Abstract: In this Essay I attack the standard cosmological doctrine of the Black Hole and point to the fallacies in what is being written on that subject in books which, as best sellers, merely entertain a gullible public by deception practiced under the guise of being good science. To be true, the authors, in the main, are merely echoing the views of others who claim to know their science, but, collectively, this is a case where the blind merely lead the blind. The sad side of all this is that science has intruded into religious belief and brought more confusion into what we are free to imagine about the wonders of Creation.
As I explained in Essay No. 6, the familiar radiation of electromagnetic waves by a radio antenna results from the concerted efforts of electrons which are forced into a radiating situation so as transfer energy to the external world. However, left alone, those electrons will try to take up residence in an atom in the metal of the antenna and will hibernate in that inner world.
My argument in Essay No. 6 was that one needs to understand how an electron conserves itself, before trying to understand why the electron structure of an atom does not self-destruct. One needs to understand how an electron can cooperate with other electrons to radiate electromagnetic waves before one can understand how those electrons live together in that atom. That is why I traced the error in Larmor's derivation of the Larmor formula, though the real error was made by those scientists who applied the formula to an isolated electron. Energy is conserved and the property of the inertial mass of an electron arises because that energy is conserved and not radiated by the electron.
The Exclusion rules governing the quantum states of electrons in the atom are nothing other than the permitted rules of play by which the Larmor formula will conform to a no-radiation condition. That was the subject I wrote about in Essay No. 6.
Physicists should learn from that lesson and take to heart the observation that, until they understand the true nature of the gravitational action of that inertial mass property, they have no right to be speculating about how G, the Constant of Gravity, performs inside their so-called 'Black Hole'.
Yet, to my utter astonishment, I see that the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which helped atomic physicists to interpret the electron structure of the atom, has been dragged into play as a governing principle which controls the size of collapsed stars! Can it be that the no-radiation theme of my interpretation of the Larmor formula is at work in the so-called 'Black Hole'? No, all that the Pauli Exclusion Principle does, so they say, is to stop the star from contracting too far under the force of gravity, but yet sufficiently for the gravity field close to the very compact stellar mass to be so powerful that it prevents the escape of light.
Well, if you can believe that, you must know something about protons, electrons and neutrons, that I do not know, and here I ask you to take stock of what you really know about neutrons. Protons will not allow themselves to be compressed together by the pull of gravity. They repel one another with a powerful electrostatic force and those electrons will, by their mutual repulsion, form an outer encapsulating sphere of charge around what inevitably is extended sphere of charged plasma. So you have to put your faith in neutrons to contemplate stellar collapse.
I will, therefore, now digress onto the topic of the neutron and take a look at those books on cosmology to see what they have to say about the properties of the neutron.
The first reference tells me that atomic nuclei comprise protons and neutrons, the hydrogen atom having a proton as its nucleus, but 'add a neutron to the one-proton nucleus of a hydrogen atom and you have deuterium'. The second reference tells me, firstly, that 'during the first minute of cosmic expansion the ambient energy level fell below that of the strong nuclear force, permitting protons and neutrons to bond together as atomic nuclei'. Secondly, it then goes on to say: 'Turn up the heat in the oven and you overwhelm the nuclear binding energy. The protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei cannot stay together: You've wrecked basic atomic structure, and resurrected the state of the universe when it was a couple of minutes old.'
The next two references, several pages on, include the words: 'After one second, the rate of weak interactions became slower than the cosmic expansion rate, at which point the ratio of protons to neutrons "froze out", remaining fixed ever after. Had that been the end of the story, the neutrons would have met an ignoble fate. Left to themselves, free neutrons decay, each becoming a proton, an electron , and an antineutrino, in an average of fourteen minutes and forty-nine seconds. Fortunately for the future of atoms, protons and neutrons continued to be slammed together at high velocities in the heat of the big bang, while the level of destructive interference from photons soon dropped below that of the strong nuclear force. The strong force was then free to bind protons and neutrons together, drawing neutrons into the sanctuary of atomic nuclei, in which environment they cease to decay.'
