displacement D, are related respectively 
to the above field by the permeability ¯ o , and permittivity ffl o , and these in turn are tied to the speed of 
wave propagation c o , and the impedance Z o , in the vacuum. 
H = (1=¯ o )B (2 : 4) 
D = ffl o E (2 : 5) 
c o = 1=(¯ o ffl o ) 1=2 (2 : 6) 
Z o = (¯ o =ffl o ) 1=2 (2 : 7) 
It turns out that the above electromagnetic field has a complete analogy in the velocity field for the 
aether: 
~a = (1=2)rv 2 + @~v=@t (2 : 8) 
2~w = r \Theta ~v (2 : 9) 
(1=2)@v 2 =@t = 
vely to the acceleration and vorticity in the 
aether. This in turn implies that the velocity ~v of the field is related to the mean velocity of the gyrons ! 
~j ?, and the vorticity ~ 
w to the mean angular velocity of the gyrons ! ~! ?. Consequently, by means of 
the following substitutions, Maxwell's equations and all electromagnetic phenomena can be described in 
mechanical terms: 
(vector potential) A () ~v (velocity) 
(scalar potential) V () (1=2)v 2 = (1=2)~v \Lambda ~v 
(electric field) E () 
in the manner that was introduced by D'Alembert to convert dynamics into statics. The latter 
corresponds also to MacCullagh's formulation of the quasi-elastic solid aether which is, of course, 
physically infeasible. Similarly, Kelvin's gyrostatic aether model could not yield all the required prop- 
erties for the vacuum because it did not represent the angular momentum associated with the magnetic 
field as a statistical mean value of individual gyron spins that react to twisting. This model that came 
closest to the one proposed here was subsequently elaborated, but because it was not recognized that the 
velocity field represents the vector potential, completely consistent representation could not be derived 
[11]. Furthermore, until the equivalence between energy and matter was established, it was not possible 
to formulate a unified field model. 
The Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations follows from the fact that this velocity field in the 
aether is a group velocity phenomenon, and this is formally derived from the D'Alembertian that de- 
scribes the group behavior in this fluid. 
When a vortex pair is formed, two opposite circulations are established, each centered around its 
vortex core structure, corresponding to a positron -- electron pair. These circulations in turn produce 
radial pressure gradients that manifest themselves as the electric fields of the particles, and that in 
mechanical terms represent the centrifugal accelerations in balance with the pressure gradients, while 
the vorticity gives rise to the associated magnetic fields. The electrical charges attract or repel each other 
depending on the directions of their circulation. Two circulations with the same direction repel each 
other because the increased collision frequency among the gyrons increases the pressure in the region 
between the two vortex structures, while in the case of two opposite circulations this pressure drops due 
to the Bernoulli effect. The permanence of vortices in ideal fluids was theoretically demonstrated by 
Hermann Helmholtz (1821-1894). 
In fluid mechanics the convective derivative represents the total derivative of velocity with respect 
to time, and this corresponds to acceleration which must be zero where no external forces exist. Thus, 
d~v=dt = ~a = (@~v=@~r)(d~r=dt) + @~v=@t = (~v \Lambda r)~v + @~v=@t = 0, 
and since we are interested only in the steady-state situation, where 
@~v 
@t = 0, 
this becomes 
(1=2)rv 2 
A \Theta B (2 : 12) 
Physically, these equations express the fact that a pressure gradient in the aether is balanced by the 
centrifugal force due to the circulation around a vortex and, consequently equation (2.11) describes the 
velocity field associated with the elementary charges in the form of positrons and negatrons. The polarity 
of the charges is determined by the direction of the circulation, that is, by the relative orientation between 
~v and r \Theta ~v. A general analytical solution of (2.11) has not yet been found, but a suitable solution may 
be derived by considering specific known physical facts about the electron. 
Experimentally we also know that for r ? r o , that is, outside of the vortex core of the electron, 
rV = 
v . This shows that charge may be considered merely a parameter in the velocity 
field whose dimensionality is ffl o [L 3 =T 2 ]. 
Taking the divergence of (2.11) yields 
r \Lambda rv 2 = r 2 v 2 = 2(r \Theta ~v) 2 
D = ae = ffl o r \Lambda E = 
2 v 2 = ~v) 
i 
(2 : 13) 
Clearly then, what appears as charge density may then be viewed as a dynamic balance in the ve- 
locity field described by the equation (2.11). Neither (2.11) nor (2.13) fully describe the electron; these 
expressions merely specify the relations in the large scale velocity field, and do not deal with the spin 
phenomenon of the elementary particles. The reason for this lies in the fact that the derivation of these 
equations is based on a model in which the gyrons are represented by linear field infinitesimals, while in 
reality, in addition to possessing the translational momentum, they are three-dimensional objects with a 
form and inherent spin. 
