Cosmic Ether, Possessing Electric-Tension and Magnetic-Resistance, Is the Unified Field for Physics ()

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri^{}

Physics Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA.

**DOI: **10.4236/jmp.2021.125044
PDF
HTML XML
497
Downloads
2,626
Views
Citations

Physics Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA.

The paper presents the case that physics is already and effectively unified by the energetic tension field, ether. We identify this integrating power of ether first, by re-defining the action generating parameters of this energetic tension field as the electric-tension, , and the magnetic-resistance, *μ*_{0}, while re-deriving the Maxwell’s wave equation in analogy with the mechanically stretched string, where the . Then, replacing by and *m*_{0} by , one can find that almost all working physics theories are being energized byand *μ*_{0}. To complete the unification, we can now postulate that the particles are also freely propagating EM waves, but they are spatially localized as in-phase, close-looped (IP-CL) vortex-like propagation modes of ether. Because of their IP-CL mode structure, they have space-finite spatial structures and remain spatially stationary in the absence of any spatially influencing potential gradients (forces) in their vicinity. Particles’ *harmonic phase* driven interactions between quantum particles give birth to the *appearance* of wave-particle duality. There is no need for the confusing and unnecessary de Broglie’s Pilot Wave. The inertia to spatial motion of IP-CL modes automatically accommodates Newton’s laws of motion. The cosmic universality of Maxwellian wave velocity, and particles as IP-CL modes, jointly accommodate the two key postulates of special relativity without the need for unphysical four-dimensionality. The observable universe is represented only by its diverse oscillatory excited states. The stable and stationary Cosmic Ether keeps holding 100% of its energy all the time. We have proposed a one-way light pulse propagation experiment to directly validate the existence of ether, rather than approaching Michelson’s way of measuring the ether drag. We have identified a good number of examples of working theoretical expressions in terms of and* μ*_{0} and presented our critical views in physics thinking, belonging to Classical, Relativity, Quantum and Cosmology Physics.

Keywords

Cosmic Ether, Ether as the Unifying Field, Ether Energetic Tension Field, (1/*ε*_{0})-Electric Tension of Ether, *μ*_{0}-Magnetic Resistance of Ether, Particles as Localized EM Oscillating Modes of Ether

Share and Cite:

Roychoudhuri, C. (2021) Cosmic Ether, Possessing Electric-Tension and Magnetic-Resistance, Is the Unified Field for Physics. *Journal of Modern Physics*, **12**, 671-699. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2021.125044.

1. Introduction

1.1. Preamble

Since ancient times, ether has been recognized as the physical medium for the transportation of light all across the cosmic space [1] [2] [3]. In a previous paper in this journal [4], we have presented the rationale that this ether is a physically real, energetic tension field, holding 100% of the energy of the universe. Our key message in the current paper is that we have already been using the ether tension field as the unified field for physics, but is remaining buried under our current mathematical representation habits. Ether allows for the emergence of EM waves as freely *propagating* *undulations* of all possible frequencies and the emergence of particles as localized EM *oscillators* with quantized energies,
$E=h{f}_{icl}$, with built-in inertia to spatial translation. We suggest that we should re-name the old ether as Cosmic Ether, to incorporate this new property of allowing the emergence and also sustaining the elementary particles as oscillations of its tension field. Schrodinger’s equation works, because the particles are oscillators with intrinsic harmonic phase variations, which is critical for the emergence of Superposition Principle (SP). The emergence of SP is not because the particles are “plane waves”. Plane waves do not exist in nature as they violate the conservation of energy. Accordingly, we also do not need separate de Broglie’s “Pilot Waves” to guide the localized particles. Inertial particles are always constrained to move only with the help of some physical potential gradients of the ether, which we included into the traditional Hamiltonian. The key purpose of this paper is to provide extensive examples and rationale to overcome the currently prevailing resistance to accept the reality of Cosmic Ether.

1.2. The Methodology of Physics-Thinking that Guides the Paper

We believe that the key tool is to think like a system engineer—visualize the invisible *physical* *interaction* *processes* that nature is utilizing to maintain the ongoing perpetual and causally ordered evolution in the universe. Evidence based science, or experimentally validated theory, has been stagnant for some time [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], because of our excessive reliance on elegant mathematical theories and rationalization of the observations. Let us mention the thinking of some major contributors in physics that we would try to emulate. Newton, as a *hands-on* *engineer* and as a creative mathematician, underscored the necessity of a physical medium intervening the Sun and all the planets to establish the gravitational potential gradient that keeps holding the planets. Newton’s contemporary, Huygens, gave the description of the *physical* *processes* behind the perpetual diffractive propagation of light waves as due to the persistent generation of secondary spherical wavelets out of every point on all the wave fronts [10] in an energetic tension medium, the ether. Huygens’ postulate was formalized into a Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral [11], which has been guiding, later strengthened by Maxwell’s equations, the sustained and continued growth of the fields of optical science and engineering. Planck triggered the concept of quantumness in our world by mathematically showing that the measured Blackbody radiation curve can be matched analytically only if the surface molecules inside the blackbody cavity surface emits and absorbs light as individual discrete quantum
$hv$. However, Planck gave us a very valuable lesson—identify the *primary* *physical* *parameter* that plays the key operational (engineering process) role in triggering a particular phenomenon to generate a measurable physical transformation. Avoid using any secondary parameter as the key guiding parameter to develop the main formalism. The author is making this paraphrase from Planck’s book [12] where Planck underscored that he succeeded in deriving his desired expression only after he switched to using the frequency v, instead of using wavelength
$\lambda $, where
$\lambda =c/\nu $. Twenty five years later, QM formalism proved him right. The primary action parameter for atomic and molecular energy exchange is driven by the dipolar interaction frequencies of the involved radiations, not the wavelength. The wavelength varies from medium to medium, but not the frequency. Accordingly, we will stay focused on the parameters that are primary action drivers in nature. We will find that the primary action parameters for ether are
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$ and not
${\epsilon}_{0}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$.

1.3. Flow of the Paper

All perpetual wave propagation requires a parent tension field, like air-pressure-tension field for sound waves. Maxwell’s wave equation and his differential calculus based derivation of the velocity of light, ${c}_{0}^{2}=\left(1/{\epsilon}_{0}{\mu}_{0}\right)$, does not identify what represents the built-in tension of the ether field and what provides the reactional resistance against the generation of the electric vector. In Section 2, we re-derive EM wave equation using Newton’s first two laws, the inertia of rest and the inertia of motion, to identify that ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$ physically represent the electric tension and the magnetic resistance, respectively, to generate the perpetually moving EM waves in ether.

In section 3, we use the physics of light propagation to analyze why Michelson’s null experiment failed to validate either the ether-drag, or the very existence of ether. We then use this knowledge to develop and propose a one-way light pulse propagation experiment that can directly validate the existence of ether.

Section 4 details the core of this paper. It explores the unifying roles of
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$ throughout major physics theories. We have proposed that the elementary particles arise as perpetually moving EM waves, but with a complex, and localized doughnut-like wave motion. The wave motion is *in-phase*, *closed-looped* (IP-CL), somewhat like a stable ring laser with perpetually recycling EM wave. We have discussed how the IP-CL model accommodates most of the quantum mechanical behaviors of particles and atoms and resolves wave-particle duality. We have also discussed that the measurable superposition effect, always registered by a finite size detector, must be a causal and local phenomenon. We cite examples to justify the emergence of gravity out of electromagnetism. Our cosmic ether model naturally accommodates the two key postulates of the special theory of relativity without the need for a four dimensional universe.

The section 5 has two subsections—first conclusion and then discussions, presenting further justification of our physics-thinking.

2. Excavating the Operational Meaning for ${\epsilon}_{0}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$ Hidden behind the Perpetual Velocity of Light

2.1. Integrating Concepts from Newton, Maxwell and Einstein to Define Cosmic Ether

Maxwell derived his wave equation by first reconstructing the integral forms of the already existing empirical laws from the integral calculus forms to the differential calculus forms of the 1) Ampere’s law, 2) Faraday’s law, 3) Coulomb’s law, and 4) the absence of magnetic monopole. His derivation gave the velocity of light as
${c}_{0}^{2}=1/{\epsilon}_{0}{\mu}_{0}$. These parameters
${\epsilon}_{0}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$ were already defined by his predecessors as electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of the *free* *space*, respectively. These descriptions do not clarify the operational origin, or the engineering lever used by nature to generate the observed *perpetual* *velocity* *of* *EM* *waves* in the “free space”. Inspection of the wave equation for an ideal classical mechanical tension field, like that for a long stretched string, does imply the emergence of a perpetually propagating wave, once the string is externally perturbed, provided there are no energy dissipating mechanism associated with the string. Accordingly, we will derive the EM wave equation emulating the procedure used for a mechanically stretched string. In other words, we will unite Newtonian particle mechanics (2^{nd} law) with Maxwellian wave mechanics. We also justify the emergence of Newtonian inertia of “mass” out of the electromagnetic properties of the free space, or ether, using Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation:

${m}_{0}={E}_{0}/{c}_{0}^{2}={E}_{0}{\epsilon}_{0}{\mu}_{0}$ (1)

The first part of this equation is very well validated in the fields of chemistry and physics. The second part is an identity relation from Maxwell’s wave equation. Accordingly, we feel confident that ${\epsilon}_{0}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$, associated with a lump of energy ${E}_{0}$ must play critical roles in the emergence of inertia of a material particle of mass ${m}_{0}$.