There is further mention of neutrons as part of a theoretical pattern called the 'Eightfold Way', but that tells me nothing about the neutron as an actor on the cosmic scene. So I turn to the references to 'neutron stars'. Then I read (p. 82 of the book):
"If, however, the core of the dying star weighs more than 1.4 solar masses, its gravity overwhelms the exclusion principle and the electrons are smashed into protons, turning the protons into neutrons. The result is a neutron star. .... Neutron stars rotate rapidly; some spin more than a thousand times a second. Those with magnetic fields emit intense streams of energy at radio wavelengths from their magnetic poles. When these radio beams happen to be oriented so that they strike the earth, the result is a rapidly beeping radio pulse. such neutron stars are called pulsars. .... From the standpoint of general relativity, since curved light rays demark curved space, a black hole is an object wrapped up in a kind of faberge egg made of space."
On page 85 we see:
"Neutron stars spin rapidly because their rotation velocity increases as they contract, just as skaters spin faster when they pull in their arms. Owing to the superconductivity of the nuclear particles that a neutron star contains, it generates a powerful magnetic field."
We have jumped now into the physics of superconductivity, something we all associate with the cold matter, but yet we are still delving into a stellar inferno that emits radio waves!
The reference on page 90 tells us that Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse of Princeton University 'won a 1993 Nobel Prize for studies of binary neutron stars showing that the stars are approaching each other at just the rate that relativity predicts as a consequence of energy being carried away from the system by gravitational waves'.
The other reference on page 124 merely says that Zwicky and Baade 'were the first to propose that the burnt-out cores of supernovae can survive as neutron stars.'
So there you are. You have just seen a scan of the story of neutrons so far as they relate to cosmology. They only live for quarter of an hour or so, when we can catch a glimpse of them in the laboratory, but they normally are safe and enjoy everlasting life in that 'sanctuary' of the atomic nucleus, though some find themselves trapped by gravity in that fast-spinning 'neutron star'.
Would you be surprised if I now tell you that the neutron in that 'sanctuary' is not a neutron at all. It is an anti-proton which has pushed an aether particle out of a lattice site in the all-enveloping aether. That is why it seems to be 'neutral' and why, incidentally, it has a magnetic moment as if it has a negative electrical charge, and why, not surprisingly, it decays into proton form and sheds an electron when it comes free from that aether sanctuary. There is a form of proton which is stable because it is really a three-particle composite of an antiproton and two positive beta particles, the latter being positive electrons or positrons.
Of course, you will not believe what I have just said. It sounds too far-fetched, but then surely you must have your doubts about that tale of the cosmos recounted in the above quotations. You ought also to have doubts about what physicists tell you about protons and their quark constitution, given that those same physicists do not have a clue as to what really determines the proton/electron mass ratio as 1836.1527. You see, they do not pay attention to my very precise theoretical derivation of that quantity, which features in these Web pages, especially in the Tutorial Note section. They do not pay attention to the papers on that which I have authored and which appear in reputable scientific periodicals. Nor, indeed, do they take any interest in, for example, the conference paper of mine recorded at pp. 345-359 in the NATO ASI, Series B: Physics Vol. 162 publication: 'Quantum Uncertainties - Recent and Future Experiments and Interpretations', Editors: Honig, Kraft and Panarella, Publishers: Plenum Press (1987). That paper was entitled 'The Theoretical Nature of the Photon in a Lattice Vacuum', but it included a section on 'proton creation in relation to photon theory'. It also included a section on 'the charge-mass ratio of atomic nuclei', where I explain how the A/Z ratio of an atom can be explained by 'seeing' a neutron really as a charged particle that has replaced a unit of aether charge at a lattice site in that structured aether.
You may ask how an atomic nucleus can have antiprotons hidden in the aether surrounding its nucleus. Well, the answer is quite simple. Suppose that there is a central charge Ze at the heart of that atomic nucleus and that there could be antiprotons that have expelled those negative aether particles from their lattice sites in positive continuum of the aether medium. Those aether particles, which I call quons or sub-electrons elsewhere in these Web pages, can become electrons, so we do have a viable proposition. However, why bother then with protons? Yes, indeed, why say there are protons in the nucleus? After all, the data we have about atomic nuclei tell us that there is a positive charge Z times that of the electron and a mass A times that of the nucleon, the nucleon mass being approximately the mass of a proton. So why not just have A antiprotons hidden in that aether region nucleated by the Ze charge?
