Web site: http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat
by
If only I
could really understand this book!
As far as I can tell, Dishington’s ideas coincide in many ways with my
own (see one of my papers on the Phi-Wave Aether, e.g. pdf file ), with features such as a fluid
aether transporting both longitudinal and transverse waves, electrons as wave
centres, and rejection of absurd claims such as nonlocal entanglement on the
grounds that there are doubtless facts about the experiments that we have not
been told.
And he’s
“done the maths”! It does not look
heavy compared to quantum theory, but nevertheless it is quite deep and I don’t
pretend to be able to follow it all.
(He kindly provides extensive appendices to explain the basic
mathematical tools – appendices that could be of value in their own right, and
that some day I intend to study.)
However, in
order to even make a start on the maths, he has to be a little more definite in
his assumptions than I am happy with, and many of his assertions seem to me to
be plucked out of thin air. This is
partly, of course, just my ignorance.
When it comes to nuclear theory the book is rich in references, all
unfamiliar to me. The basic ideas about
the electron, though, seem to be original and it is here that I would have
hoped to be able to follow his thoughts in some detail. But I am left with questions. Why, for
instance, should it be the difference in Doppler shifts that matters
when a moving electron interacts with another?
Why does he see the need to accept the “photon”? How can he just take for granted the
existence of a positron with spherical incoming waves? There are lots of little points that, if
only we lived next door, I should like to battle out with him. If we could just get together, perhaps we
could merge our ideas about what the electric and magnetic fields are, and how
Maxwell’s ideas dissolve into slightly different ones as we get down to smaller
scales.
Maybe he
tries to do just a bit too much, but he has my sincere admiration, and he does
not, after all, claim that anything more than the picture of the aether
and its waves will endure. Like Steven
Rado’s aethrokinematics, it is
a valiant attempt to do what modern physics has so conspicuously failed to do,
providing a complete theory with no paradoxes.
For me, it is preferable to Rado’s model (Rado wins in other ways -- in
his historical work on where modern physics went wrong for instance). Give me continuity rather than particles
with “nothing” in between any day! It
has to be admitted that the mathematics is more difficult, but if that’s the
way the world works it’s the price we have to pay.