Copyright © 2007, Harold Aspden

In 2005 a book entitled The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems was published in USA by Prentice Hall Books (ISBN 1-800-382-3419). Its Editor John Vacca invited me to comment on what was said in its Chapters 19 and 20, concerning Free Energy and Nuclear Fusion, and I was pleased to see that my remarks were all duly published in those chapters in its Second Printing, a copy of which I was able to purchase in a bookstore in January 2005 on a visit to San Francisco. Since I have also an opinion to express on the subject of several other chapters in that book I now venture to record these here.


The book The World's 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems divides these problems between seven groups. These are: Part I: Astronomy and Cosmology, Part II: Physics and AstrophysicsPart III: Biology and Paleontology, Part IV: Neuroscience, Part V: Geology, Part VI: Chemistry and Part VII: Energy. The comments which follow only concern Part I and Part II.

Of the 20 Unsolved Problems, each dealt with by a chapter of its own, three constitute Part I and six constitute Part II. Below, I offer comment on all but one of those nine chapters.

My comments can be brief because it so happens that I decided in 2005 to author a book of my own, a final work, bearing in mind that I am now in my 80th year, and this was published in U.K. in September 2006 under the title Creation: The Physical Truth. It is identified as ISBN 1-84624-050-6 and was published by The Book Guild Ltd.

Chapter 1: Astronomy: The Mystery of Dark Matter

In its opening chapter on page 3 the Vacca book states that ‘about 80% of the mass of our galaxy (or all observable galaxies for that matter) consists of this mysterious material' This follows introductory words which say: ‘Dark matter can best be described as areas in space (between stars and galaxies) composed of material that appears as "voids" or "nothingness", but these voids can be measured due to their gravitational pull and interaction with surrounding stars and galaxies'. Later on page 13, before a statement that declares that, given acceptance of Einstein's theory of relativity, there is no way of escaping the existence of dark matter, one is told that the concept of dark matter is pretty absurd, followed by the question: "Why?" Then comes the answer: "Because scientists in this field indicate that 96% of most galaxies (including our own) in the observable universe are made out of dark matter.

I find all that confusing. Why give a figure of 80% on page 3 and 96% on page 13? If Einstein's theory predicts the existence of dark matter, why is there a problem? I was not surprised therefore by the final sentence of that chapter on page 22, which was: "The truth is still out there!"

That word ‘truth', by coincidence, resonates a little in my mind, given the title of my book Creation: The Physical Truth. Also, by coincidence, it so happens that in presenting my account in that book of how stars are created I explained why the activity of the quantum underworld that pervades all space is trying everywhere to create matter, but succeeding only momentarily unless there is an adequate related amount of angular momentum shed that sustains existence in real matter form. When I wrote the book I had not seen how easy it was to link the amount of that transiently existing matter form with the real matter that formed a star. Yet I can look now at my book where, on page 135 I refer to such matter as ‘quasi-matter' and show how to derive its mass density as that of 299 protons in each cubic metre of space. It is based on the statistical analysis of the chance of creating a proton from the combination of muons that are ever engaged in a process of creation and decay as they constitute the fundamental underworld of space, what we refer to as the ‘vacuum'. In the earlier pages of the book, I presented evidence of geomagnetic field reversals over millions of years as our Earth has moved through a space medium divided into cubic domains, the size of which, some 500 light years in scale, could be estimated from that data. Linked to angular momentum necessarily shed at the boundaries of such domains in their formation I found that only about 4% of that quasi-matter could be deployed into the creation of the star. Just divide the mass of the sun as a typical star by the volume of the space domain and compare that mass density with the mass density of that transient proton presence noted above.

So what I am saying here is that if one studies what I have presented in my book one can see why ‘dark matter' exists. It should no longer be classified as one of our a ‘greatest' unsolved problems.