Well, I worked all this out and found that the electric energy potential of that antiproton aether system could tell me how A would relate to Z with Z increasing and, lo and behold, the result was astonishing. It corresponded exactly with the atomic structure of the elements. If you find that hard to believe look up that NATO Conference publication just mentioned. All you really need to know is that an atomic nucleus is a cluster of antiprotons, each of which sits in an aether lattice site, neutralized electrically by the 'holes' vacated by aether particles. Those sites are then linked together by what you could call 'gluons', but what are really chain-like links formed by electrons and positrons. The central charge Ze can hold that cloud of antiprotons together because they plus that central charge can move bodily through space, relocating in the aether. This 'holding together' has its limits. A central charge Ze+ will hold a sphere of distributed charge 2Ze- together, as an entity, limiting A/Z to 2 for such a configuration. If that antiproton charge is spread over the whole of a sphere, as by occupying a roughly-equivalent spherical volume of the structured aether lattice, that A/Z factor increases to 2.5. Above this, the antiproton site occupancy can become tenuous and the atom will tend to be unstable. Note then that, just above bismuth, Z=83 in the periodic table, with its abundant isotope A=209, we do enter the realm of radioactive atoms.
So, take note of what I say here. There is purpose in looking more closely into the role which the aether can play in making what really are antiprotons appear to be neutrons. What then is the chance of there being 'neutron stars', unless you are prepared to see a star as having an enormous central core of positive charge? How then will you explain how that electrical core holds together? Such are your future problems if you are a cosmologist. However, let us be sensible and pay more attention to the structure of those atoms we can reach in our laboratories on Earth. Why, indeed, do the nuclear charges of those atoms hold together, at least up to a Z value of 100 or so? When that problem has been solved, then one can try to extrapolate the findings to the idea of the 'neutron star'. The Pauli Exclusion Principle might tell some physicists that neutron stars cannot collapse under gravity beyond a certain threshold level, but can those 'gluons' tell them also that the far stronger electrostatic repulsion forces that go with keeping the 'neutron star' picture can be overcome by those 'gluons'?
So, you see therefore that I am locked into the belief that the neutron is not going to allow itself to form into a so-called 'neutron star'. Nor can I accept that it can play a kind of progressive barn dance, in combining and separating from the proton in a recurrent sequence, during the hypothetical process of 'Big Bang' creation. I can see that my view is a minority opinion, but since the majority of the scientific community has no idea how to build an atom, except by high energy processes which are more likely to destroy the atom, I will keep faith with my own research findings.
Before one talks about 'neutron stars' one should study the make-up of the neutron to see if it can come apart. It is electrically neutral and that means that it comprises a plurality of charges, positive and negative. It exhibits a negative magnetic moment which can tell us quite a lot about its composition because it seems that a positive charge (beta particle) can separate from it for exactly one part in 23 parts of the time. See 1985a]. The neutron decays and the decay products include an electron. Together with that magnetic moment information, this tells me that the neutron really comprises four charges, an antiproton, an electron and two positive beta particles. Note that beta particles are emitted by atomic nuclei and seen in their radioactive decay.
So, tell me how you can be sure that a neutron does not break up into those primary charges once you wander into the realm of the supernovae. Once you are left with electrons and protons and their antiparticles you cannot escape the fact that, if they become unglued and so are free as a gaseous plasma, then the preferential and stronger mutual acceleration of gravity between the dominant protons will build up a positive core charge which arrests all chance of gravitational compaction. there is just no way one can contemplate that 'Black Hole' idea unless one abolishes the electrostatic force between electric charge!
So we are then left to ponder on the evidence which cosmologists think they have to prove that 'Black Holes' exist. They say that there is evidence of stellar objects which do not emit light but yet have a strong gravitational field that can act on visible stars and so be detected. So there are heavy stars! They then say that Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar argued theoretically that no star could avoid gravitational collapse if its mass exceeds something of the order of 1.4 times that of the sun, because, below that limit, they are 'prevented from collapsing any further by a quantum physics rule called the Pauli Exclusion Principle'. So, thanks to Pauli, the world of cosmology is sure that one simply cannot have a star that much heavier than the sun, unless it has collapsed into a very dense object. Yet, there is evidence of unseen stars that have such high mass. So, here is the 'Black Hole'!
Well, it puts great faith in the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and its extension beyond the realm of the atom, to adopt such a belief and I deplore the fact that there are those who absorb academic funding to build on such fantasy.
Now, at this stage, I am going to halt this discourse. Time is pressing and I have other priorities. I have begun my attack and will continue the fight soon, developing this Essay further. It seems however, worthwhile to load this Web page as it stands, rather than hold it in abeyance pending completion.
This is the status of this text on October 1, 1997.