Talk:Harold Aspden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 "Einstein's spacetime (or four-space)"? 2 A Dedicatory 3 Wh.Sc. disambiguation 4 Aspden's theory vs. quantum mechanics, relativity 5 Criticism Section 6 Detailed theory exposé doesn't belong in article about scientist 6.1 The aether

[edit] "Einstein's spacetime (or four-space)"?

As far as I know the physical "spacetime" concept (as different from space-time) stems from Minkowski, and not Einstein. And I could not fin such a remark by Aspden in the refence next to it... Harald88 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for having pointed out this inaccuracy. I had initially used "space-time", as it is mentioned also by Dr. Aspden in his 2005 PDF book (available through the bibliography section). However, later I changed it to "spacetime" [1], since it seems to be the terminology most commonly employed, in an appearently indistinct way, through the Wiki articles related to Einstein. Please, if you find further inaccuracies, errors, or ambiguous meanings you are welcome to correct them directly or to state them in this talk page, should you prefer. The reference you mention is related to the whole meaning of the sentence, the behaviour of the scientific community, which derives from the adherence to the space-time concepts, but it was not intended directly as a source ref. to the adherence itself. However, I have changed its location in order to become more clear. The scientific community adherence to Einstein's philosophy (relativity, space-time) is now already addressed and sourced in the 3rd reference. In friendship. --Viriathus 05:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Space-time is often used to indicate either the classical concept or as a neutral term, while spacetime always indicates Minkowski's concept. Maybe Aspden has the opinion that Minkowski's concept is in fact Einstein's; but Wikipedia expresses facts about opinions from notable literature, without claiming them to be facts.

Thus in a way the problem remains. Harald88 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 :-) I see no problem, it can be replaced; what do you think of the expression "Einstein's field theory", instead of the current stated "Einstein's space-time (or four-space) concepts"? Or an alternative suggestion? And what about just rewritting it as "Einstein's theory of four space-time dimensions"?. P.S.: Well, whatever solution you find I am confident that it will be fine; my hope is that the article may always stay meritorious of the individual that it intends to portrait, and of course complying with Wikipedia's policies. My work around has come to an end (new beginnings!:). See you dear editor Harald88, Cheers. --Viriathus 07:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, before you go: what would be most useful is to cite (or closely paraphrase) Aspden's way of putting it. As you probably very recently read the material that you refer to, it would be most efficient if you do that - or at least copy-paste a suitable section on this page for me. That would be most helpful.

Thanks,

Harald88 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. From my point of view, perhaps the sections quoted below may be the most appropriated ones to give an idea (I have skipped the formulas). However - as the article already states previously, from the beginning, that Dr. Aspden is an "outspoken critic of the Theory of Relativity" (written by another editor, soon after the article was conceived by the editor Amaas120) and as later it already makes reference to one of his papers debunking (my word) the mentioned theory - I have chosen to give a different ending to the article, like a way forward, quoting his recent words: "Who, I wonder, will challenge my comment that the sun is not powered by hot nuclear fusion?" (a kind of words that may make history:) from "Our Physics World and its Problems, ARP nº7, 2005". Nevertheless, if you think the quotation not to be the most adequated one, you may obviously reword it as you consider most appropriated. Now, the quotation from his "Physics without Einstein - A Centenary Review" (p.17):

"Quantum theory hides by its mathematics the physical picture of how fundamental particles, electrons, protons etc., are created, meaning their source and their acquisition of angular momentum when they form into atoms and there seems to be no way that Einstein’s theory with its ‘space-time’ (or is it ‘four-space’?) can get into that act." (p.17)

(...)

"So there we are. We have derived the same formula as Einstein without the imaginary mathematical excursion into the mysterious dimensions of fourspace or space-time and have merely adhered to 19th century physics. (...) One surely must question the sense of accepting Einstein's notion that what we perceive so clearly as space having three mutually-orthogonal dimensions is really space distorted into four dimensions by an imaginary time factor, when a retarded force action based on classical physical concepts can provide a full account of what is observed." (p.21)

(...)