Chapter 2: The Creation of the Universe

Given the title of my book it should answer whatever problem is posed by this chapter in the Vacca book. On page 24 the problem is stated. There one confronts the question ‘What powered the Big Bang?' What, indeed? On page 29 one is told that maybe the Big Bang did not require any energy because the energy needed was cancelled by negative gravitational potential energy and it was not true that Einstein's equations led to the Big Bang. The chapter ends by further reference, however, to the theory of relativity and comment inferring that the whole universe is seen as rotating about each and every individual observer.

How do I react to that and deal with the Big Bang problem? Well, the simple answer is to find the true physical explanation of what we measure in determining the Hubble constant. I have found the answer and explained it in my book, supporting that by actually deriving the value of the Hubble constant. There is no ongoing expansion of the universe at all. It is the effect that quasi-matter or dark matter has in reducing the frequency of electromagnetic radiation in its passage through that medium. See page 137 of my book. Keep in mind that when we consider electromagnetic waves travelling through the vacuum medium we are not dealing with their motion through ordinary matter with its dispersion effects. The propagation of an electromagnetic wave through the imagined nothingness of space involves lateral relative motion of two vacuum components of opposite charge polarity to account for electric displacement. By understanding the different mass properties of those vacuum components one can see how they operate collectively to reduce the frequency of an electromagnetic wave in its passage through that medium. The action is linked to physics which accounts for gravity, as my book explains. There was no Big Bang!

Chapter 3: Theoretical Cosmology and Particle Physics: The Cosmological Constant

The so-called ‘cosmological constant' is not discussed in my book because I see it as a meaningless notion. This chapter in the Vacca book draws attention to the importance of the fine-structure constant as being approximately 1/137 or 0.0072992 and, indeed, the derivation of that constant from analysis of the structure of the physical underworld of space is a major contribution in my book (see its pages 99-111). Chapter 3 of Vacca's book then debates the issue of ‘dark matter', which I have referred to above in the context of chapter 1. So my verdict on this chapter 3 is that it is not a commentary on an unsolved problem that differs from the problems posed by the other chapters. The chapter ends with the conclusion that the cosmological constant together with dark matter ‘drives' the expansion of the universe and the final statement: "It's a weird, weird world after all!" Indeed it is, if one believes the fallacy that the universe is, in fact, expanding.

Chapter 4: Gravity: The Construction of a Consistent Quantum Theory of Gravitation

This chapter poses the question: "What is gravity?" and then immediately adds the question: "What is a black hole?" A black hole is said to form when a massive star dies and collapses under its own mass. Now the chapter title introduced the expression ‘Quantum Theory' and we know from quantum theory that atoms contain electrons that have perpetual motion. When we humans die the atoms that form or bodies have a way of surviving as they, thanks to whatever governs quantum theory, sustain the motion of their electrons. So imagine a massive star in its death throes. How can it collapse if its atoms retain that electron motion? The electrons of atoms pulled closely together by gravity will crash into one another and cause ionization. The gravity force between the atomic nuclei will confront an enormous counter force, the electrostatic repulsion between two positive charges that far outweighs their gravitational interaction. The notion of the ‘black hole' is therefore a myth. Whatever evidence supports the hypothesis must have other explanation.

However, reverting to that question: "What is gravity?" and its origins in quantum theory, there is a wonderful and simple answer. It is attributable to the effect of matter in its dynamic interaction with the quantum underworld as linked to the gravitons which provide that dynamic balance. The gravitons displace a volume of electric charge constituting a continuum in which there are opposite polarity charges sharing the motion of matter. In its electrostatic self-repulsion that displaced charge will encourage those gravitons and the matter to which they are coupled to seek closer proximity, an action we experience as gravity. Proof requires derivation of the value of the constant of gravitation G in terms of the graviton mass quantum and the evidence determining graviton mass by relating it to the creation of other fundamental particle forms. This is fully dealt with in Part I of my book Creation: The Physical Truth. The Vacca chapter 4 title says the chapter is about the quantum theory of gravity, but all I can see discussed in that chapter is the notion that ‘Black Holes' exist and the assurance that, when the Large Hadron Colliders become even larger, we will not suddenly die by being pulled into a ‘Black Hole' because CERN physicists tell us that if that were a risk cosmic rays would have already made us extinct.