A physical quantity can be considered an infinitesimal at a level at which no further phenomena exist. 
Thus, for Maxwell's equations the gyron can be considered to be a simple infinitesimal in extension, 
while to account for the spin phenomenon of the electrons, it is necessary to consider the gyron to be 
an ``infinitesimal gyroscope'', and if the equations were also to be valid for describing in detail such 
phenomena as gravity and neutrinos, then the size of the field infinitesimal must be reduced to a scale 
that reflects the form of the gyron. In a general sense, it all boils down to information density and thus 
the complexity that one can or wishes to handle. Field equations are merely a means by which these 
choices are made. These points will be further elucidated in subsequent sections; here I wish merely to 
add some comments regarding the dimensionality of electromagnetic quantities. 
The Lorentz equation F = d~p=dt = \SigmaQ(E + ~u \Theta B) that relates electromagnetic and mechanical 
quantities, when expressed in the equivalent mechanical form m(d~u=dt) = \SigmaQ[( 
that the mechanical representation of the electromagnetic field becomes dimensionally con- 
sistent with the rest of physics if the dimensionalities for charge and mass are the same. Furthermore, 
since Coulomb's law states that m(du=dt) = Q 2 =4ßffl o r 2 , both m and Q must have the dimensionality 
[length 3 =time 2 ], while ffl o must be dimensionless and, for some qualitative reasons, may turn out to be 
equal to the fine structure constant F . Thus, if ffl o = F , then ¯ o = 1=F c 2 , Z o = 1=F c, and Coulomb's 
law becomes Q 2 =4ßF r 2 . The 4ß factor has geometrical and physical significance, and should, in a 
concise formulation, appear also explicitly in Newton's formula for gravity. 
With the exception of mass, this system of units is dimensionally equivalent to the electrostatic 
system formulated by Gauss. This also implies that the gravitational constant G in Newton's law of 
gravity must be a number without dimensionality. As was pointed out earlier, charge and gravitational 
mass have the same dimensionality as the rate at which space is swept out by the gyrons, and are 
related to these parameters. Max Planck (1858-1947), who discovered that electromagnetic radiation is 
quantized in h units of action, has also commented on the possibility to express all physical quantities 
in terms of ``natural measuring units'' that he derived from the relationships occurring in the theory 
of radiation [12]. The currently accepted Planck units are: length = 1:6 \Theta 10 
and temperature = 1:4 \Theta 10 32 K. It is my thesis that Planck's 
empirically derived results are related to the fundamental parameters characterizing the aether. Thus, 
there exist no potentials and forces in the traditional sense, as these are merely convenient mathematical 
representations of dynamic states that result in pressure gradients in the aether. Since the absolute 
pressure in the aether is enormous, possibly as high as 10 107 atmospheres, even nuclear forces are the 
result of only minor deviations of this pressure. This leads to a completely self-consistent system of units 
expressed solely in terms of length (distance), and time (duration). The following are some examples: 
DIMENSION PHENOMENON 
[L 3 =T 2 ] charge Q, mass m 
[L 2 =T ] magnetic flux OE 
[L 4 =T 3 ] momentum ~p 
[L 4 =T 4 ] force ~ 
F 
[L 5 =T 4 ] energy W 
[T=L] impedance Z 
[L] capacitance 
[T 2 =L] inductance 
[T 2 =L 2 ] permeability ¯ o 
[1] permittivity ffl o 
In this system of units the energy density with the dimension [L 2 =T 4 ] becomes compatible in mechan- 
ical and electrical field representations. 
(1=2)[D \Lambda E+H \Lambda B] =) (1=2)[ffl o a 2 + (4=¯ o )w 2 ] = (2 : 15) 
= (1=2)ffl o [a 2 + 4c 2 w 2 ] = (1=2)ffl o [(d~v=dt) 2 + (c r \Theta ~v) 2 ] 
Likewise, the momentum density and Maxwell's stress tensor for the electromagnetic field can be 
understood intuitively. Furthermore, the Lagrangean density for the electromagnetic field can then be 
expressed as 
L = (1=2)ffl o 
h 
(d~v=dt) 2 
ve equation 
r \Theta E+ @B=@t = 0 
r \Theta H 
or in mechanical form 
r \Theta ~a 
2 ) @~a=@t = 
Comment: 
Investigation following this publication led to the realization that the vector potential cannot 
be identical to velocity, but is instead equivalent to what I termed ``moventum'', which is the product of 
velocity and ``stiffness'' of the aether; i.e. A = fl~v, and the scalar potential becomes V = flc 2 . Where 
fl = vol o 
vol o 
designating the volume 
occupied by the gyrons. (Ref. Phys. Essays 7, pp.14, 1994). 