"Suffice it here to conclude that Einstein’s theory has nothing to offer so far as gravitation is concerned. Physicists who still wish to defend it must decide on that question of whether a body such as a planet is subject to increase in mass according to the teachings of Einstein’s theory, meaning the relativistic formula for mass increase with speed. If not, why not? Can it be that relativistic mass increase with speed only applies to charged particles in free motion such as protons, pions, electrons, muons or taons? Surely one must see that those who adhere to Einstein’s doctrine must face up to the fact that either the General Theory of Relativity is wrong or his Special Theory of Relativity is wrong in suggesting that all bodies, charged or uncharged, experience mass increase with speed." (p.24)

(...)

"This precludes nuclear fusion. So where does the sun’s energy come from? Well it comes from the process just described. Gravitation creates ionization by freeing the electrons of adjacent atoms as they crash into one another. Energy is radiated and the free electrons lose speed, but those electrons will, since only a small proportion are free at any instant, recover energy as they are recombine with a free proton to reform the hydrogen atom. The ultimate energy source is whatever it is that governs the quantum state of the electron in its motion around the hydrogen nucleus, the proton. The source of energy is the omnipresent ‘something’ that regulates quantum activity. In other words the energy source is the aether, the aether that physicists say does not exist!" (p.30)

It makes me recall our great Shakespeare in his Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.", or the epic Camoens in his The Lusiads, "Makes you reward, baron, the Sapience / Supreme of, with the corporal eyes, / see what can not the vain science / of the wrong and miserable mortals". How accurate and contemporary it seems, that it makes one wonder... ;) In friendship, --Viriathus 22:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Dedicatory

The following lines were published in 1909, and are brought into here as a dedicatory to the physicist Dr. Harold Aspden for the whole constructive message which, to my eyes, blooms from his work:

--Viriathus 09:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"In our civilization the chasm that stretches between mind and heart yawns deep and wide and, as the mind flies on from discovery to discovery in the realms of science, the gulf becomes ever deeper and wider and the heart is left further and further behind. The mind loudly demands and will be satisfied with nothing less than a materially demonstrable explanation of man and his fellow-creatures that make up the phenomenal world. The heart feels instinctively that there is something greater, and it yearns for that which it feels is a higher truth than can be grasped by the mind alone."

"Is there no common ground upon which head and heart may meet, each assisting the other, each by the help of the other becoming more effective in the search for universal truth, and each receiving equal satisfaction? (...) It is equally certain that there can be no contradiction in nature, therefore the heart and the mind must be capable of uniting. (...) Only when that co-operation is attained and perfected will man attain the higher, truer understanding of himself and of the world of which he is a part; only that can give him a broad mind and a great heart."

[edit] Wh.Sc. disambiguation

His known qualifications are Ph.D., FIEE, FIMechE, MInstP, C.Eng., C.Phys., Wh.Sc. He is also member of the British Institute of Physics.

The following details, below, are worthy of mention as a disambiguation about a very specific title, but not qualified to belong in the article itself (maybe in an article about "Wh.Sc."). Also removed Wh.Sc. due to the explanation below. --213.58.99.122 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

" Note: Wh.Sc. is certainly not a qualification. It stands for Whitworth Scholar, and was applied to those benefiting from a bursary from the tool company in the 1950s. It is rather like putting GCSE after ones name. Also, all of the other letters (except PhD) can be had simply by holding a PhD for a few years, getting a few friends to second oneself, and paying an annual fee. 'Alphabet soup' is sometimes just alphabet soup. —The preceding comment was added, in the article, by 86.143.143.200 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 September 2006 "

[edit] Aspden's theory vs. quantum mechanics, relativity

I wonder if someone could comment on what Aspden's stance on quantum mechanics is, and to what extend his theory contradicts or incorporates known (and experimentally verified) results of Einstein's relativity. Apparently, his theory predicts things that relativity (or other theories known to me) can't, such as mass ratios of elementary particles. So how do the predictions of Aspden's theory compare to those predictions that, e.g, special relativity does actually make (correctly, it seems), such as the dispersion relations of elementary particles in vacuum?