Chapter 5: Particle Physics: The Mechanism That Makes Fundamental Mass

The ‘standard model' and its ‘God-Particle' are the subject of this chapter, whereas the mechanism that creates the proton is of primary importance. My research which dates back for several decades has shown how the proton is created and how Mother Nature determines the proton/electron mass ratio as 1836.152 and that is of record in the library archives of universities. It is the subject of chapter 11 of my book Creation: The Physical Truth. It is the same physics that explains the creation and existence of ‘dark matter' and it involves as energy source the muons that permeate the aether.

I admit that I am somewhat concerned at the inference in chapter 5 of the Vacca book that solution of this ‘One of the World's 20 Greatest Problems' might stem from the findings of a CERN LHC (Large Hadronic Collider) experiment.

It so happens that my theory of proton creation contemplates the merger of two ‘virtual' muons, a form of muon that I see as pervading all space, to create what I call a ‘dimuon' of mass a little greater than 412 times that of the electron. In turn, this dimuon becomes the smaller energy particle of a coupled charge union with the charge form that is embodied by the proton. My book explains why, based on the pre-Einstein teachings of J.J. Thomson concerning the physical size of a spherical electrical charge in terms of its energy or mass, one can derive a formulation:

(3/2)1/2 - 1
as being the ratio of the masses of a -e and +e charge pair when in touching contact at their charge surfaces. You can verify that the ratio is 0.22474487, which happens to be the ratio between 2(206.3329) and 1836.152.

My concern is that the detection of a particle mass resonance at close to 115 GeV/c2 might be seen as the discovery the ‘God-Particle', confirming the Higgs aspect of standard theory. The reason I say this is that my theory, in addressing the problem of warm superconductivity (see later discussion pertaining to chapter 9) predicted, very clearly, the existence of a supergraviton having a mass that is 95.18 GeV/c2 and I can see that (3/2) times this is close to that Higgs quantity.

If, in such experiments, the supergraviton becomes associated with a charge e that adjusts its mass-energy to the minimal condition before being separated by impact of a colliding high energy proton, then the recombination of those charges will have an energy close to that assumed for the ‘God-Particle'.

Accordingly, subject to what emerges from the eventual outcome of the CERN experiments, I can but hope that physicists will not get over-excited and go further adrift in their dream world that ignores the reality of the aether.

Chapter 6: Particle Physics and Astrophysics: The Solar Neutrino Problem

What are neutrinos? Here is the problem stated on the first page of this chapter. The last paragraph of that chapter includes the statement: "Finally, physicists are still trying to figure out the basic properties of neutrinos." A central page in the chapter has a section headed: Do Neutrinos Have Mass? and another section headed: Neutrinos Do Have Mass. In my book Creation: The Physical Truth I did, on page 179, quote a comment that appeared in the June 2005 issue of Physics World, the member's periodical of the U.K. Institute of Physics, which stated that "Neutrino mass is important in our understanding of the universe as a whole, and, furthermore neutrinos may have generated all the matter of which we are made."

It will take a little while before physicists accept the truth concerning the neutrino hypothesis. It is analogous with the problems posed by the hypothesis that there is an aether. When the figures governing the dynamic interaction between matter and the underworld of space revealed a related energy imbalance, those accountants (physicists) who track such situations ‘cooked the books' by inventing the neutrino and dispensing with the aether. Yes, one day, if they accept the guidance of my book, they will come to see that the aether accounts for the energy from which the universe was created. There is a 2:1 energy ratio attributable to the dynamic interaction between gravitons and that part of the aether system that shares the quantized motion of matter. Concerning neutrinos there is the related problem of accounting for a one in three discrepancy evident from analysis of solar energy radiation, causing physicists to speak of neutrinos ‘changing flavour' in transit from Sun to Earth. They point to muons and tau-leptons and their neutrino involvement. My book explains the fundamental and vital role of muons and tau-leptons in defining that aether and I see no need for neutrinos.