2.2. Deriving EM Wave Equation with Mechanical Analogy to Define Operational Meaning for ${\epsilon}_{0}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$

We are now re-defining
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ as the “electric tension” in analogy with the mechanical tension “T” on a stretched string and
${\mu}_{0}$ as “magnetic resistance” in analogy with the “inertia (or mass) per unit length”
$\sigma $ [13] (the choice will be apparent later). Our objective is to derive
${c}_{0}^{2}={\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}/{\mu}_{0}$, just like for mechanical string,
${\text{v}}^{2}=\text{T}/\sigma $, mechanical tension divided by the inertia of mass per unit length. Let us consider a one-dimensional segment of the 3D ether where a moving electric dipole has just triggered the emergence of electric fields
${E}_{1}$ &
${E}_{2}$ at the spatial locations
${x}_{1}$ &
${x}_{2}$ due to the local live electric tension
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$. Let us chose a small elemental spatial segment
$\Delta x$ of the electric tension field
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ in Figure 1 triggered by a dipole with the emergent electric fields
${E}_{1}$ and
${E}_{2}$ at locations
${x}_{1}$ &
${x}_{2}$. Then the component of the unbalanced force in the vertical direction would be
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\theta}_{2}-\mathrm{sin}{\theta}_{1}\right)$. The angles being very small,
$\mathrm{sin}{\theta}_{2,1}$ ’s can be replaced by
$\mathrm{tan}{\theta}_{2,1}$ ’s, and hence by
$\left(\partial {E}_{2,1}/\partial x\right)$. Then the vertical unbalanced force, or the rate of change of the E-field along the x-direction can be expressed as
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\left(\partial {E}_{2}/\partial x-\partial {E}_{1}/\partial x\right)$. The horizontal unbalanced force would be
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\left(\mathrm{cos}{\theta}_{2}-\mathrm{cos}{\theta}_{1}\right)\approx 0$, for small angle approximation. Then the final resultant unbalanced force is only the vertical force
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\left(\partial {E}_{2}/\partial x-\partial {E}_{1}/\partial x\right)$. This emerging spatially varying E-field (current) generates
${\mu}_{0}\Delta x$ quantity of temporally changing magnetic field for the element
$\Delta x$. Then, by Newton’s second law, the unbalanced force can be equated with the magnetic *inertial* *resistance* of this segment
${\mu}_{0}\Delta x$ multiplied by the temporal acceleration
${\partial}^{2}E/\partial {t}^{2}$ experienced by this segment of electric tension filled space:

${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\left(\partial {E}_{2}/\partial x-\partial {E}_{1}/\partial x\right)=\left({\mu}_{0}\Delta x\right)\left({\partial}^{2}E/\partial {t}^{2}\right)$ (2)

By rearranging the parameters and by taking the limit $\Delta x\to 0$, we get the Maxwell’s wave equation:

${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\underset{\Delta x\to 0}{\mathrm{lim}}\frac{1}{\Delta x}\left[\frac{\partial {E}_{2}}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial {E}_{1}}{\partial x}\right]={\mu}_{0}\frac{{\partial}^{2}E}{\partial {t}^{2}}\text{}\Rightarrow \text{}\frac{{\partial}^{2}E}{\partial {t}^{2}}=\frac{{\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}}{{\mu}_{0}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}E}{\partial {x}^{2}}\equiv {c}_{0}^{2}\frac{{\partial}^{2}E}{\partial {x}^{2}}$ (3)

Figure 1. Unifying classical electromagnetism with Newtonian mechanics by re-deriving Maxwell’s wave equation using Newton’s second law of motion. We have re-defined ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ as the electric tension and ${\mu}_{0}$ as the magnetic resistance to increasing local electric current.

Thus, by re-deriving Maxwell’s wave Equation (3) in analogy with a classical stretched string, we have found the operational (functional) meaning behind the emergence of perpetual velocity of an EM wave in its parent tension field, the Cosmic Ether. In general, an *energetic* *tension* *field* *tends* *to* *stay* *in* *its* *energetic* *quiescent* *state*. If a disturbance is introduced at a point by some external energy, the tension field at that point immediately pushes it away to all possible spherically accessible neighboring points so that it can come back to its original quiescent (equilibrium) state. Then all the forward points execute the same actions to come back to their respective quiescent states. As if, the tension field is forever searching out for energy sinks to eliminate it, since the system cannot assimilate the external energy which triggered the original deformation on the quiescent tension field. In the absence of any frequency resonant energy sink, the process continues perpetually. Hence, a disturbance introduced on an energetic tension field, will always generate a perpetually moving wave. This engineering process (action) taking place behind wave propagation, was first presented by Huygens in his book of 1690 while describing the propagation of EM waves in free space [10], although the mathematical wave equation was developed almost a century later by Maxwell. This natural action-picture is true for all tension fields: 1) mechanically stretched tension on a string, 2) surface tension on a water surface, 3) pressure tension in air, etc.

By integrating Newtonian mechanics into classical electromagnetism, we have now established the *physical* *reality* of the electromagnetic tension properties of free space as
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$, with modified physical definition as “electric tension” and “magnetic resistance”, which give us the operational meaning behind the generation of perpetually moving EM wave when triggered by the movement of an electric dipole within it.

3. How to Experimentally Validate the Existence of Cosmic Ether

The cultural demise of electromagnetic ether in physics was triggered by the “null” results obtained by a series of Michelson-Morley experiments (MMX), starting from 1887 [14], while attempting to measure the drag of cosmic ether by the earth. Michelson strongly believed that the all-pervading electromagnetic ether is real and exists. Since ancient times, *the* *belief* *has* *been* *that* *materials* *exist* *separate* *from* *ether*. Then there must be an ether drag against material bodies.

Then the 1905 paper by Einstein on Special Relativity (SR) [15] eliminated the need for ether, which was further supported by a second paper on “photoelectric effect” [16], where Einstein described EM waves as independent elementary particle-like, or “indivisible light quanta”, without requiring a supporting tension field for perpetual propagation. These two papers triggered the steady evolution of a decisive physics culture that the ancient concept of ether is not correct, even though Einstein later corrected himself while defining gravity as a “curvature of space” through his theory of General Relativity. Space needs to have some physical properties, which can be “curved”. However, the physics culture has been persisting that the cosmic space is a vacuum, filled with photons, elementary particles and vacuum fluctuations ( [17], and references there), besides observable macro galaxies with stars, built out of elementary particles. However, this picture does not explain how the photons always experience perpetual, and the highest possible velocity without the support from their emitters. These obvious contradictions, along with the re-definition of ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$ in the last section as the operational cause behind the perpetual motion of EM waves packets, there is an urgent need to carry out new experiments for the direct validation of the existence of cosmic ether as an energetic physical tension field.

3.1. Why MMX Experiments Cannot Discern Either the Ether-Drag or the Absence of Ether?

To appreciate the limitations of MMX type of experiments, we need to pay close attention to the physical processes behind light propagation through material media and through material free ether. Huygens, contemporary of Newton, was the first one to frame the key postulate behind the propensity of waves to propagate perpetually leveraging an energetic parent tension field. Because the tension field keeps perpetually pushing away the waves, generated through some suitable perturbation of its quiescent energetic state. In his 1690 book [10] Huygens’ postulated that this perpetual propagation of a wave is generated via secondary wavelets *emanating* *out* *of* *every* *point* *on* *every* *wave* *fron*t. We usually measure the superposition effect of all these arrived secondary wavelets by some frequency resonant detector. Huygens explicitly mentioned that his model of wave propagation *process* require a tension medium (ether) to propagate as its undulation (excitation). Section-2 of this paper has strengthened this viewpoint. Huygens also underscored that the secondary spherical wavelets do not interfere or modify each other’s wave properties in the absence of any interacting medium. We have articulated this as Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) [18] [19]. In 1817, Fresnel gave a simple and elegant mathematical integral representation of Huygens Principle, now known as the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral [11], which automatically embeds the NIW property. This is actually one of the two key mathematical foundations behind the continuous and sustained advancement of optical science and engineering, till today. There is a second foundational contribution that describes the physics behind the EM wave generation and propagation. It was given by Maxwell in 1864 [20]. It turns out that the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral, a linear summation of spherical waves, is a solution of Maxwell’s wave equation, as it is a second order linear differential equation. Maxwell’s complete set of equations has also established a Poynting vector,
$S=E\times B$. The vector
$S$ on a wave front always remains orthogonal to the wave front, even when the wave front suffers tilted propagation due to tilted *refraction* in a new medium with different refractive indices (supporting different velocities).

*Light* *also* *has* *another* *very* *interesting* *property*. *It* *always* *prefers* *to* *propagate* *through* *a* *structurally* *single* *mode* *medium* *of* *lower* *tension* *value* (lower velocity with higher refractive index), whenever it has that option. This is why we have been able to invent and implement the fiber optic communication systems and sending the optical signals through glass-fiber-core of higher refractive index, surrounded by a protective glass cladding of lower index. Light remains *entrained* within the core of the glass-fiber for tens of thousands of kilometers with very little loss. Ether has the refractive index of
${n}_{0}=1$ and air has the refractive index
${n}_{air}=1.0003$, or
${c}_{air}={c}_{0}/1.0003$. Therefore, in the laboratory, the light beams will always be entrained by the stationary air surrounding any MMX interferometer, since air provides a relatively lower tension (higher index) medium for light to propagate. Light propagation will not be entrained by the lower index ether, even though it is permeating through all material media and the entire universe. Hence, the propagation direction of the light beam vector
$S=E\times B$ in the MMX interferometer will always remain orthogonal to the pre-aligned mirrors, immersed in the laboratory air. The propagation path cannot be tilted, as was originally sketched by Michelson, shown in Figure 2(a) [3].