[edit] Criticism Section

There needs to be serious scientific criticism section in this article. Wikipedia is fertile ground for fans of crank science like this, which is very disturbing.

I found this quote from the introduction to his book Physical Creation

The time has come when our scientific community needs to face up to reality by treading a path that avoids reliance on Einstein's doctrine. Those in government concerned with funding energy research based on the belief that our Sun is powered by nuclear fusion need to ask a question. Why, given that the Sun comprises hydrogen atoms that radiate energy because they are ionized, it is that the mutual gravitational attraction of freed protons, the hydrogen nuclei, does not make the Sun's interior sufficiently positively charged so as to resist the compaction pressure being any greater than applies in its radiating surface regions where the temperature is only 6,000 K? Vast sums of money are being spent to build reactors that aim at producing temperatures of 100,000,000 K to trigger a fusion reaction, all based on a false notion about the Sun's energy source. There is surely risk in replicating conditions that relate more to hydrogen bomb technology than the power source that keeps our Earth warm.

Wow. OK first of all, when you ionize hydrogen, it does not become positively charged. The electrons don't disappear, there is still one electron for every proton. The Sun's interior is not positively charged.

This guy is a crank, and this article is a vanity page.

Is he? (Aspden's explanation) Are you able to explain, through your 'real science' (your words), why there are such impossible(?) things like observations that falsify stellar fusion models? --213.58.99.5 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I know I am wasting my time replying but... FG Sagittae is believed to be a final helium flash object ([2]). Aside from an unsigned discussion article that you point at, who says it falsifies stellar fusion models? I'm sure you can find website claiming it is a falsification, just like you can find webpages claiming that there is a face on Mars built by aliens.

The real question is, how will Wikipedia cope with the dispute between science and pseudoscience. When a crank has an army of true believers, there is no way to fix or remove pages about junk science. It's a serious problem.

Neither disputes nor junk science are a problem for Wikipedia, instead such are topics to write about in accordance with WP:NPOV (if sufficiently notable). Thus there is no question about how Wikipedia deals with it. See also [[3]]. Harald88 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So it sounds like what we need is a Criticism section to balance the POV of this article. There needs to be a way for readers to at least be warned about junk science, if they care to differentiate or are trying to seriously study a subject.

Near the end the article already indicates to the readers that his theories are fringe science according to Aspden himself. But if you know some papers that criticize his achievements, please add information about them. Harald88 22:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough. The scientific community does not write papers refuting cranks. It simply rejects their papers from pier-review process. This fellow Aspden publishes his papers in bogus journals like Hadronic Journal, or he slips a paper into an obscure small conference, but he has no publications at all in mainstream scientific journals like Phys. Rev. Do people just not care if wikipedia presents crank science?

[the above comment was by: DonPMitchell]

Not Physical Review Letters but @Physics Letters A:

• 'The Exploding Wire Phenomenon as an Inductive effect', Physics Letters, v. 120A, pp. 80-82 (1987).
• 'Electron Self-Field Interaction and Internal Resonance', Physics Letters A, v. 119, pp. 109-111 (1986).
• 'A Causal Theory for Neutron Diffraction', Physics Letters A, v. 119, pp. 105-108 (1986).
• 'The Exploding Wire Phenomenon', Physics Letters, 107A, pp. 238-240 (1985).
• 'Theoretical Evaluation of the Fine Structure Constant', Physics Letters, v. 110A, pp. 113-115 (1985).
• 'A New Perspective on the Law of Electrodynamics', Physics Letters, v. 111A, pp. 22-24 (1985).
• 'Proposed Method of Measuring First Order Speed of Light Anisotropy', Physics Letters, v. 92A, pp. 165-166 (1982).
• 'Laser Interferometry Experiments on Light Speed Anisotropy', Physics Letters, v. 85A, pp. 411-414 (1981).
• 'Aether Theory and the Fine Structure Constant', Physics Letters, v. 41A, pp. 423-424 (1972).