3 Quantum Wave Mechanics 
As pointed out earlier, quantization is a natural consequence in a fluid consisting of finite sized gyrons 
moving with discrete momenta. Also, since detailed kinetics of gyrons is intractable, wave mechanics 
of the aether is an effective substitute for dealing with the dynamic phenomena on a larger scale. 
It remains to be explained what the complex \Psi function represents in the aether. The square of 
its magnitude j\Psij 2 = \Psi\Psi \Lambda , which by convention is normalized to unity in order to correspond to 
probability density, actually corresponds to density deviations from the average density of the aether 
N = j\Psi o j 2 . Dimensionally this represents a number per unit of volume in space [1=L 3 ]. Thus \Psi, 
being the square root of this density deviation, specifies the average deviation of the number of gyrons 
moving in any given direction. This is because the resultant magnitude of N random vectors is equal 
to the square root of N, and \Psi is complex to take into account the relative orientation between the long 
axis of the gyron and the direction of its linear momentum. It must be appreciated that the mutual 
orientation between the colliding gyrons strongly influences the dynamic equilibrium. In contrast, in an 
ideal gas the point particles are isotropic, and their density can be represented by a real number. Even 
the complex \Psi function in reality does not adequately describe the gyron because it does not account for 
the rotational aspects of this object, consequently a spin vector with complex or quaternion components 
would be required. 
In the vacuum, representing the undisturbed aether in a dynamic equilibrium state, all momenta add 
up to zero and consequently, aside from the random fluctuations, it does not manifest any observable 
property. Only when net momentum is imparted to a group of gyrons is there created a gradient in the 
phase space, and hence this also produces a gradient in the density of the aether. Thus, the empirically 
established relationship associating momentum with the gradient operator (~p ) 
to their 
directions of motion, while ¯h = M cff represents the smallest unity or quantum in phase space. A useful 
review of formulation of quantum mechanics in phase and Hilbert spaces was recently provided by Long 
[13]. 
It is also intuitively clear that the changes in the equilibrium state induced by the imparted momen- 
tum will not take place instantaneously, consequently there will exist an accompanying temporal change 
in the density function, and Schroedinger's wave equation tells us that the time rate of change of \Psi is 
proportional to its spatial concentration. 
i¯h@\Psi=@t = ( 
vel. The presence of the 
potential V, which is equivalent to the square of velocity in the aether, merely tells us that the density is 
also modified by some other process that causes a deviation from the vacuum state, such as a circulation 
associated with a vortex. It is clear that since this representation of the dynamic process neglects the 
gyroscopic properties of the gyron, it cannot account for the spin phenomenon of the electron. By 
introducing an equation that incorporates Pauli's spin matrices Dirac has surmounted this inadequacy. 
i¯h@\Psi=@t = i¯hc~ff \Lambda r\Psi 
Dirac's equation may be interpreted to account for the gradients produced in the aether due to gyrations 
of the gyrons, and the term m o c 2 accounts for the modification of the aether density produced by the 
electron vortex structure. This also explains why the former is nonrelativistic and the latter relativistic. 
Dirac's equation is derived from the following Hamiltonian: H = 
electron. Assum- 
ing that the structure of Dirac's ~ ff is a suitable representation for the direction of the gyron, then the inser- 
tion of the components of the vector ~ ff 
ff x = 
0 
B B 
B 
@ 
0 0 0 1 
0 0 1 0 
0 1 0 0 
1 0 0 0 
1 
C C 
C 
A 
ff y = 
0 
B B 
B 
@ 
0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 
(\Deltat) 2 = \Sigmaff 2 (j x j y j z ) 
0 
B 
@ 
1 \Upsilon1=2 \Sigmai=2 
\Sigma1=2 1 
inertial 
properties. Therefore, the moments I and products P of inertia must be combined with the matrix M s , 
and (3.3) then becomes 
\DeltaV =(\Deltat) 2 = \Sigma ~ 
j t M~! = \Sigma ~j \Lambda S (3 : 4) 
where M represents the complex moment of inertia, and S the complex spin vector. 