Figure 2(b) and Figure 2(c) show slightly different versions of the same Michelson’s interferometer to bring out the common-sense understanding that light beams will travel straight up and down, without getting tilted. Figure 2(b) is a monolithic rendition of the Michelson interferometer within a glass cube, with built-in mirrors and a beam splitter. Even if the cube experiences some velocity
$V$ in the horizontal direction due to earth’s orbital velocity, or in space on a satellite, there will be no fringe shift because the two light paths will remain identical, always entrained by the glass cube. The
$V$ vector of the cube-prism cannot tilt the
$S$ vector of light away from its vertical path since the
$S$ vector is *entrained* by the assembly of the material dipoles of the glass prism of index
${n}_{gls.}=1.5$. Within a material medium,
$S$ can *no* *longer* *be* *under* *the* *control* *of* *the* *stationary* *or* *even* *the* *dragged* *ether*. However, there will be a negligibly small Fresnel Drag ( [18] -see Ch.11, [21] ) of the light beam. Because of its effective miniscule value, we will neglect the Fresnel drag in air here. The intention behind Figure 2(c) is to underscore the same point, as we have done for Figure 2(b), except that the interferometer is now residing within the stationary air of the laboratory environment. Figure 2(c) is actually equivalent to Figure 2(a) with the correction that the light beam propagation vectors remain orthogonal to the two mirrors, without suffering the tilt assumed by Michelson, with longer travel path.

Thus MMX type of experiments should always give null-fringe result. We do not need to assign a new property on to nature that needs to trigger “length contraction” or “time dilation”. If we assume that Michelson had believed ether entrained the light ray, and not the “thin” air in the laboratory, then the ether drag would have created an *apparent* tilted path for the arrival of the vertical ray and tilted return again, just as Michelson’s drawing in Figure 2(a). However, then the real physical tilt of the light beam would have caused a change in the spatial frequency of the observed fringes, *which* *was* *also* *never* *reported*.

Figure 2. Michelson Interferometer in three versions. (a) Diagram from Michelson’s original paper [3]. Notice the triangular longer up-down return path of the light beam compared to the horizontal straight re-tracing path. (b) Michelson interferometer built as a solid monolithic structure out of glass prisms, mirrors and a beam splitter. Zero fringe shift is obvious from equal return paths. (c) Michelson interferometer re-drawn with equal return paths because stationary air of refractive index 1.0003 entrains the light propagation, not the aether. (d) Shift of light pulse in a one-way CTF-entrained propagation, when the apparatus moves transversely in vacuum.

3.2. Can We Validate the Existence of Stationary Ether?

In Section 2 we have established the deep significance for physics that we experimentally validate the cosmic space as a stationary energetic tension field. Experimental validation of Casimir Effect [22] does indicate that the space, in the nanometer domain, is not “empty”. However, since the Casimir Effects have been measured only in the nanometer domains, these experiments cannot assure us of the existence of a stationary ether-like energetic tension field as the very foundation of our emergent universe. Therefore, Michelson’s brilliant idea, of using the physics of light propagation over a macro distance, has to be properly re-formulated. In this section, we take lessons from the limitations of the MMX experiments and propose a simpler new experiment to determine the existence of ether. Our design should be able to compare and differentiate the measured outcomes of light propagation through some material medium and “completely” material-free ether space.

As mentioned earlier, the generic tendency of light is to choose to travel through the relatively lower tension (higher index and lower velocity) media. Further, the Poynting vector, orthogonal to the collimated optical beam, preserves its spatial direction, while obeying the basic laws of reflection and refraction. This has been pictorially shown in Figure 2(b), where the moving glass-cube-MMX preserves the orthogonal reflection of the return beams, instead of getting reflected at an angle.

We are proposing to test the presence of ether only by comparing the absence or presence of a shift in the arrival location of a *collimated* *light* *pulse* *through* *one-way* *travel* *path*, where the travel path is either filled with air as a medium (
${n}_{air}=1.0003$ ), or is completely empty (
${n}_{ether}=1$ ), inside a super-vacuum chamber, or on a deep space satellite. Let us now assume that the wavelength of light is *λ*. Then one can argue that if the average number of air molecules within a volume of *λ*^{3} is statistically less than one, then the E-vector of the light beam would not experience a reduction in the effective tension value of that space. Light will now be guided as an undulation of the pure ether only, with minor amount of scattering of light from encounter with individual molecules.

We can now construct a very simple ether-sensor consisting of a rigid box (see Figure 2(d)). The bottom of the box holds an LED that can send out individual pico second light pulses, on demand, vertically up to the top end. The top of the box, anchored rigidly with the LED base-structure, holds a detector array. It is designed to measure the lateral shift in the arrival position of the light pulse. If the box is full of air, the light pulse would always arrive exactly at the vertical location from the LED, even if we give the box a velocity orthogonal to the optical pulse propagation axis. However, when the box is completely free of air, either inside a super-vacuum chamber, or on a deep space satellite, a velocity of the box to the right and orthogonal to the light-pulse axis, would make the light pulse to arrive left-shifted on the detector array. This is because the Poynting vector orthogonal to the center of the original wave front of the light pulse will always follow its original straight line trajectory inside any homogeneous medium. It is now moving through stationary ether, while the box is moving away to the right.

If the length of the bar is *L* = 1 m long, then the arrival delay for the light pulse would be 3.33 ns. Note that even though the dashed line of the apparent light path appears to be tilted and longer, the light pulse actually travels the same vertical distance *L*, while the box moves to the right. Physics of this propagation process is depicted by the vertical Poynting vectors, drawn on the cartoon-pulses, always pointing *vertically* *up* (Figure 2(d)), while the box moves to the right.

3.2.1. Ether Sensor inside a Super-Vacuum Chamber

Let us assume that we are carrying out the experiment inside a super vacuum chamber leveraging earth’s orbital velocity of $\text{v}=30\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{km}/\text{sec}$ by aligning the earth’s velocity vector orthogonal to the light-path-vector in the ether sensor. This would generate a lateral shift of:

$\delta x=\text{v}\delta t=\text{v}L/{c}_{air}\simeq 100\mu $ (4)

Such a lateral displacement can be easily measured by an off-the-shelf linear detector array, or a position sensing quadrant detector. Several countries who are advanced in space technologies can carry out this experiment. They have large vacuum chambers with low pressure capability around 10^{−10} Torr, implying less than about 0.1 air molecule per micron cube at typical room temperature. The visible wavelength being around 0.5 micron, a vacuum of 10^{−10} Torr satisfies the effective free-space condition.

This terrestrial experiment in high vacuum chamber should also be able to establish that air in Michelson’s experiment was keeping the light beam entrapped to straight path, instead of the tilted angular path assumed by Michelson, which consistently gave him the null fringe-shift results. One just need to slowly introduce air in the high vacuum chamber and observe that the light beam deflection reduces to zero at a certain pressure when there are a good number of air molecules per *λ*^{3}. The determination of this number of air molecules would be a valuable parameter in studying the fundamental physics behind the emergence of refractive index and the need for a certain number of air molecules per *λ*^{3} to generate an “effective continuous medium” for EM waves. *It* *will* *also* *validate* *that* *the* *EM* *interaction* *cross* *section* *of* *Angstrom* *size* *atoms* *could* *be* *one* *or* *two* *orders* *of* *magnate* *larger* *than* *the* *λ*^{2}, *especially* *when* *the* *optical* *frequency* *is* *in* *resonance* *with* *quantum* *level* *transition* *of* *the* *chosen* *gas* [23] [24].

If the experiment, when carried out very carefully with the desired free-space equivalent vacuum condition, shows no lateral shift of the light spot, one possible conclusion would be that the ether is being fully dragged around its surface by the massive earth. We doubt this outcome because in our model, ether is universally stationary. EM waves and particles are the excited states of its *various* *emergent* *potential* *gradients*, *not* *the* *physical* *field* *itself*. EM wave propagation does not make the ether move. Further, the movements of material particles (or bodies) should create only changes in appropriate potential gradients around them.

3.2.2. Ether Sensor on a Deep Space Satellite

Let us assume that the orthogonal velocity of a possible deep space satellite is $\text{v}=8\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{km}/\text{sec}$. Then the lateral displacement of the light spot would be:

$\delta x=\text{v}\delta t=\text{v}L/{c}_{0}=26.7\mu $ (5)

This is also accurately measurable using an off-the-shelf position sensing quadrant detector. Here also we are assuming that a satellite cannot drag stationary ether.

In both the above experimental environment, one could employ a second identical ether sensor with *the* *light* *vector* *path* *always* *aligned* *parallel* *to* *the* *box-velocity* *vector*. Then, this second sensor should always show zero lateral shift in the arrival of the light spot. This will provide us with the extra confidence on the results of the experiments.

4. Exploring Direct Unifying Roles of ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$ throughout Major Physics Theories

In the introduction, we have presented the argument that

${c}_{0}={\left(1/{\epsilon}_{0}{\mu}_{0}\right)}^{-1/2}={\left({\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}/{\mu}_{0}\right)}^{-1/2}$ is a *secondary* derived parameter. In section 2,

we have re-derived Maxwell’s wave equation while re-defining the primary *actionable* *parameters* of the cosmic ether as
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$, electric tension and magnetic resistance, respectively. In this section, we show that these two actionable primary parameters are involved in all major theories of physics to validate our key assertion that the cosmic ether has already been functioning as the unifying field of physics.