Chapter 8: Theoretical High Energy Physics: The Unification of Basic Forces

Unification is surely not a problem! I say this because my book Creation: The Physical Truth does show how gravity and the electrical underworld of particle physics can be unified. On page 197 of the Vacca book there is the claim that unification can be based on four particles: the photon for electromagnetic interactions, two charged W particles, and a neutral Z particle for weak interactions. Then one is introduced to ‘string theory' and its effect in modifying the concept of the ‘space-time' that Einstein developed.

Who, I wonder, can find such notions of interest? I do not, in my theory, refer to something called ‘cosmic strings', but I wonder if the electron-positron chains that I introduced in my theoretical analysis of atomic structure are links in the sense intended by ‘string theory'.

Concerning this chapter of the Vacca book, since the W and Z particles have been mentioned, I just mention that my analysis of the fabric of space that led me to the supergraviton showed how charged particles of mass-energy 92.59 GeV and 82.03 GeV might feature in high energy research involving particle reactions. These, I saw as possibly identifying the Z and W particles and I duly remarked on this in my paper The Supergraviton and its Technological Connection of record in Speculations in Science and Technology, 12, 179-186 (1989). This paper is mentioned also in my comments in the next chapter and I there provide a website reference for those interested in seeing the case presented.

As to that chapter 8 of the Vacca book it summarizes the subject of unification by quoting the comment "Time may have a fundamentally different nature from space" and going on to question Einstein's notion that time is a fourth dimension of space. I can but agree with that, but cannot understand why we still tolerate Einstein philosophy. The aether is the reality and is not a problem and our only problem is that of accepting that fact by reference to my book Creation: The Physical Truth.

Chapter 9: Solid State Physics: The Mechanism Behind High-Temperature Superconductors

In reading this chapter I had to look for the ‘problem'. What was presented was an account of the development of warm superconductor technology and its potential importance in the industrial world. I may have missed it, but the only ‘problem' I could see that had a specific reference was in the paragraph on page 245 which refers to the "travelling salesman" problem and something concerned with quantum computing that can be enhanced if superconductor technology makes it feasible.

Now superconductor technology is not something discussed in my book Creation: The Physical Truth but in that book I do explain the role of the graviton in providing the essential dynamic balance for the motion of matter that accounts for its dependence upon quantum theory. Elsewhere in my published work I have given an account of the physics underlying warm superconductivity. See my website paper mentioned above The Supergraviton and its Technological Connection which has a publisher submission date of 1988.

An electron moving through a conductor encounters collision with an atom. The mass of that atom is subject to quantum effects owing to its coupling with gravitons that provide dynamic balance. Generally this coupling is a shared activity involving several atoms and several gravitons collaborating to provide the needed dynamic balance. The more that action is spread amongst a number of such atoms, the greater the energy loss owing to those electron collisions. Ideally, if an electron can impact an atom that has a mass dynamically balanced by a graviton, then that impact transfers energy to the quantum motion of the graviton and, in being conserved momentarily, it can be transferred back to the atom as it then sheds an electron in a forward sense, so conserving current flow as part of the inductive action of the current circuit. The essential factor is graviton mass in relation to the mass of the atom and whether this can involve a kind of resonant property momentarily at the time of an electron collision.

That paper just referenced explained how quantum dynamic balance as between gravitons and atomic nuclei or molecules of high atomic mass number would favour the existence of a supergraviton, one that could still function in determining G, the constant of gravitation, but in association with a meson presence. The supergraviton mass was calculated as being very slightly greater than 102 atomic mass units and that was clearly an integer factor of the masses of certain molecular forms that were proving to be high temperature superconductors.