S = M~! = 
0 
B 
@ 
I xx \Upsilon(1=2)P xy \Sigma(i=2)P xz 
\Sigma(1=2)P yx I yy 
= P yz = P zy , and P xy = P yx . 
Note that spin is quantized in units of ¯h=2 because in rotation the gyron sweeps out only half the space 
compared to translation. 
Expressions (2.13) and (3.4) imply that the charge density 
ae = r \Lambda D = 
density,is therefore a consequence of a non-random distribution of 
spins and velocities of the gyrons. Due to the complex nature of \Psi, a vortex in the aether does not have 
the same structure as a vortex in a gas, thus the structure of the electron does not resemble an ordinary 
vortex. As pointed out earlier, the electric field produced by charge is due to the circulation around the 
vortex core that causes a gradient in the velocity field, but the gravitational field is independent of charge 
and must therefore be explained by a different mechanism, and this is dealt with in the next section. Here 
I want to conclude by pointing out that what has been termed the ``quantum field potential'' is related 
to aether density, while the electrical and gravitational potentials are proportional to the square of the 
magnitudes of the respective velocity fields. 
4 Gravitation and Neutrinos 
The gyrons normally spin in an orientation with the greatest moment of inertia, that is, perpendic- 
ular to their long axis. However, in the electron vortex there seems to exist a mechanism that causes one 
out of 4:17x10 42 (Dirac number) gyrons to line up so that it spins around ~ ff instead of perpendicular to 
it. It is conceivable that if a gyron penetrates the vortex wall, it can be forced to line up longitudinally 
and to be ejected in this new stable orientation. This somewhat resembles the situation where a straw 
enters a vortex spout. Since in this process the angular momentum is also conserved, one would ex- 
pect that the resulting angular velocity will be greatly increased because the moment of inertia is much 
smaller around the z-axis. Thus, if I xx ! x = I yy ! y = I zz ! z , then ! z = (I xx =I zz )! x = (I yy =I zz )! y , 
and since I xx AE I zz , then ! z AE ! x = ! y . This effect is demonstrated by ballet dancers and skaters 
when they contract their arms and legs during a spin. 
The orientation of these longitudinally moving gyrons is stabilized by their angular momentum due 
to the axial spin and, like rifled bullets, they can travel large distances before they encounter a collision 
with enough force that reverts their orientation to the more stable transverse mode of travel. As these 
longitudinally oriented gyrons leave the vortex, the local density within the dynamically balanced aggre- 
gate decreases, and in order to maintain equilibrium, the transversely oriented gyrons from the vicinity 
keep drifting towards the vortex. In the velocity field this represents a divergence, but since the gyrons 
are constantly escaping lengthwise from the center of the vortex, the problem with material continuity 
does not arise. Consequently, the gravitational force is the net result of the impacts of transversely ori- 
ented gyrons that keep replacing the longitudinally oriented gyrons that have escaped from the vortices 
without colliding. 
The ``longitudinally'' oriented gyrons that ``escaped'' the local dynamic aggregate have a finite prob- 
ability for colliding with the ``transversely'' oriented gyrons and, therefore, returning to the ``transverse'' 
orientation. This process, however, demands that the formula for gravitational force contains a factor 
that falls off faster than the geometrical inverse square. Since it is sensible to expect that the rate at 
which the gyrons will be flipped over is proportional to the number present, an exponential factor arises, 
thus, changing Newton's formula to: 
F = 
R 
must be very large so that this effect would be observable only at galactic distances. 
This formula does apparently not account for the advance of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, 
but recently NedvŸed [14] pointed out that Newtonian physics may account for this phenomenon if all 
the interactions in the solar system were taken into account. Also an additional dependence may emerge 
when the exact field equations are established and solved for the motion of this dynamic state in the 
aether, because the dynamic density gradient might well introduce second order effects. Besides, the 
reported speed of about 600 km/s in absolute motion through the aether, modulated by the 39 to 59 km/s 
orbital speed of Mercury, further complicates the situation due to relativistic effects. 