4.1. Material Media Are Also Energetic Tension Fields, a Modified Versions of the Ether, ${\epsilon}^{-1}$ & $\mu $

In section 2, after the derivation of Maxwell’s wave equation, emulating the energetic mechanical tension field of a stretched string, we have explained how a tension field tries to consistently push away the external perturbation and ends up generating a perpetually moving wave. Material media also perpetually push away EM waves when they are generated inside the media, or wave pulses are sent inside them. In fact, the core properties of the EM wave propagation, including diffraction, are *mathematically* *very* *similar* in structure to those for the free space, except the values of the core parameters are modified by the aggregate properties of the material dipoles. The structure of the Poynting vector remains same. The velocity of EM waves becomes:

${c}_{med.}^{2}={\epsilon}_{med.}^{-1}/{\mu}_{med.}\equiv {c}_{0}^{2}/{n}_{med.}^{2}$ (6)

For most material media, usually,
${\mu}_{med.}\approx 1$, giving rise to the well-known relation for the refractive index,
${n}_{med}\approx {\epsilon}_{med}^{1/2}$, determined by the collective dipolar properties of the atoms and molecules within the media. One can then surmise that, functionally, the material media also behave as modified electromagnetic tension fields. *We* *are* *then* *guided* *to* *postulate* *that* *the* *electrons*, *protons* *and* *neutrons*, *which* *build* *the* *atoms*, *and* *then* *the* *material* *media*, *should* *also* *represent* *some* *forms* *of* *emergent* *properties* *of* *the* *same* *cosmic* *ether*.

Let us note from Equation (6) that the velocity of light waves are slower inside the material tension fields. Hence the material tension fields are weaker than the material-free Cosmic Ether. This is why material media offer an alternate wave energy sink for the ether. This is why, given the physical proximity, EM waves will always be *pushed* inside the lower tension (higher index) material media. In fact, the atoms and molecules, having quantum mechanical frequency-resonant energy levels, will always “*pull*” in the wave energy, while the EM tension fields will always tend to “*push*” in the wave energy, which is a perturbation to its quiescent state. This is a key point that we have utilized to explain as to why, in Michelson’s ether-drag cartoon, Figure 2(a), the vertical light rays could not have been “dragged” by the ether! Light is always entrained by a lower tension air, even though the air molecules are emergent entities of the ether.

4.2. Emergence of Particles, Quantumness, Charge and Superposition Effect without Non-Locality

4.2.1. Particles Are Localized in-Phase Close-Looped (IP-CL) EM Oscillators

Quantum theories are functional field theories [17] [25]. Ether is an energetic tension field. It also accommodates perpetually moving EM waves. We just need the right set of postulates to model the emergence of localized EM oscillators out of the same ether, which will follow Schrodinger’s “wave” equation and other quantum field theories.

It is important to appreciate again the emergence of *perpetual* *velocity* *of* *EM* *wave* (or any wave) once it has been triggered on its supportive energetic tension field, which is ether for us. This will help us integrate classical mechanics with the quantum mechanics at the very foundation of the emergence of waves and material particles.

The concept is already built into the physical-process driven derivation of the EM wave equation, Equation (3). It *models* *the* *real* *physical* *processes* *in* *nature*, which engenders the perpetual motion (propagation) of a wave once triggered due to some energetic perturbation on the vast electromagnetic complex tension field, ether. Equation (3) is a *linear* first order differential equation allowing for the Superposition Principle (SP). Second, it equates a temporal second derivative (“temporal acceleration”) with a spatial second derivative (“spatial acceleration”). This equality, or the built-in balancing condition set by our math implies that we have correctly modeled nature—one of the fundamental tendency of an energetic tension field is to restore its original quiescent energetic state by getting rid of the perturbation energy. If it does not have built-in energy dissipation mechanism, then it will keep pushing away the perturbation perpetually because every pint of a tension field wants to stay in its energetic quiescent state (recall Huygens postulate [10] ). This is the cause behind our observations that waves have tendency to move away perpetually. Now, let us look at the Schrodinger’s equation, Equation (7) and compare with Equation (3). Unlike EM waves, without the presence of a separate physical

$i\hslash \frac{\partial \psi \left(x,t\right)}{\partial t}=-\frac{{\hslash}^{2}}{2m}\frac{{\partial}^{2}\psi \left(x,t\right)}{\partial {x}^{2}}+V\left(x,t\right)\psi \left(x,t\right)$ (7)

potential gradient $V\left(x,t\right)$, Schrodinger’s particle does not move spatially. However, like the EM wave equation, it is also a second order linear differential equation and hence accommodates complex amplitude-driven Superposition Principle (SP). Equation (7) does have a “spatial acceleration” term, ${\partial}^{2}\psi \left(x,t\right)/\partial {x}^{2}$ ; but does not have a balancing “temporal acceleration” term like that for the EM wave, Equation (3). The temporal derivative term, $\partial \psi \left(x,t\right)/\partial t$, is first order. Obviously, Schrodinger’s particles are not spontaneously moving waves, like the EM waves are. Schrodinger’s particles cannot be real physical waves, or guided by “Pilot Waves”, even though it works through SP, $\Psi ={\displaystyle {\sum}_{n}{\psi}_{n}}$, and the observables are ${\Psi}^{\ast}\Psi $. We have thus created a natural platform for conceptual confusions without properly defining the origin of the Newtonian inertia of elementary particles, while allowing for the initial interaction processes between particles through superposition of their complex amplitudes. This is clearly the foundational limitation of eminently successful QM formalism. It is an incomplete theory, as perceived by Einstein.

We can now justify our postulate of the emergence of elementary particles as localized, self-looped in-phase (IP-CL), EM wave oscillations of the ether. The self-looped EM wave oscillation is perceived by the ether as if it is perpetually pushing it away forever, satisfying the core restoration property of any energetic tension field. Now, this IP-CL wave loop has developed a natural tendency of inertia of motion, until it is subjected to some physical potential slope (gradient) in its vicinity; even stopping it would require a separate opposing potential gradient. We thus see the natural propensity of particles to obey Newton’s two laws of motion. “Locality” of spatially localized particles is inherently undeniable. Further, Newton’s third law of real physical action-interaction through energy exchange, guided by some compatible force between the particles, must also be accepted as physical reality, that strengthens the *locality* defined by the physical range of the force. There is really no wave-particle duality, even though the particles are structurally localized IP-CL wave loops. However, particles do have oscillatory complex amplitudes which guide the energy exchange process through the QM superposition principle. Interactions are guided by forces, which we consider as various types of physical potential gradients around them, generated due to the internal complex EM wave motions. Newton’s action-reaction is built into these mutually influencing “potential gradients”, as they equally try to influence each other.

The quantization of particle energies also emerges naturally from the famous relation, $E=h{f}_{icl}$, the subscript “icl” is added to underscore the “internal closed-loop” electromagnetic oscillation. The stability, or the life time, of various particles are now determined by the degree of phase matching in the in-phase closed-loop wave propagation. Protons and electrons must have the most precisely phase-matched internal IP-CL oscillations since we do not see them decay.

The phase matching requirements for the closed-looped oscillation also dictates that the energies of the stable particles cannot assume just any values. In fact, Greulich [26] has found an interesting *strongly* *linear* relation to express the energy of a large number of particles with measurable life times as the multiplication of an integer N with the ratio of the electron energy divided by the fine structure constant
$\alpha $, as in the first part of Equation (8). In the second part of the same

${E}^{prt.}=N\left({E}^{el.}/\alpha \right);\text{}\Rightarrow \text{}{f}_{icl}^{prt.}=\left(1/\alpha \right)N{f}_{icl}^{el.}$ (8)

Equation (8), we have re-written it in terms of IP-CL wave frequencies. One can notice some similarity with the closed-cavity longitudinal laser frequency modes with a relation of integral multiples. For particles heavier than electrons, IP-CL frequencies keep increasing linearly as some integral multiple, reduced by the inverse
$\alpha $ -factor. This provides some extra corroboration that particles are perpetually propagating *localized* IP-CL EM modes of the ether, somewhat like a circular laser. However, the wave motions have to be very much more complex to be able to generate quantized charge and spin properties.

4.2.2. “Plane Wave” and “Pilot Wave” Are Unnecessary and Add Only Confusions

We should now clarify here that Schrodinger’s complex amplitude representation, $\psi \sim a\mathrm{exp}\left[-i2\pi {f}_{icl}t\right]$, for a free particle should have never been interpreted as a “plane wave”. The conservation law tells us that a “plane wave”, existing for all time and spread over all space, cannot exist in this real world. We use the very similar mathematical expression $\mathrm{exp}\left[\pm i2\pi ft\right]$ routinely to analyze the properties of classical pendulum, or of classical AC current oscillators. Further, the oscillatory complex amplitude property, displayed by particles, do not require any separate guidance from de Broglie’s “Pilot Waves” because they themselves are IP-Cl harmonic oscillators, containing the necessary complex amplitudes. Originally, the idea was introduced to accommodate the wave-like superposition effects shown by particles. Besides, de Broglie’s postulate has a problem of built-in mathematical non-causality (Equation (9)), since the postulated wavelength of the Pilot Wave diverges to infinity as the particle velocity tends to zero:

${\lambda}_{k}\equiv \frac{h}{p}\Rightarrow \underset{Lt.\text{v}\to 0}{{\lambda}_{k}}=\underset{\text{v}\to 0}{Lt.}\frac{h}{{m}_{0}\text{v}}\to \infty $ (9)

We have mentioned Planck’s advice in the introduction that it is important to identify the primary *action* *parameter* of natural entities to model their interaction processes. To model particle-particle superposition effects on “external” (“third party”) detecting molecules through Superposition Principle, we need to postulate that the particles acquire a different kinetic frequency
${f}_{k}$ (different from internal IP-CL frequency
${f}_{icl}$ ). In particle-particle interactions, including kinetic collisions,
${f}_{icl}$, or
$h{f}_{icl}$ play key roles while bringing about structural transformations. We now postulate a causal de Broglie kinetic frequency
${f}_{k}$, defined as
$\left(1/2\right)m{\text{v}}^{2}=h{f}_{k}$ which provides us with the necessary harmonic frequency and phase,
$a\mathrm{exp}\left[-i2\pi {f}_{k}t\right]$, to model particle superposition phenomenon. The causality for the de Broglie frequency is preserved (Equation (10)):

${f}_{k}\equiv \frac{m}{2h}{\text{v}}^{2}\Rightarrow \underset{Lt.\text{v}\to 0}{{f}_{k}}=\underset{\text{v}\to 0}{Lt}\frac{m}{2h}{\text{v}}^{2}\to 0$ (10)

Recall that frequencies of oscillators are the primary characteristic parameters and are determined by the intrinsic tension property that promotes the physical oscillation.

