return to homepage
return to updates
BROWNIAN MOTIONand the charge field
by Miles Mathis
Brownian motion is another unexplained phenomenon. You will say that we have long had equations for it, and that Einstein's equations are quite successful. True, but I am not talking about equations. I am talking about a physical explanation. WHY are the particles in motion? We are told that small particles are bumped by molecules, and that molecules are bumped by atoms or ions. But why are the atoms moving in a Brownian manner? It turns out that what we would call balanced atoms and molecules are moving in a random manner, even when they are in what we would call empty space. Even "in vacuum" we see molecules and atoms moving in a Brownian manner. In fact, we have never witnessed particles of any size that were not moving in this manner. WHY?
Once again, without the charge field, there can be no physical answer. We can write equations for the motions, but we cannot explain their genesis. But it turns out that Brownian motion at the lowest levels is more clear evidence for the reality of the charge field. And it turns out that this is one more thing modern physics is hiding from you.
Because the charge field has been hidden in Newton's gravitational equation since around 1687, mainstream physics has missed it all along. They tell us that there is no room in their successful equations for another field, and they dismiss this field as a crackpot's "ether." They tell us that Michelson and Einstein got rid of the ether. But they are wrong. Einstein extended Newton's gravitational equation; he did not overwrite it or jettison it. That is why we are still taught it. For this reason, Einstein's own field equations also include the charge field. Einstein is Newton plus time differentials, which means that Einstein's equations are actually unified field equations. The gravitational field has always been unified, which is why Einstein couldn't unify it. He was trying to combine it with the E/M field, but since it already included the E/M field, this was impossible. It is the same problem that string theory has today.
But because modern physicists don't understand that, they continue to try to explain all physical phenomena without a charge field. They can't fit the charge field into their equations (a second time), so they are forced to pretend that the charge field is a sort of virtual field. This is precisely why we are taught that charge is mediated by virtual photons. They can't give the field any real presence, because they can't figure out how to fit the field into their equations. But since I have shown that the charge field is already in the old equations of Newton and Einstein, that problem is solved. We can now give the charge field a real presence. We can also give the photon mass and radius and spin without destroying all the old equations. We don't have to unify anything, since it was already unified.
This being so, we can also admit that the photons we know about are capable of forces. We already know that from the photoelectric effect and a lot of other experiments, but modern physicists like to teach their students that photons are real sometimes and not real at other times. So we are taught about the photoelectric effect, and are told that real photons are knocking things about. Then the next week we are taught that all quantum numbers and equations are mathematical only, so that quanta don't have real spin or size or position. And the next week we are taught that charge is mediated by magic, either by little plus signs or by virtual photons that can "tell" electrons to move away or move closer. No one ever seems to see this inconsistency of all this. Modern physicists are right about the photoelectric effect, but they are wrong about the others. The photoelectric effect requires that the photon has position, mass, and size. The charge field requires a mediating particle that also has position, mass, and size. And once we give the charge photon mass and size, it is also capable of creating Brownian motion, from the primary level.
All these tiny particles are knocked about by photons. Everything is awash in a sea of photons, and the photons have real momenta. Because they are coming from all directions, they create random motion. And because they are so tiny, they only create a small displacement with each individual hit.
As with my explanation of heat, you will say that I have only taken the explanation back a step. But once again, that isn't true. It isn't true because photons don't experience Brownian motion themselves. Photons (not in a laser) may have a random trajectory, but they do not wiggle about or zigzag randomly. And light can be lasered, which means it can be made to travel a straight line of choice, without wiggling. So I have not regressed in an infinite line of causes, I have found a first cause. The Brownian motion of dust mites is caused by the Brownian motion of molecules; the Brownian motion of molecules is caused by the Brownian motion of atoms or ions, but the Brownian motion of atoms is NOT caused by the Brownian motion of photons. The Brownian motion of atoms is caused by simply by collision with photons.
We can see that photons are not just another step in an infinite regression by looking at velocity. All these larger particles can be slowed down, which is why they experience Brownian motion. Because they do not have a high linear velocity, and because they have a considerable mass, they can move in a Brownian manner. But light cannot be slowed, it can only be deflected. And because the photon is so small, it can move long distances without deflection, even in air. Light can therefore avoid random motion most of the time. Only in certain (and odd) circumstances would light experience something like Brownian motion, and then only if we could slow down time and shrink space a lot. If we pass light through a dense substance, and slow down time, we might get something like Brownian motion. But even so, it is not this sort of motion of light that causes atoms to vibrate. Atoms move randomly due to a bumping by photons, and it is not necessary that the photons be moving randomly themselves.
If this theory of Brownian motion is true, it would imply that Brownian motion could be diminished somewhat in certain circumstances. If we could cohere the charge field present, the atoms would be hit from only one direction, and their vibration would be minimized. On the Earth, this would be difficult to achieve, since the charge field is coming from all directions. It is coming up from the Earth, but it is also coming from the Sun and the Moon and all the planets and the galactic core and so on. However, we can imagine some points in the universe where the charge field would be more uni-directional. In that case, Brownian motion would likely be less. We may propose that nearer the Sun this is true, since there the charge field of the Sun would overpower all other incoming fields. Likewise, Brownian motion should be maximized when the charge field is most random in direction. Brownian motion on the Earth is not maximized, because the main influence is from the Earth. Other influences are present and heavy, but they are not equal to the Earth's influence. But we can imagine some region of space where atoms were surrounded by more equal fields: the Brownian motion must be greater there. The Brownian motion near the center of galaxies must be very great, for instance, even if there is no black hole or superstar there. Any free atom would be surrounded on all sides by large amounts of charge, and would be knocked about quite vigorously. In fact, this is another phenomenon that modern physics has failed to include in its models, and we will look at it again in the near future, to see how it might affect matter in such a situation.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.