The following quotation from 'Querie 21' in Newton's 'Opticks' shows that he attempted to explain 
gravity on the basis of a density gradient in the aether, but he did not provide an explanation of the 
mechanism that maintains such a gradient: 
``Is not this Medium (Aether) much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and 
Comets, than in empty celestial spaces between them ? And in passing from them to great distances, 
doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies 
towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavoring to go from the 
denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer ? For if this Medium be rarer within the Sun's Body than 
at its Surface, and rarer there than at the hundredth part of an Inch from its Body, and rarer there than at 
the Orb of Saturn; I see no reason why the Increase of density should stop anywhere, and not rather be 
continued through all distances from the Sun to Saturn, and beyond. And though this Increase of density 
may at great distances be exceedingly slow, yet if the elastick force of this Medium be exceedingly great, 
it may suffice to impel Bodies from the denser parts of the Medium towards rarer, with all that power 
which we call Gravity . . . '' 
A density gradient causes flow in a fluid, and in the case of gravity requires a sink which implies a 
singularity in the field, but with the mechanism of a ``lengthwise'' counterflow of gyrons, this problem 
is resolved. 
Expression (1.1) relates the parameters of a gyron to space and time, but does not deal with any field 
properties that emerge from the collective behavior of large numbers of gyrons. When the distribution 
of the various parameters is not random, then the mutual orientation between the gyrons and their 
velocities must be described. It turns out that the quaternion offers a suitable representation. If both, the 
translational velocity ~j exp(i`), and the angular velocity ~! exp(iOE), are represented by complex vectors 
which indicate their direction with respect to the orientation of the gyron, then the vector quaternion for 
momentum density 
! ~q ? = (ae=2) 1=2 ! ~j ? exp(i ! ` ?) + 
h 
(oe=2) 1=2 ~ 
! ! ? exp(i ! OE ?) 
i 
j, (4 : 2) 
composed of the two complex vectors, can represent all the mutual orientations, and its norm is related 
to the total energy of the gyrons: 
! q 2 ? = (ae=2) ! j 2 ? +(oe=2) ! ! 2 ? . (4 : 3) 
Thus, the continuity equations for mass and energy are expressible with real variables, while those 
dealing with momenta are complex, and can account for the counter-flows that maintain the density 
gradient that Newton postulated. Above, ae represents mass density, while oe stands for moment of 
inertia density. The angle ` specifies the orientation of the translational velocity vector ~j with respect to 
the orthogonal direction of the gyron ~ ff, while OE specifies the corresponding relationship for the angular 
velocity ~ !. This quaternion momentum density field can be constructed in a sort of double Hilbert space 
that could play a role in the aether mechanics analogous to that of Hilbert space in quantum mechanics. 
The neutrinos are the only basic phenomenon that remains to be explained. Based on the proposed 
model, these entities also represent groups of gyrons in the longitudinal mode of travel, and are indistin- 
guishable from the gravitational fluxes, except for possible higher concentrations produced in nuclear 
disintegrations. The large amount of energy carried by neutrinos in meson decay implies that in baryons, 
such as the proton, the gyrons might be sterically confined in the longitudinal orientation. In beta decay, 
the fraction of energy carried by the gyrons in the neutrino seems to be a random value, but there is no 
inherent problem with the conservation laws. 
Also, the apparent deficit in neutrinos from the sun may be due to the fact that the longitudinal gyron 
streams fan out with distance to the extent that the density is inadequate to induce nuclear reactions in 
a detector on the earth. Finally, radioactivity in general can be explained as instability of dynamic 
structures due to density fluctuations in the aether. 
5 Material Particles and Relativity 
According to the model presented here, all material particles may be considered to be composites 
of positrons and negatrons, and the charge conservation law is a result of the conservation of angular 
momentum in these vortices. The neutron is clearly composed of a proton and an electron, and the fact 
that proton annihilation cascades through meson production instead of direct conversion into gamma 
rays, points towards a composite structure. 
Sternglass[15] proposed that the proton consists of four negatrons and five positrons organized in 
a tetrahedral structure in which the two hundred-fold mass increase of the component rest mass is the 
consequence of relativistic orbital velocities of this electron assembly. This model has credence because 
the ß and ¯ mesons have masses near this value. It is an accepted fact that electron orbits produce 
chemical elements and that the nuclei are also organized in shell structures, so it should not be surprising 
that the nuclear particles are also dynamic composites. 
Assuming then that all material particles represent some form of rotational structure corresponding 
to a circulation in the aether, and that in this fluid the phenomenon designated as the mass is expressed 
as m = hš=c 2 , then the associated collision frequency of gyrons in the aether is given as š = mc 2 =h, 
where h is Planck's constant, and c the speed of light. 
When the center of mass of this rotational structure does not move, the associated frequency is š o , 
and the corresponding mass is m o . Now, let us investigate what happens when this structure moves. 