4.2.3. Role of ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$ in the Fine Structure Constant $\alpha $ & Emergence of Charge

We should first recognize that charge is an emergent property out of electromagnetism. While we have found that mathematically the sum of positive and negative charges are always conserved in particle-particle interactions, physically, the charges can completely vanish, as in electron-positron collision: ${e}^{-}+{e}^{+}\rightleftharpoons \gamma +\gamma $. It is clear that we can create charge by manipulating electromagnetic gamma waves. Since $\gamma $ waves are created out of ether, then the charge-property displayed by ${e}^{-}$ and ${e}^{+}$ has to emerge out of some form of IP-CL structure of the electromagnetic wave of the ether that allows the formation of electrons and positrons, and hence all other elementary particles also.

Very precisely measured fine structure constant $\alpha =\left(1/137\right)$ [27] for elementary particles can be written as:

$\alpha =\frac{{e}^{2}}{2h}\frac{1}{{\epsilon}_{0}{c}_{0}}=\frac{{e}^{2}}{2h}{\left({\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}{\mu}_{0}\right)}^{1/2}\Rightarrow {e}^{2}=2\alpha h\frac{1}{{\left({\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}{\mu}_{0}\right)}^{1/2}}$ (11)

In the first part of the above Equation (11), we have re-expressed
$\alpha $ in terms of the primary parameters
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$ by replacing the secondary derived parameter
${c}_{0}$. Then we have re-expressed the charge in terms of
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$, multiplied by the
$\alpha $ -constant and Planck’s quantization constant *h*, two precisely measured constants of nature. So, we have re-expressed the emergence of charge in terms of
${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ &
${\mu}_{0}$ (second part in Equation (11)). The square of the quantized charge is inversely proportional to the square root of the product of the electric tension and the magnetic resistance, built into ether as its key functional properties.

Notice that expressing the secondary parameter ${c}_{0}$ in terms of the constituent primary parameters brings back the role of the electric tension and the magnetic resistance in the formation of the elementary particles as IP-CL waves. However, it tells us more. One now needs to visualize the physical processes behind the emergence of quantized charge. Somewhat similar approach is being contemplated by many scientists [28] [29]. We now present some possible approach to develop the IP-CL particle model and the emergence of quantized charge.

Maxwell’s wave equation indicates that the wave propagates as a continuously oscillating ±*E*-vector as if it is a localized *emergent* *oscillating* *charge*, equivalent to an oscillating current, while triggering the emergence of a resisting orthogonal and oscillating magnetic field. Then, it is not difficult to appreciate that localized Maxwellian IP-CL wave inherently contains oscillating charge and magnetic properties, which the elementary particles do display. Now the challenge is to visualize and mathematically model some localized IP-Cl wave structures that can display static (stationary with the particle) charge-curvatures of opposite slopes around electron and positron models (and eventually to proton models). The “spin” would be a natural consequence of the self-looped waves inside the IP-CL oscillation with its own Poynting vector. *It* *is* *now* *conceptually* *clear* *to* *appreciate* *the* *emergence* *of* *quantumness* *in* *the* *particle* *world* *out* *of* *the* 3*D* *classical* *ether*. The wave particle-duality is real and it is built-in structurally and permanently, not due to some dependence on the type of experimental set up. We do not need the large number of strange, and non-causal, quantum philosophical interpretations to “understand” quantum mechanics.

4.2.4. Frequencies of IP-CL Particle

The rest energies of the electron and the proton are 0.510 MeV, and 938.272 MeV, respectively. Then, using
$E=h{f}_{icl}$, and
$h=4.135\times {10}^{-15}\text{eV}\cdot \text{s}$, we get the *E*-vector frequencies of the close-looped EM waves for the electron and proton as
${f}_{icl}^{el}=1.233\times {10}^{20}{\text{s}}^{-1}$ and
${f}_{icl}^{pr}=2.269\times {10}^{23}{\text{s}}^{-1}$, respectively. These oscillations for electrons and protons are in the very high energy gamma-wave region, which do not spread out diffractively, unlike much lower frequency EM waves that diffract. This non-diffractive propensity of extremely high frequency EM waves allow for the formation of stable and localized IP-CL waves. It is well validated that the diffractive spread is inversely proportional to the frequency of the EM waves. It is built into Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral [11]. However, when the particles collide against a heavy nucleus, or each other, they would break up into a pair of gamma radiations, or other stable and unstable IP-CL particles.

4.2.5. Role of ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$ in Determining the Quantized Energy Levels of Hydrogen Atom

Let us note that the quantized energy levels ${E}_{n}$ of Hydrogen atoms are also guided by ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$ because the inertia (mass) of electrons is due to its IP-CL wave structure (Equation (12)):

${E}_{n}=\frac{{m}_{e}{e}^{4}}{8{\epsilon}_{0}^{2}{h}^{2}}\frac{1}{{n}^{2}}=\frac{\left({}_{el}E{}_{0}{\epsilon}_{0}{\mu}_{0}\right){e}^{4}}{8{h}^{2}{\epsilon}_{0}^{2}}\frac{1}{{n}^{2}}=\left({\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}{\mu}_{0}\right)\frac{{}_{el}E{}_{0}{e}^{4}}{8{h}^{2}}\frac{1}{{n}^{2}}$ (12)

We should also underscore that the dependence of discrete energy levels on inverse *n*^{2} implies phase dependent propagation behavior of electrons in the atomic orbits, which is mathematically well captured by Schrodinger’s wave equation.

4.2.6. Locality of Superposition Effects

We have underscored in section 4.2.1 is that wave-particle duality is a reality of nature because particles are localized IP-CL EM waves. Schrodinger’s QM equation represents a logically self-consistent causal relation. There cannot be sudden emergence of non-causal and non-local phenomena only when we carefully set up experiments to measure Superposition Effects (SE). Let us first underscore that the *linear* *Superposition* *Principle* (*SP*),
$\Psi ={\psi}_{1}+{\psi}_{2}$, *is* *not* *an* *observable* *phenomenon*; Here the operator “+” implies only coexistence, not any interaction. In contrast, SE is an observable phenomenon. We need an appropriate quantum detector that can execute the quantum mechanical square modulus operation on both the superposed signals,
${\left|\Psi \right|}^{2}={\left|\chi {\psi}_{1}+\chi {\psi}_{2}\right|}^{2}$, where
$\chi $ is the linear dipolar polarizability of the detecting molecules that guides the *interaction* *process* between the detector and the stimulating signal. SE can becomes observable only after non-linear quadratic operation process *has* *been* *executed* *by* *a* *detector* *through* *absorption* *of* *energy* *from* *all* *the* *stimulating* *fields*,
${\psi}_{1}$ *and*
${\psi}_{2}$, *present* *simultaneously*. We must not defy these mathematical logics that have been working just by repeating the culturally accepted belief that “indivisible single photon interfere”. Further, the detecting molecules must be resonant to the incident signal frequency. Just by sending any signals (“photons”) do not automatically create observable distribution of the sent signals. Further, the signals sent out, follow their own laws of propagation. EM waves diffractively spread out and particles follow linear trajectory in force-free region. IP-CL particles do not diffract like the Maxwellian waves do. Therefore, the expression for SP below (Equation (13)) is just a causal mathematical expression that we are sending two streams of signal through two slits on to a distant detector array that can interact with the particles on arrival. The “+” operator in the equation does not represent any particle-particle interaction.

$p\left(\tau \right)={a}_{1}{\text{e}}^{i2\pi {f}_{k}\left(t+\tau \right)}+{a}_{2}{\text{e}}^{i2\pi {f}_{k}t}$ (13)

It is simply a mathematically correct statement that we are *intending* to send two streams of particles, starting out of, say, through two slits on to a “far-field” detector array. Their arrival from the two spatially separate slits on to any specific off-axis point on the detector array will require traveling by different paths, while taking different travel times, assuming they have been pre-selected for the same velocity
$\left(1/2\right)m{v}^{2}=h{f}_{k}$. See section 4.2.1 for the definition of de Broglie frequency
${f}_{k}$ that replaces de Broglie Pilot wavelength
${\lambda}_{k}$. The detectable (observable) energy distribution would be given by Equation (14):

$\Psi \left(\tau \right)={\left|\chi {a}_{1}{\text{e}}^{i2\pi {f}_{k}\left(t+\tau \right)}+\chi {a}_{2}{\text{e}}^{i2\pi {f}_{k}t}\right|}^{2}={\chi}^{2}\left[{a}_{1}^{2}+{a}_{2}^{2}+2{a}_{1}{a}_{2}\mathrm{cos}2\pi {f}_{k}\tau \right]$ (14)

Now the operation “+” within the square modulus sign is executed by the detecting elements via the interaction parameter
$\chi $. It is almost impossible for us to send exactly identical number of particles through both the slits with identical release times to make
${a}_{1}^{2}={a}_{2}^{2}={a}^{2}$ and generate pure cosine fringes with unit visibility, which is routinely assumed in making arguments in support of the magical “single particle” SE. The causally correct mathematical logics embedded in Equation (13) representing the detected “fringe intensity” (or particles number) variations defies the interpretation that a single particle can generate SE. The mathematical logic behind the presence of the product
${a}_{1}{a}_{2}$ in the interference cross-term implies that the detector accepts energy from both the particle beams (the literal meaning of “superposition”). We rely on the hard causality, built into our mathematics, to advance exploration of physics. Locality of superposition effect is dictated by the interaction process executed by the detectors [30] [31] [32]. Dark fringe locations are due to the resultant *null* *stimulations* induced on those detecting elements generated by multiple particles due to their mutual phase dependent stimulations. *Dark* *fringes* *are* *not* *due* *to* *non-arrival* *of* *particles* *in* *those* *locations*. That is what the literal meaning of the two terms within the sign of square modulus. We should not randomly defy the mathematical logic whenever we are at a loss to explain the *invisible* *intention* *processes* that generate the registered data though interactions with detectors. Wave-particle duality (WPD) is real because particles are truly IP-CL wavelets carrying different phases. However, WPD should not be used to justify the non-causal belief that single particle interfere. Stable elementary particles cannot make themselves appear or disappear based simply upon human constructed passive double-slit structure.