@Europhysics Letters, former Lettere al Nuovo Cimento

• 'Unification of Gravitational and Electrodynamic Potential based on Classical Action-at-a-Distance Theory', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 44, pp. 689-693
• 'The Paradox of Constant Planetary Mass as Evidence of a Leptonic Lattice-Structured Vacuum State', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 44, pp. 705-709 (1985).
• 'Electromagnetic Reaction Paradox', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 39, pp. 247-251 (1984).
• 'The Muon g-Factor by Cavity Resonance Theory', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 39, pp. 271-275 (1984).
• 'Boson Creation in a Sub-Quantum Lattice', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 40, pp. 53-57 (1984).
• 'The Steady-State Free-Electron Population of Free Space', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 41, pp. 252-256 (1984).
• 'The Lamb Shift for a Cavity-Resonant Electron', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 36, pp. 364-368 (1983).
• 'The Determination of Absolute Gravitational Potential', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 37, pp. 169-172 (1983).
• 'The Nature of the Muon', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 37, pp. 210-214 (1983).
• 'Theoretical Resonances for Particle-Antiparticle Collisions based on the Thomson Electron Model', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 37, pp. 307-311 (1983).
• 'Meson Lifetime Dilation as a Test for Special Relativity', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 38, pp. 206-210 (1983).
• 'The Mass of the Muon', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 38, pp. 342-344 (1983).
• 'The Assessment of a Theory for the Proton-Electron Mass Ratio', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 38, pp. 423-426 (1983).
• 'The Scope for First Order Tests of Light Speed Anisotropy', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 38, pp. 568-572 (1983).
• 'Planar Boundaries of the Space-Time Lattice', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 38, pp. 243-246 (1983).
• 'Electron Form and Anomalous Energy Radiation', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 33, pp. 213-216 (1982).
• 'The Correlation of the Anomalous g-Factors of the Electron and Muon', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 33, pp. 481-484 (1982).
• 'A Theory of Pion Lifetime', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 33, pp. 237-239 (1982).
• 'A Theory of Neutron Lifetime', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 31, pp. 383-384 (1981).
• 'The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 32, pp. 114-116 (1981).
• 'The Spatial Energy Distribution for Coulomb Interaction', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 25, pp. 456-458 (1979).
• 'Energy Correlation of Radioactive Decays of ψ(3684)', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 26, pp. 257-260 (1979).
• 'Quantum Gravitation and the Perihelion Anomaly', Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 18, pp. 181-182 (1977).
• 'Calculation of the Proton Mass in a Lattice Model for the Aether', Il Nuovo Cimento, v. 30A, pp. 235-238 (1975).

@etc. (including also what you label as "bogus journals"; if his concepts and theory is found to be correct we'll see who the 'bogus' really are ;).

Do you mean that "he slips a paper" on "obscure small" conferences as the following ones?!:

• 'Theoretical Derivation of Neutron Lifetime', Institute of Physics (U.K.) Conference on Nuclear Physics and Particle Physics held at the University of Birmingham on 6-8 April 1987. (Paper No. Q1 on p. 84 of Abstracts).
• 'Tests of Photon Theory in Terms of Precision Measurement', Conference Paper presented at University of Gdansk in Poland, 21-25 September 1987, published in "Problems in Quantum Physics; Gdansk '87", published by World Scientific (Singapore, New Jersey, Hong Kong) pp. 353-373.
• 'The Theoretical Nature of the Photon in a Lattice Vacuum' in 'Quantum Uncertainties', Eds. Honig, Kraft & Panarella, Proceedings of a NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Quantum Violations, (Plenum Press) pp. 345-359, June 23-27, 1986.

P.S.: Btw, have you taken a good look into your comments dear fellow User:DonPMitchell? Have a look also through Galileo's telescope and may you become aware of the role you are playing in this current event...

Cheers! --213.58.99.14 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the subject of this article is a notable professional scientist; thus it isn't "a vanity page".

If you imply with your above comments that the article's contents don't match the subject, you are welcome to help improving it. Looking at the current version, I'd say that clearly some of the statements and contents are inappropriate for the article and some is in conflict with WP:NPOV. I propose to move all information that doesn't belong to the topic to this Talk page, after which we can decide what to do with it. A criticism section may then not be needed, or may be more appropriate in a separate article about his theory, if sufficiently notable. More precisely, I suggest to summarize his views on the eather with one or two sentences inside the physics section and next move the whole "aether" section here. Harald88 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not usually into Wikipedia editing; however, I found the link to this page on the article on ITER. Why is crank science being presented on Wikipedia? This is utterly unacceptable!