Clearly, since the RMS velocity of all gyrons in the resting aether equilibrates to c, in a rotational 
structure moving with a group velocity u, the forward moving circulation will reduce the wave velocity 
to c 
y will increase to š f = š o c=(c 
= 
Ÿ 
[š o c=(c 
expression implies that the mass cannot move faster than the speed of light, but in principle, the 
vortex comprising the mass could briefly move faster than the speed of light, but would slow down by 
emitting Cerenkov radiation in a process analogous to the energy dissipation in supersonic motion. Of 
course in practice it is impossible to exceed the speed of light in the vacuum because there does not exist 
any structure in the aether that could impart the necessary momentum. 
It is important to realize that the increase of frequency of an accelerated object does not come about 
as a result of change in motion in the circulation, but that instead the frequency increase has been 
imparted through the momentum that caused the change in motion. Therefore, the frequency increase is 
the cause of structural and motion changes in the vortex, and not the reverse. 
Since the RMS inter-collision distance – = c=š is also influenced by the frequency increase, we get 
also a corresponding relationship for the apparent change in the size of the dynamic moving rotational 
aggregate, namely 
– = – o [1 
contraction of all materials, thus explaining the Michelson- 
Morley experiments. 
The deBroglie wavelength is defined as 
– u = h=p u = h=mu = h[1 
that 
(1=–) 2 = (1=– o ) 2 + (1=– u ) 2 , (5 : 6) 
and therefore the corresponding relationship between the spatial frequencies k = 1=– becomes 
k = [k 2 
o + k 2 
u ] 1=2 . (5 : 7) 
By defining the temporal frequency corresponding to the deBroglie wavelength as 
š u = mcu=h = š o =[(c=u) 2 
t u [(c=u) 2 
s special theory of relativity emerge as the RMS relationships in the 
aether dynamics. 
Similarly, Minkowski's space-time manifold fits neatly into this model, since all dynamic processes 
in the aether proceed in a manner that leads to the equalization of the RMS velocities. Thus, 
[(d~s=dt) 2 + (d~r=dt) 2 ] 1=2 = c 
leads to 
ds = [(cdt) 2 
h 
1 
An objective presentation and evaluation of the special theory of relativity and related topics was pro- 
vided by Prokhovnik[16]. 
The above formulae are details of Schroedinger's relativistic formula for energy: 
W = [p 2 c 2 +m 2 
o c 4 ] 1=2 . (5 : 12) 
This expression implies that the energy associated with a moving mass resides in two forms in the 
dynamic structure: the m o c 2 represents the rotational part that is associated with an angular momentum 
J, while pc represents the increase due to the imparted linear momentum ~ p. If we express (5.12) in terms 
of the corresponding frequencies 
š 2 = [š o u=(c 
J = L + S (5 : 14) 
This angular momentum, with the orbital L and the spin S parts, is in turn kinetically related to 
the angular momentum of individual gyrons. Thus, it is this independent conservation of the angular 
momentum that accounts for the elementary charge and spin conservation associated with the electron 
vortex structure and its various combinations. It is interesting that if one uses Dirac's Hamiltonian 
form for expressing the Doppler effect, the result yields anisotropic properties, and this might be of 
some practical interest. On a cosmic scale, the interplay between L and S, based on the conservation 
of J, dJ=dt = 0, that yields dL=dt = 
\Lambda can then 
be expressed in quaternion form as: 
WW 
\Lambda = (c~ff \Lambda ~ p + w~'' \Lambda Jj) (c~ff \Lambda ~ p 
6 Concluding Comments 
Although the proposed model seems to be able to account qualitatively for all known physical phe- 
nomena, there remain a number of open philosophical questions and analytical problems. The foremost 
question regards more detailed knowledge of the nature of the gyrons: what is their exact form, and 
what precisely happens in a collision? Since momentum and energy are apparently exactly conserved, 
one would like to attribute perfect elasticity to the gyrons, but then their compressibility would have to 
be explained. One way out of this dilemma is to assume that the gyron is perfectly rigid, and that the 
collisions represent impulses in the form of Dirac's delta functions where an infinite force acts during 
zero time. Although incomprehensible within our normal concepts, the existence of a material with 
such properties is not harder to accept than the existence of infinite space and eternity. It appears that 
some aspects of reality may remain counter-intuitive. Being a finite entity in an infinite domain, we will 
probably have to accept this fate. 
A somewhat less formidable problem concerns the specification of the moment of inertia tensor. 