So I am saying that my theory of gravitation can lead to a solution to that ‘greatest' problem that is the subject of Chapter 9 in the Vacca book. I note, incidentally, that on page 217 of the Vacca book it is said that by 1993 the critical temperature of the warmest superconductor had been coaxed above earlier levels by using a ‘thallium' doping substance. The atomic mass of thallium is 204 amu, exactly twice the 102 factor that my 1988 paper had pointed to, meaning that two thallium atoms interacting dynamically with four supergravitons will collaborate in sustaining current by conserving electron collision energy otherwise lost as ohmic heating.

A Problem of Galactic Dimensions

Students of astrophysics may be interested in the following problem. It is one that I cannot solve. My book Creation: The Physical Truth shows how stars are created, based on evidence that shows why space is divided into domains, each commensurate with the creation of a star. The governing factor is that ongoing attempts to create matter by the quantum activity of the underworld of space only succeed if there is angular momentum available to allow the matter created to participate in the quantum dynamic system of that underworld. Otherwise the matter created has a transient existence as ‘dark matter' or what my book describes as ‘quasi-matter'.

I was able to explain that measure of angular momentum as being related to the electrical polarity transition state of the vacuum medium at the boundaries between those domains and so the area of those boundaries is a governing factor for the energy and angular momentum shed in creating a star, whereas the volume of those domains governs the net amount of ‘dark matter'.

I can also show that the angular momentum of the quantum dynamic system that pervades all space is enormous in relation to that acquired by the creation of stars but, given that angular momentum needs to be balanced by oppositely directed angular momentum, here is a pointer to why galaxies form and develop their own state of spin about a remote axis at the centre of a galaxy.

On page 81 of my book Creation: The Physical Truth, where I discuss the creation of the Sun, I note that the effective mass density of the aether, meaning that quantum dynamic system that pervades all space, is 288 gm per cubic cm., and from what is presented on pages 102-105, one can see that the quon-graviton system involved describes a minute radius of 1.93x10-11 cm at half the speed of light from which one can deduce that each cc. of space has an angular momentum of about 83 gm-cm2/s.

Applying this to the galaxy of which we are part, given that the Sun's mass of approximately 2x1033 gm divided by the volume of a space domain of about 1062 cc, as is evident from that page 81of my book, one obtains 2x10-29 gm/cc. For angular momentum balance, our Sun must therefore, in its galactic orbit at creation have had a velocity moment in c.g.s units of 83/(2x10-29) or approximately 4x1030. Note then that this corresponds to motion in a circular orbit of radius 8x1022 cm at a speed of 500 km/s. The orbital period on that basis is of the order of 300 million years. This contrasts with a measured speed of 390 km/s for the motion of Earth through space using radiometers carried by U-2 aircraft (see page 82 of my book) and an estimated galactic orbital period of 274 million years based on the geophysical evidence of J. Steiner, Geology, p. 89 (1973).

So I am fairly confident that such theory is reasonably well founded. However, what is the problem I cannot solve? Simply stated, it is that of the missing criterion, the physics that determines the factorial division of that angular velocity into its speed and radial distance components. I have explained gravitation in my book as a property confined to action over a range within a space domain, whereas there will be those who see gravity as operative over an unlimited range. To account for that galactic motion that assumption implies that far more solar mass quantities are needed at the centre of our galaxy than can be physically justified. Accordingly, I must leave this question open and hope that someone will one day enlighten us by finding a solution. Understanding galaxies and their formation is a formidable task, as I see from chapter 16: Galaxies in the book by Donald E. Scott entitled The Electric Sky (ISBN 0-9772851-1-1) published in 2006. Scott draws particular attention to a 1986 proposal by Hannes Alfven which attributes the form of a galaxy to a plasma phenomenon involving interaction of strong electrical currents. Maybe there is therefore some overriding electrical action that can cause a galaxy to exhibit electrical forces that can set up interaction forces between very remote stellar objects.

One can but await future developments, but we must first address the more important issue of harnessing the energy of the quantum underworld of space to serve our energy needs. The study of galactic phenomena is not the primary problem.

Dr. H. Aspden, Sabberton Research, P.O. Box 35, Chilworth, Southampton SO16 7RB, England
July 7th 2007