Did you really read the above discussion? Please have a look at the policies which are summarized on Wikipedia:Five_pillars. It is in particular unacceptable for Wikipedia to be dogmatic or one-sided, in stark contrast to for example textbooks.

And take note that the subject of this article is not science but a notable person. The "unnegotiable" policy WP:NPOV implies that his achievements must be fairly described.

Next please rephrase your question (if it remains) in a way that fits the Wikipedia policy mould, with a constructive suggestion of how to improve the article in a way that fairly describes Aspden's achievements without becoming a soapbox for either his views or contrary views. For example, see my corrective action below with which you certainly agree. Harald88 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Flagged the article for neutrality. As his theories are not taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community, this should be noted as much as his ideas should be presented fairly. - Jonathan Williams 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is noted twice already (not bad for such a short article). Maybe someone can also mention an author that criticized his ideas. Harald88 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed theory exposé doesn't belong in article about scientist

As suggested above, I now added mention of his aether model in the physics section and move the whole aether theory here for discussion what to do with it, as that section is not about Aspden. Harald88 12:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The aether

The aether is usually understood as a 'subtle elastic fluid permeating space', the medium which fills space devoid of matter, but Aspden's theoretical research complements this definition by presenting the aether structure as having the form, or properties, akin to a fluid crystal ^[1]. On one hand, it is a medium so subtle that it can adapt to ensure that the finite speed of light as measured in the presence of matter takes its reference on a frame determined by the matter present, and on the other hand, it constitutes the 'sea of energy' that regulates quantum activity, the deployment and reorganization of which accounts for the creation of matter.

Classical elements (Western) and Phases of matter
Air (gases) Fire (plasma) Aether Water (liquids) Earth (solids)

The aether is subject to gravitational forces and owes its gravitational mass to the presence of a system of aether particles each having a specific mass. The temperature of 2.7K usually attributed to the heat residue of the Big Bang, the cosmic background temperature, is conceived as the temperature of the aether, which is determined by the gravitational properties of the aether and it is a temperature which the aether shares with matter dispersed in space. The aether has a mass density which is kept uniform, however it is complemented by a negative 'gravitational potential' acting between the aether and material bodies, such as the Sun, which implies release of energy, as energy of motion, typically heat. Taking into account the Boltzmann's constant, which connects the particle's heat energy and temperature, and using the 2.7K temperature, the mass of each such aether particle can be derived since the energy shed by the gravitational potential of the aether is retained by it as heat.

The aether conveys electromagnetic waves. Those waves have a lateral oscillation (they wriggle sideways in their forward progress as does a snake), and to sustain such waves the aether behaves as if it were a solid and yet we move through it as if it were a fluid devoid of mass, meaning that the aether has the form, or properties, akin to a fluid crystal. However, the electric charges and their attendant fields, in a material system such as body Earth, can move through the aetherial fluid crystal and carry a kind of aether crystal with it, whilst surrounding aether has its own separate crystal form. The structure can dissolve at the foward boundaries, dispersing into the background fluid, only to reappear as new crystal structures forms behind the aether structure that is 'dragged' along by body Earth. The feature of lateral vibration of propagating electromagnetic waves keeps the aether in balance dynamically, but it also preserves the continuity of the wave oscillations when minor impediments are encountered in its in transit through space. Those impediments, however, take their toll on energy and the effect is that the wave energy can be depleted in transit and with that the frequency. This accounts for the phenomena called redshift, which has been interpreted by cosmologists as a phenomenon representing the expansion of the universe. From the theoretical analysis of the aether structure it can be derived the observed value of what is termed the Hubble constant. All in all, the Big bang is seen as a philosophy of decay, as energy is degraded and its entropy increases, which contradicts Nature's way of recycling energy and its creative power, as found in the quantum underworld governed by the aether medium.