4.3. Gravity and Electromagnetism Are Emergent Properties out of ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$

We know that all “material” particles and their assembly display gravitational attractive forces, as has been modeled by Newton as a simple inverse square law and by Einsteinian through more complex formalism as “curvature of space” (General Relativity). We also know that inertial property of a particle with Newtonian inertia (mass) can be expressed in terms of the particle’s IP-CL energy and ether properties (Equation (15)):

${m}_{0}={E}_{0}/{c}_{0}^{2}=\left(h{f}_{cl}\right)\left({\mu}_{0}/{\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\right)$ (15)

By definition, Newtonian mass display “gravitational curvature” around it as in Equation (16). Below, we have presented the macro mass as a summation of innumerable IP-CL oscillators of quantum frequencies
${f}_{in}^{\left(1,n\right)}$. The issue to notice is that the mutual gravitational force between two massive bodies is *inversely* *proportional* *to* *both* *the* *square* *of* *the* *distance* *and* *the* *square* *of* *the* *electric* *tension* *of* *the* *ether* (Equation (16)).

$F=G\frac{{m}_{1}{m}_{2}}{{r}^{2}}=\frac{G{h}^{2}}{{r}^{2}}\left({\displaystyle {\sum}_{n}{f}_{cl}^{\left(1,n\right)}}\cdot {\displaystyle {\sum}_{n}{f}_{cl}^{\left(2,n\right)}}\right){\left({\mu}_{0}/{\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\right)}^{2}$ (16)

If the IP-CL wavelet concept for particles is correct, then the correct mathematical closed-looped light propagation model should be able to generate the gravitational force, or create the “curvature of space” (potential gradient) on the ether field. The strength of the “Curvatures of space” increases with the “closed- looped” frequencies (energies) of the particles and is directly sum-able to generate larger and larger gravitational attraction without the need for any phase terms, unlike for interactions between quantum particles or EM waves and particles. We do not need a separate theory of Quantum Gravity that can generate graviton for interaction through “exchange process”.

Here, we would like to introduce, without further discussions in the current paper, the postulate that all forces in nature are due to diverse kinds of curvatures in ether generated by the IP-CL EM wavelets, without requiring the concept of exchange particles. We should note that interactions between diverse IP-CL wavelets will naturally go through transient intermediate “photon-like” states as they transition from one stable IP-CL wavelet to assume another stable IP-CL structure, like for example,
${e}^{-}+{e}^{+}\rightleftharpoons \gamma +\gamma $. Thus, Feynman’s integral technique that utilizes intermediate photons or Bosons, represent more than just a mathematical trick that just works! The method closely represents actual *interaction* *processes* going on in nature. *That* *is* *why* *Feynman-diagrams* *are* *so* *successful* [33].

There are many publications where the authors have claimed that gravity has electromagnetic origin [34] [35]. We will briefly mention the work of Mallett [36] who has shown that Einstein’s formalism does allow for the emergence of “weak gravitational field” due to a *linear* circular laser beam. Mallet has shown that a stationary neutral massive spinning particle at the center of the ring laser will pick up a precession given by Equation (17) (see ref. 36 for detailed definitions); *a* is the length of one of the arms of a square ring laser,
$\rho $ is the linear energy density of the laser beam.

$\stackrel{\dot{}}{\Omega}=\frac{8\sqrt{2}G\rho}{a{c}_{0}^{3}}=\frac{8\sqrt{2}G\rho}{a{\left({\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}/{\mu}_{0}\right)}^{3/2}}$ (17)

The induced weak gravitational precession for a macro ring laser is very small, being inversely proportional to $a{c}_{0}^{3}=a{\left({\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}/{\mu}_{0}\right)}^{3/2}$. Nonetheless, if a macro linear ring laser can induce inertial frame dragging on a massive particle; it is then inspiring to attempt to model a femto meter size complex IP-CL 3D wavelet model that could generate the actually measured gravitational field strength.

4.4. Cosmology: Energy Conservation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Expanding Universe, etc

4.4.1. Hundred Percent of the Energy of the Universe Is Held by the Ether

We have defined cosmic ether very much as a “classical” continuous 3D tension field with core properties being electric tension and magnetic resistance. Everything observable or manifest, consists of *perpetually* *propagating* EM waves—freely propagating EM waves and localized IP-CL EM waves. This perpetual propagation (velocity) is a classical property of all waves generated on a classical tension medium. It originates because the parent tension field 1) wants to preserve its energetic quiescent state by pushing away perturbations, and because 2) it cannot directly assimilate the energies of the waves-generated perturbation. Then the sum total energy in any interaction between different IP-CL wavelets and between IP-CL and EM waves should always be conserved because the new products are also bound to be some form of waves of the ether. This is the well observed law of conservation of energy in all interactions, an inherent property of the energetic tension field. Therefore, the cosmic ether must be holding 100% of the energy of the observable universe, which includes the energy of all the EM oscillations [4] [18].

Current cosmological theories imply that of the total energy density of the universe, Baryonic matter represent only ~5% , dark matter and dark energy supposed to consist of ~25% and ~70 %, respectively [37]. The energy density of propagating EM wave (photons) energy is negligible, only about ~0.005%. In our model, all the Baryonic (5%) matter consists of IP-CL inertial wavelets. Then ~95% of the energy remains un-manifest in the ether, *providing* *the* *stability* *of* *the* *universe*. In other words, for the ether model of the universe, there is no need for Dark energy and Dark Matter [38] [39].

Mannheim’s work [39] [40] on Conformal Gravity argues that there is no need for Dark Matter. The postulates of Dark Energy and Dark Matter were proposed to explain cosmological issues related to balancing the total energy density in the universe. Manheim’s Conformal Gravity (Equation (18)), as a four-term polynomial, with four but the same fixed set chosen constants, ${\beta}^{*}$, ${\gamma}^{*}$, ${\gamma}_{0}$ and $\kappa $, can map the experimental data for the velocity distribution of the stars within a galaxy with their radial distances for about two hundred different galaxies reasonably well. One best case example for the plots of experimental velocity data points (solid dots with the error bars; using Doppler frequency shifts) for the galaxy UGC1230 is shown in Figure 3. The solid curve is the computer plot. Other currently dominant theories of gravity do not have such broad curve fitting capability. [The dashed and dotted curves in Figure 3 correspond to using different terms, or combination of terms, from the Equation (18). They are irrelevant for our discussions here. Readers, who are interested in Conformal Gravity, should consult ref.40 for further details.]

$\frac{{v}_{Tot}^{2}}{R}\to \left[\frac{{N}^{\ast}{\beta}^{\ast}{c}_{0}^{2}}{{R}^{2}}+\frac{{N}^{\ast}{\gamma}^{\ast}{c}_{0}^{2}}{2}+\frac{{\gamma}_{0}{c}_{0}^{2}}{2}-\kappa {c}_{0}^{2}R\right]$ (18)

Let us re-write Equation (18) in terms of the key primary tension parameters of ether, using ${c}_{0}^{2}={\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}/{\mu}_{0}$, to underscore that the origin of gravitational “curvatures of space” emerges out of electromagnetic ether.

$\frac{{v}_{Tot}^{2}}{R}\to \left[\frac{{\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}}{{\mu}_{0}}\right]\left[\frac{{N}^{\ast}{\beta}^{\ast}}{{R}^{2}}+\frac{{N}^{\ast}{\gamma}^{\ast}}{2}+\frac{{\gamma}_{0}}{2}-\kappa R\right]$ (19)

4.4.2. Cosmological Redshift Is Not a Doppler Effect

Stationary ether model also contradicts Cosmological Redshift [41] [42]. For our universe to evolve causally through diverse interactions between matter-matter and matter-radiation, the values of the tension parameters ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ & ${\mu}_{0}$, must remain constant. Any major expansion would appreciably change these parameters and would have shown rapid changes in the values of these primary action parameters, and hence we would have experienced the laws of nature changing and evolving.

Further, the physical processes behind the emergence of Doppler Effect does not corroborate the conditions actually exists. The so called Doppler shifted spectral “Dark Lines” represent the absence of any physical signal. So dark lines

Figure 3. Strength of Conformal Gravity without the need for Dark Energy. Relative velocity distribution of stars with their distance from the center of the galaxy UGC 1230. The solid computer plotted curve fits very well through the experimental data points with their error bars. This is a 3D model of gravity and it does away with the need for Dark Matter [40]. It is better than the 4D model of Einstein’s gravity. (The dashed and dotted curves correspond to using different terms, or combination of terms, from the Equation (18); they are not relevant for our discussions in this paper.)

cannot experience Doppler Effect [43]. Let us briefly revisit the origin of Doppler Effect. *Physically* *real* *and* *permanent* *frequency* *shift* of light as Doppler Effect happens due to the velocities of the signal emitting individual atoms and molecules relative to the universally stationary ether. This Doppler shifted signal then propagates perpetually through the ether unchanged. However, this same Doppler shifted signal would be perceived by a set of detectors with *further* *modified* *and* *different* *Doppler* *shifts*, if they are moving with different velocities relative to the stationary ether. Source velocities and detector velocities both create separate Doppler frequency shifts, the former is real and the latter is apparent [43].