This of course depends on the form of the gyron and the mass density distribution within it. Clearly, 
since it is impossible to measure these parameters directly, they will have to be computed on the basis 
of large scale phenomena. If it is assumed that equipartition of energy is valid in the aether, then 
for the gyron with five degrees of freedom, 3/5 of energy should reside in the translational, and 2/5 
in the rotational motion. Consequently, according to the expression (1.2), ! j ?= (6=5) 1=2 c, and 
(I=M) 1=2 ! ! ?= (4=5) 1=2 c. If the gyron were a thin rod of uniform density with a length ff, then 
its moment of inertia I would be (M ff 2 =12), so that (I=M) 1=2 ! ! ?= ff=(12) 1=2 ! ! ?. However, 
since one would expect that in the collision process ff ! ! ? would be near to ! j ? or c, the above 
expression tells us that the moment of inertia must be larger than M ff 2 =12. Consequently, if the gyron's 
mass density is uniform, its diameter would have to increase towards the ends. 
If one assumes that the Planck constant ¯h represents the dimensional unit of the phase space in the 
aether, so that Mc\Deltax = ¯h = Mc 2 \Deltat, then, as expected, \Deltax = c\Deltat. Furthermore, by hypothetically 
equating the mass of the gyron with the Planck mass M = (¯hc=G) 1=2 , and its length with the Planck 
length ff = (¯hG=c 3 ) 1=2 , one can establish relationships with various other physical quantities. Also, 
by assuming that the gyron's effective diameter fi is related to its length ff as (ff=fi) 2 = F=G, where 
F is the fine structure constant, and G the gravitational constant, then the ratio of the gyron's length to 
diameter turns out to be (F=G) 1=2 = 330:76. 
Similarly, if the aether density were related to the dimensions of the gyron as N = F=ff 3 , then the 
relationships presented in the appendix are, at least in principle expressible in terms of the fundamental 
parameters ff, fi, N , and c. 
The classical electron radius is derived by equating the rest mass energy to that of its electric field, 
which in mechanical terms represents the energy in the circulation; thus, r = e 2 =mc 2 , where e stands 
for the elementary charge. 
Finally, by means of the definition of the fine structure constant as F = e 2 =¯hc, the charge and 
mass of the electron can be related to all the other fundamental constants. These relationships are mere 
conjectures; no factual data supports them, and I am presenting the formulas merely as an illustration to 
demonstrate that in principle such relationships could eventually be established. 
The conversion relationship between the cgs and the cs units 1g = 1cm 3 =sec 2 is given only to 
preserve the numerical values of various physical constants, but its actual value will emerge when the 
aether kinetics is better understood. 
I intended to stay out of the quantum mechanics fray because, until further details of the proposed 
hypothesis are worked out, one cannot make dependable statements; but since this issue is constantly 
brought up, I will express some opinions: Since the material particles do not generate the fields but 
are merely their manifestations, such phenomena as photoelectric effect, the double slit interference, 
and non- locality follow naturally. So far the only unresolved problem present the so-called ``Einstein, 
Rosen, Podolsky'' experiments that claim simultaneity of field couplings at a distance, thus implying an 
infinite speed in field propagation. Although I am not thoroughly familiar with the experimental setups 
and data interpretations, I am inclined to think that an explanation which overcomes this problem will be 
found. Clearly, since the total angular momentum in the aether is conserved, the mutual spin of particles 
will be conserved, but I doubt that it tracks instantly over very large distances. Also, by ascribing the 
quantum mechanical indeterminacy to the fluctuations in the aether, it is clear that the uncertainties 
in position and momentum are not localized to the emission and detection events, but accompany the 
particle on its path. Vacuum fluctuations have been experimentally verified and are becoming accepted 
by many physicists. 
Such experimental data as reported by Panarella, Matteucci and Pozzi, and others, in conjunction 
with various theoretical arguments presented by Belinfante, Garuccio, Kypriamidis, Marshall, Santos, 
Salleri, Vigier, and others [5], indicate that the issues dealing with quantum mechanical interpretations 
are far from settled . Even if it turns out that complete determinism would have to be accepted to 
explain all aspects of physical reality, it would still be more rational than various schemes proposed 
by the adherents of the Copenhagen school. Einstein, Dirac, deBroglie, Schroedinger, and others [17] 
have been grappling with these questions since the twenties, but the models, from which the various 
fields were generated, lacked some essential properties. However, there is really no rational basis for the 
antagonism between the champions of determinism and dogmatic indeterminism because Heisenberg's 
statement, that energy and momentum are conserved statistically, is valid on a large scale, but it does 
not apply to the kinetics of individual gyrons in which these quantities are precisely conserved. Thus, 
while Einstein's faith in God's control over nature is reassured, we can observe only large-scale dynamic 
aggregates of gyrons, and therefore are able to predict the outcome of observations only in statistical 
terms. From this mass action law, applicable to the aether, it clearly follows that the processes involving 
low energies are least predictable. This is experimentally observed, but the fluctuations exist irrespective 
of our observations. It can therefore be hoped that physics could again be pursued in the manner that 
Newton and Maxwell envisioned, without the occultism that is currently in vogue. 