Let us now account for the physical conditions behind the “frequency shifted” dark lines. First, the white light, emanating out from inside the star, must pick up the spectral dark line signatures due to the quantum mechanical *resonance* *absorptions* by atoms and molecules of the outer layers. Then, the emergent white light with dark lines imprinted on it, propagates through the intervening cosmic space, before reaching us. Therefore, *the* *frequency* *shift* *of* *the* *dark* *line* *can* *happen**only* *while* *the* *entire* *white* *light* *spectrum* *undergoes* *redshift* *during* *its* *travel* *through* *the* *galactic* *space* *before* *reaching* *us*. The physical processes that create this Cosmological Redshift must be some physical property of the intervening ether whose properties have been modified due to the presence of various gravitational curvatures by the innumerable galaxies, or due to the presence of thin cosmic gases and charges, etc., etc. This is why Hubble Redshift is an energy dissipation dependent phenomenon, not a Doppler Effect. Therefore, *our* *ether* *model* *of* *the* *universe* *is* *not* *expanding*.

This also implies that the introduction of the cosmological constant by Einstein in his General Relativity was not necessary, because he assumed the correctness of the expanding-universe interpretation of the observed distance-dependent Cosmological Redshift, as Doppler Effect—as if, all galaxies are receding from each other.

4.5. The Postulates of Special Relativity (SR) Are Automatic Consequence of Ether Model

4.5.1. SR Postulate -1: Velocity of Light Is Same in All Inertial Frames

Einstein’s first postulate is essentially built into our model of stationary ether; a separate postulate is not necessary. However, there are some qualifications and limitations. The velocity of all EM waves in all material free regions is automatically the same,
${c}_{0}^{2}={\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}/{\mu}_{0}$. We also have defined the cosmic ether as the stationary (inertial) reference frame for the entire observable universe. It is the only universal inertial reference frame for us. Planets, on which human-like species can carry out experiments, strictly speaking, are not truly inertial rest frames. They are continuously executing diverse complex motions: axial rotations, elliptical orbital motions and their parental stars’ galactic motions (rotations and translation). However, we must note that for material media, sufficiently dense galactic gas clouds, corona of stars, planetary atmosphere, bulk material media on planets, all have different effective and *reduced* *tension* *field* *strength* (higher refractive index) and also have dispersive frequency-dependent velocities,
${c}_{med.}^{2}\left(\nu \right)={c}_{0}^{2}/{n}_{med.}^{2}\left(\nu \right)$. In these media, the velocities of EM waves are different. Further, if any of these media are in relative motion with respect to the stationary ether, then the velocity suffers from Fresnel Drag [21] [44].

4.5.2. SR Postulate-2: Laws of Physics Are Same Everywhere in the Universe

We have already underscored that our universe, emergent in the stationary ether, is the only inertial reference frame. The only observables are propagating EM waves and localized IP-CL EM waves. They all are different kinds of excited states of the same cosmic ether. They naturally must follow the same rules on planets in any star, in any galaxy, in the entire observable universe. Therefore, the 2nd postulate is also naturally built into our model for the cosmic ether. We do not need to postulate it separately.

Further, the atoms and the molecules, being assemblies of resonant oscillations of the same cosmic ether (IP-CL modes), they naturally would obey and display the same quantum mechanical behavior in all the stars, in all the galaxies. This is also the obvious reason why the theories, well-validated by experiments on earth, also corroborate the properties of atoms and molecules in distant stars and their planets. We should further note that the empty space between the atoms, and also within the atoms, is the same stationary Cosmic Ether, whether they are in the corona of a star, or in a discharge tube on earth. Clearly, a separate SR theory in Physics is not of critical importance just to appreciate the universality of the laws of physics, as originally articulated by SR, which did not explicitly recognize ether as the stationary energetic tension field.

4.5.3. SR: The Running Time “t” Is Not an Operational, or a Primary Parameter of Any Natural System or Object

Recall that we have underscored in the introduction the importance of “interaction process” and “primary actionable parameter” in modeling natural phenomena, because nature is persistently evolving through diverse interaction processes where the interaction parameters usually define the strength of interactions. The running time, “t” does not fit into either of this characteristic. So, it does not make operational sense to assign running time “t” as the fourth dimension of nature (the universe), having equal footing with the 3D space. The running time “t” is an ingenious invention of human culture. We cannot lead our lives without it.

Let us examine how we measure the running time. We use a standard *physical* *oscillator* that has a characteristic natural (resonant) frequency, f. Then we invert this frequency into a “period”, “dt” = “1/f”. Then we keep counting larger and larger number of periods to get a semblance of running time “t”. It is not an action guiding parameter of nature. Life times of radio-active elements and unstable particles do represent various physical time intervals as time periods. So, the running time can be expressed as different multiples of their respective “life-times”. So, the running time “t” should be kept as a mathematically convenient parameter to keep track of evolution of natural phenomenon, however, without assigning it the status of a primary action parameter of nature. We should note that, frequency being a primary physical parameter of a physical oscillator, it can be “dilated” and “contracted” by applying appropriate changes in its immediate vicinity that can alter the physical parameter that influences the resonance frequency of an oscillator. Therefore, the universe should not be arbitrarily defined as physically four or multidimensional.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Summary

Galileo and Newton ushered in the golden days of physics-thinking by elevating the need to validate the reproducible experimental data after constructing mathematical theories that can explain the operational functions behind the emergence of natural phenomena. After several centuries of outstanding and rapid progress, physics has now become a bit moribund [4] [5] [6] [7], except our steadily accelerating engineering capabilities. This has encouraged us to imagine nature as a profoundly creative system engineer. Accordingly, we have approached to dissect the working theories while searching for the primary operational parameters in them. This approach has also been strongly espoused by Plank [12], as has been mentioned in the introduction. While searching for the appropriate action parameters behind the perpetual velocity of light in the cosmic “vacuum”, which is built into Maxwell’s wave equation, we are able to identify them as ${\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}$ (electric tension) & ${\mu}_{0}$ (magnetic resistance). Once we combine this with Einstein’s matter-energy inter-convertibility relation, ${m}_{0}=E/{c}_{0}^{2}=E\left({\mu}_{0}/{\epsilon}_{0}^{-1}\right)$, we have been naturally guided to postulate elementary particles as IP-CL oscillatory modes of the same Cosmic Ether. Then, we have strengthened and justified, using various mathematical expressions out of different working theories, that the Cosmic Ether has always been the unifying platform for our observable universe nurturing diverse kinds of oscillators of it. EM wavelets are freely propagating excited states of the ether. The particles are in-phase closed-looped (IP-CL) modes, which are spatially constrained as localized harmonic oscillators with complete inertia to motion in the absence of any spatially influencing potential gradients (forces) in its vicinity.

5.2. Strengthening Further Our Physics-Thinking

We have already underscored in the introduction that we consider nature as a creative, but logical and causality-driven system engineer. Hence, we need to focus our attention to visualize the invisible interaction processes in nature to understand the realities of nature. This is akin to evolution process congruent thinking ( [19] -Ch.12, [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] ).

Over the last few decades, many papers and books have been published [4] - [9] raising serious concerns that progress in physics has become stagnant for many decades after the great advances ushered in by the theories of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics since the beginning of the last century. We believe this is because we have started to neglect that nature is constantly executing real physical interaction processes to nurture its perpetual evolution, very much like the perpetual velocity, *c*_{0}, in its fundamental constituent oscillators. Observable nature is physically real in the sense that the orderly universe has been existing for over a very long period of time, still undetermined; whereas humans have started modeling nature using modern mathematics starting barely some 600 years back. It was Galileo and Newton who successfully demonstrated that mathematics contain deeply logical properties and since then it has turned out to be an invaluable tool to explore nature. However, logics built into mathematics, irrespective of their beauty and harmony, cannot directly define and/or articulate the physical interaction processes hidden behind the causal interaction processes, which nature is executing. That has to be interpreted and articulated by the variable and the subjective, albeit “logical”, human minds, and constrained by the mathematical logics and the experimental data. Therefore, the prevailing evidence based science, led by mathematics and validated by experiments, is in-sufficient for our continual progress to keep exploring nature’s reality.

Our universe is a constantly recycling system. This is evident from the system engineering marvels of creation and destruction of macro galaxies made out of stars and planets, while recycling the same atoms, built out of the elementary particles. And *all* *of* *which* *are* *continuously* *recycling* *as* “*excited* *states*” *of* *the* *common* *unchanging* *platform* *of* *the* *energetic* *tension* *field*, *the* *ether*. Nature is not a speculative philosopher, even though to step out of our beginning ignorance about the laws of nature, we must start by being *philosophic*. Nature is not driven by pure mathematics-type of logics either; even though human invented mathematical logics have been one of the major success tools to help us explore and advance our understandings of nature.

Consider the case of laser modes. Stable fundamental laser modes are mathematically expressed as spatially Gaussian with tails extending to infinity. How can an infinite-tailed laser mode be generated out of spatially-finite laser cavities (gain media)? “Successful” mathematical logics could even lead us to draw wrong conclusions regarding the cause behind an emergent phenomenon while generating correct prediction. *Clearly* *human* *invented* *mathematical* *logics* *and* *cosmic* *logics* *are* *not* *identical*. The “evidence based science”, a combination of our mathematical theories and experimental validations, have been, so far, our major guiding tools towards our advancements. However, the evidence based science is not enough. We should also note that our scientific exploration of the laws of nature has started with essentially complete ignorance. Our conclusion about the experimental data, generated through interaction between different chosen entities, can never be completely conclusive simply because we do not know completely any of the interacting entities within our experimental apparatus. We still do not completely understand what electrons and photons are made of. Therefore, no finite set of experiments can succeeded in finding the complete set of properties of any natural entity as yet. This has been mathematically articulated by Gödel’s in his Incompleteness Theorem [50]. We have to continuously keep challenging our best working theories and iteratively re-organize and/or re-structure them as our knowledge keeps advancing incrementally. Our recent progress has been slowed down as our speculative mathematics and philosophically flexible interpretations of the experimental data have started overtaking our excitements without keeping ourselves anchored to visualizing the real engineering processes nature has been utilizing.

Human biological evolution started acceleration with the invention of creating controlled fire on-demand by quick rubbing of dried wood pieces, or by striking a pair of stones. Anthropologists believe that this had happened several hundred thousand years ago, if not even much earlier. The multi-step physical processes behind these innovations involve, first, transferring the biological muscular energy of hands as the kinetic (or thermal) energies on to the molecules and atoms of the wood or the stone pieces. Then *this* *classical* *kinetic* *energy* *triggers* *the* *quantum* *mechanical* *processes* *of* *ionizing* *a* *large* *number* *of* *atoms* *and* *molecules*. After that, the second set of quantum processes kicks in. The free electrons from the surrounding air start neutralizing the ionized atoms and molecules, while releasing a wide range of EM radiations - heat, visible and UV. This momentous innovation was achieved by multiple human tribes in different geographic locations through their trial-and-error approach. The pressure for this innovation was triggered by the evolutionary desire to live better compared to the then existing best conditions they had. They did not have any clue about physics or chemistry; they did not have any mathematics, and not even advanced languages. However, the human thinking, driven by the wisdom of trying to emulate the physical processes taking place in nature through trial and error, has set the humans in the right direction to unravel the mysteries of the universe, while enjoying the biological lives and the beauty as a byproduct of nature. *We* *are* *here* *today* *because* *of* *our* *very* *ancient* *forefathers* *were* *wise* *engineers* *with* *very* *innovative* *minds*.

The field of modern physics has demonstrated a rather remarkable set of advancements, especially, over the last six hundred years. We have now ushered in the Knowledge Age by installing the global Internet System, while mastering the technologies behind light management. However, our dominant thinking has remained frozen to the foundational postulates behind the four distinctly different physics-thinking (epistemologies)—Classical Physics, Relativity *Physics*, *Quantum* *Physics* *and* *Cosmological* *Physics*. *But*, *we* *know* *that* *the* *universe* *is* *one* *continuum*. *Therefore*, we need to add the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E), over and above our currently successful approach of using Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E) [39] [40] to thoroughly understand and visualize the engineering processes nature employs on her energetic tension field, the ether. Our predominant culture has now guiding us to become the consumers of the biosphere, rather than its nurturer, as our ancient forefathers were.

We have to keep on iteratively re-structuring the basic set of postulates behind all of our separate theories as a single set of coherent and harmonious postulates. This paper is an attempt in this direction. It has logically demonstrated that the old ether is, most likely, the best unifying field for us. We ourselves are just bundles of oscillating, or dancing, excited states of ether!

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

[1] |
Amoroso, R.L. and Vigier, J.-P. (2002) Can One Unify Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields? In: Amoroso, R.L., Hunter, G.G. and Vigier, J.-P., Eds., Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 27-38 https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48052-2 |

[2] | Sandhu, G.S. (2009) Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields. iUniverse Books. |

[3] |
Consoli, M. and Pluchino, A. (2018) Michelson-Morley Experiments: An Enigma for Physics and the History of Science. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1142/11209 |

[4] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2012) Journal of Modern Physics, 3, 1357-1368. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2012.310173 |

[5] | Smolin, L. (2007) The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. |

[6] | Hossenfelder, S. (2019) Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Hachette Book Group, New York. |

[7] | Rangacharyulu, C. and Polachic, C.J.A. (2019) From Atoms to Higgs Boson: Voyages in Quasi-Spacetime. Pan Stanford, Singapore. |

[8] | De Koning, W.L. and Van Willigenburg, L.G. (2020) Physics Essays, 33, 299-301. |

[9] | Romashka, M.Y. (2020) Gravitation and Cosmology, 26, 61-69. |

[10] |
Huygens, C. (1690) Treatise on Light. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14725 |

[11] | Goodman, J.W. (2017) Introduction to Fourier Optics. W. H. Freeman, New York. |

[12] | Planck, M. (1914) The Theory of Heat Radiation. Blakiston’s Son & Co., Philadelphia. |

[13] | Elmore, W.C. and Heald, M.A. (1969) Physics of Waves. McGraw-Hill, New York. |

[14] |
Michelson, A.A. and Morley, E.W. (1887) American Journal of Science, 34, 333-345. https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.s3-34.203.333 |

[15] |
Einstein, A. (1905) Annalen der Physik, 17, 891-921, 910-911. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053221004 |

[16] |
Einstein, A. (1905) Annalen der Physik, 17, 132. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053220607 |

[17] | Pena, L., Cetto, A.M. and Hernandez, A.V. (2015) The Emerging Quantum: The Physics behind Quantum Mechanics. Springer, Berlin. |

[18] | Roychoudhuri, C. (2014) Causal Physics: Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon-on-Thames. |

[19] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2010) Journal of Nanophotonics, 4, Article ID: 043512. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3467504 |

[20] | Jackson, J.D. (1999) Classical Electrodynamics. Wiley, Hoboken. |

[21] |
Frercks, J. (2005) Physics in Perspective, 7, 35-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-004-0224-0 |

[22] |
Jaffe, R.I. (2005) Physical Review D, 72, 021301(R). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.021301 |

[23] |
Paul, H. (2004) Introduction to Quantum Optics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616754 |

[24] |
Roychoudhuri, C. and Prasad, N. (2019) Complex Interaction Processes We Need to Visualize That Successfully Fill the Quantum Cup of a Detector. Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 10926, paper109260T. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2514835 |

[25] | Schwartz, M. (2014) Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. |

[26] |
Greulich, K.O. (2010) Journal of Modern Physics, 1, 300-302. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2010.15042 |

[27] |
Peskin, M.E. (2019) Concepts of Elementary Particle Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812180.001.0001 |

[28] |
Osmera, P. (2010) Engineering Letters, 18, EL_18_2_02. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3460240 |

[29] |
Alexandrou, C. (2012) Reviews of Modern Physics, 84, 1231. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1231 |

[30] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2006) Physics Essays, 19, 333-354. https://doi.org/10.4006/1.3025804 |

[31] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2019) Differentiating the Superposition Principle from the Measurable Superposition Effects in Interferometry. In: Interferometry—Recent Developments and Contemporary Applications, IntechOpen, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81432 |

[32] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2019) Experiments to Explore Wave-Particle-Duality Postulate. Rochester Coherence & Quantum Optics Conference, Session I, Rochester, 4-8 August 2019, Paper # M5A.24. https://doi.org/10.1364/CQO.2019.M5A.24 |

[33] | Mattuck, R.D. (1992) A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem. Dover Publication, Mineola. |

[34] |
Romashka, M.Yu. (2020) Gravitation and Cosmology, 26, 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0202289320010120 |

[35] |
Munhoz-Rojas, P.E. (2019) New Theory of Matter. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335949958_New_Theory_of_Matter?enrichId=rgreq- ccc60c25d97809beab9ef5a3381d364d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzNTk0OTk1ODtBUzo 4MDUyNjgxNDk1MTQyNDdAMTU2OTAwMjI5NjY5MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf |

[36] |
Mallett, R. (2000) Physics Letters A, 269, 214-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00260-7 |

[37] |
Antusch, S., et al. (2020) Physics Letters B, 811, Article ID: 135888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135888 |

[38] | Rourke, C. (2019) A New Paradigm for the Universe. |

[39] |
Mannheim, P.D. (2006) Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 56, 340-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.08.001 |

[40] |
Mannheim, P.D. (2012) Foundations of Physics, 42, 388-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9608-6 |

[41] | Gupta, R.P. (2018) International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 8, 219-229. |

[42] |
Shao, M. (2013) Physics Essays, 26, 183. https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.2.183 |

[43] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2013) Tribute to H. John Caulfield: Hijacking of the “Holographic Principle” by Cosmologists. SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 8833, 88330E. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2025349 |

[44] | Panofsky, W.K.H. and Phillips, M. (1962) Classical Electricity and Magnetism. Addition-Wesley, Boston. |

[45] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2010) The Consilient Epistemology: Structuring Evolution of Logical Thinking. In: Proceedings 1st Interdisciplinary Chess Interactions Conference, World Scientific, London, 273-295. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814295895_0016 |

[46] | Roychoudhuri, C. (2015) Replacing Paradigm Shift Model in Physics with Continuous Evolution of Theories by Frequent Iterations. In: Death and Anti-Death: Sixty Years after Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Vol. 13, Ria University Press, Ann Arbor, Ch. 10. |

[47] |
Roychoudhuri, C. and Tirfessa, N. (2019) Bringing Reality in Physics: System Engineering Approach to Optical Phenomena Following Huygens’ Principle. Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 11143, 111433A. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2523602 |

[48] |
Roychoudhuri, C. (2015) Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking in Physics. Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 9570, paper #7. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2188498 |

[49] | Wilson, E.O. (1998) Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Alfred A. Knopf. |

[50] |
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems |

Journals Menu

Contact us

+1 323-425-8868 | |

customer@scirp.org | |

+86 18163351462(WhatsApp) | |

1655362766 | |

Paper Publishing WeChat |

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.