APPENDIX 
Speed of light c = 2:998x10 10 cm=s 
Mass of the gyron Planck mass M = 2:177x10 
=G = ¯h=cff = c 2 =N fi 2 = e=(FG) 1=2 
Length of the gyron Planck length ff = 1:616x10 
= (GFM=N) 1=2 =e = c=(MN) 1=2 
Density of the aether j\Psi o j 2 N = 1:724x10 96 =cm 3 
N = F=ff 3 = G=fffi 2 = e 2 =Mc 2 ff 4 
Gravitational number G = 0:6670x10 
=GM 2 = e 2 =¯hc 
Planck constant/2ß ¯h = 1:0545x10 
(FG) 1=2 = c(FM ff) 1=2 = ffc 2 (F=G) 1=2 = ff 2 c(MN) 1=2 = c 2 ff 2 =fi 
Elementary flux OE = 0:6897x10 
= F¯h=cr = ¯h!=c 2 = c 2 ff 4 =rfi 2 
Radius of the electron r = 2:818x10 
GM=crff = N cff 3 =r 
Dirac number ND = 4:1667x10 42 
ND = e 2 =m 2 G = F (M=m) 2 = r 2 =F ff 2 = r 2 =N ff 5 
Charge to mass ratio of the electron e=m = 5:2727x10 17 
e=m = rfi=ff 2 = (r=ff)(G=F ) 1=2 
Conversion between cgs and cs units 1g = 1cm 3 =s 2 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
I wish to express my gratitude to David B. Peterson and Robert J. Sclabassi for helping in various 
ways in the preparation of this publication. I also thank Harold T. Kyriazi for editing assistance, while 
Paula A. Hill, and Mary Yochum deserve the credit for typing the manuscript, and Don Bonaddio for 
expertly typesetting the formulae. The constructive comments and the reference material provided by 
the anonymous reviewers are also appreciated. 
In a wider sense I am also indebted to all the individuals that contributed to the fund of knowledge 
upon which I was able to construct the proposed model. 

References 
[1] I. Newton, Opticks (Dover Publications, New York, 1952), pp. 350,401. 
[2] J.C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,Vol.2 (Dover Publications, New York, 
1954), p.493. 
[3] E.T. Whittaker, Aether and Electricity (Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., London, 1953). 
[4] G. Builder, Philosophy Sci. 26, 135 (1959). 
[5] W.M. Honig, D.W. Kraft, and E. Panarella, edtrs. Quantum Uncertainties (Plenum Press, New 
York and London, 1986). 
[6] W.M. Honig, Physics Essays 1(2), 79 (1988). 
[7] J.W. Newman, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman (J.W. Newman Publications, Lucedale, 
Mississippi, 1987). 
[8] C.F. Curtiss, J. Chem. Phys. 24, 225 (1956); 26, 1619 (1957); 29, 1257 (1958); 31, 1643 (1959); 
38, 2352 (1963). 
[9] A.S. Eddington, Fundamental Theory (Cambridge 1953). 
[10] R.A. Simon, Physics Essays 3, 30 (1990). 
[11] R.V.L. Hartley, Bell System T.J. 29, 350 (1950). 
[12] M. Planck, S.B. Preus. Akad. Wiss., 5th report pp 440-480 (1899). 
[13] D.G. Long, Physics Essays 3, 7 (1990). 
[14] R. NedvŸed, Physics Essays 3, 4 (1990). 
[15] E.J. Sternglass, Il Nuovo Cimento 35, 227 (1965); International J. of Theor. Phys. 17(5), (1978). 
[16] S.J. Prokhovnik, The Logic of Special Relativity (Cambridge University Press, London, 1967). 
[17] A.O. Barut, A. VanderMerwe, J.-P. Vigier, edtrs. Quantum, Space and Time--The Quest Continues 
(Cambridge University Press, London, 1984).