Classical mechanics is based on Newton’s laws and the principle of Galilean relativity. Let us consider each of Newton’s laws in terms of the proposed theory.

Newton’s first law says. “Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed(from the original Latin of Newton’s Principia translated to English;’s_laws_of_motion).”Given that atoms are made up of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”, the laws of classical mechanics describe the relative motions of the n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”. The velocity of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” is constant in the absence of their attraction or repulsion and the generation of n=1-, n=2- and n=3-objects. Consequently, the Newton’s first law express nothing but the constancy of the velocity of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”.

The second law of Newton states the following. “The change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body, and happens along the straight line on which that impulse is impressed (from the original Latin of Newton’s Principia translated to English;’s_laws_of_motion).”In modern physics, a force is defined as the product of the acceleration and the inertial mass. In the proposed theory, the concept of inertial mass is defined as the amount of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”. Gravitational mass has the same definition. The direct proportionality of gravitational and inertial mass is due to the definition of mass as the amount of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”. Acceleration is a change in velocity per unit of time. The time unit, as discussed in the first pages of the theory, is a unit of velocity. Accordingly, the concept of force is a secondary concept, which is more convenient for determination of motion with variable speed, but it can be reduced to a derivative of the velocity. More simply stated, the concept of force is nothing more than another designation of a change in velocity. In the proposed theory, the central force acting on an object (as in the case of gravitational and electrostatic interactions) is defined in terms of the change of velocity due to the density gradient of n=0-objects(I) around n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” (electrons, positrons). The gradient is determined in inverse proportion to the square of the distance, which is due to the three-dimensionality of space. In other words, accelerated motion, i.e. movement with increasing velocity, is not a result of a force acting on a body but rather a consequence of its location in a region of space with a characteristic density gradient of n=0‑objects(I). Since distance is expressed in absolute units, i.e. in lengths of n=0‑objects(I), then velocity varies discretely. This differs from classical mechanics, in which there is no discreteness and velocity changes continuously.

The concept of inertial forces is consistent with the suggested theory, since it describes nothing more than motion with variable velocity by changing the direction of motion. There is then no need for a source of inertial forces, as the concept of force is an auxiliary concept, in contrast to the fundamental concept of velocity.

Newton’s third law states. “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions (from the original Latin of Newton’s Principia translated to English;’s_laws_of_motion).”In the proposed theory, this law is due to the symmetry of repulsion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”.

In classical mechanics, momentum is defined as a product of velocity and inertial mass, and the momentum conservation law establishes the equality of a product of velocity and inertial mass for the closed system in two different states. Inertial mass determines the number of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”. Thus, the law of conservation of momentum reflects the fact that the change in velocities of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” in a closed system is a result of a redistribution of the velocities of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”. In the suggested theory, the momentum conservation law is valid for a system consisting of only n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”, i.e. electrons and positrons. In contrast to the modern physics, the interaction of the photon and electron causes no redistribution of momentum. The photon is absorbed by an electron, leading to an increase in electron velocity in the direction of the photon. If the photon is reflected from the positron, the positron will not change its velocity. Thus, the law of conservation of momentum cannot be applied to electromagnetic quanta. This statement is supported by the results of experiments with EmDrive (Harold White, Paul March, James Lawrence, Jerry Vera, Andre Sylvester, David Brady, and Paul Bailey 2016, Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum, Journal of propulsion and power, pages: 1-12, DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120).

In contrast to momentum, energy is proportional to the square of velocity, and is not a vector, but a scalar. This concept of energy is different from that used in the proposed theory, in which energy is the opposite of length. Why is the classical concept of energy defined by the square of velocity? We consider this is due to the orthogonality of Euclidean space. In such space the square of velocity is a scalar form of velocity, which allows the algebraic operations of addition and subtraction in the three-dimensional space, i.e. along three orthogonal axes. Accordingly, describing the energy of n=0-object(II)”−”,”+”, i.e. square of the velocity of n=0‑object(II)”−”,”+”, enables one to express the conservation of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” velocities in the form of a scalar sum of squares of velocities of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”.


The proposed theory is entirely consistent with the laws of classical mechanics. It holds the principle of relativity of Galileo and Newton’s laws. In contrast to classical mechanics, the proposed theory provides an unambiguous definition of mass as the number of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” (electrons/positron). The concept of force is defined as an auxiliary, secondary notion. The motion of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” is primary, and change of their velocity defines the concept of force (for the given amount of moved n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”). The laws of conservation of momentum and energy are consequences of the primacy and constancy of motion of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”. In contrast to classical mechanics, in the proposed theory velocity changes discretely in potential fields: gravitational and electrostatic. I.e. in these fields there is a minimal change of velocity.


Special Theory of Relativity (STR)was built as an electrodynamics of moving bodies based on two postulates. One of them is the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference, or, in other words, the independence of the speed of light from the motion of the light source. The second is the principle of relativity. It is assumed that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent and there is no special frame of reference for the laws of electrodynamics – Maxwell’s equations, or for the laws of mechanics. Why did these postulates and STR based on them appear in physics? At the time when STR was created, the existence of an ether, an all pervading, fundamental reference frame, was being actively discussed. The Michelson-Morley experiment gave negative results in the detection of an ether wind (light was considered as a wave in the ether, and the ether wind would change the speed of light). If an ether had been detected, then it would have represented a special frame of reference for the phenomena of electrodynamics, and the STR would not have been necessary. However, in the absence of an ether, all inertial frames of reference were considered to be equivalent and therefore the Maxwell’s equations had to maintain their form in different frames of reference, similar to classical mechanics. Experimentally, this was not found to be the case. There was asymmetry between frames of reference due to the fact that, for example, the speed of charge current and, consequently, the existence of a magnetic field depended on the choice of the frame. Also, the speed of light was supposed to be constant on the basis of experimental data, but the use of Galilean transformation required changes of it. Instead of Galilean transformation, Einstein proposed to use the Lorentz transformation and by this means eliminated the asymmetry between different inertial reference frames. In this way, he implemented the principle of relativity and the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light.

The proposed theory is consistent with the postulate of STR regarding the constancy of the speed of light, but in contrast to STR the constancy of the speed of light has a cause – the spatial dimension. Since light quanta are n=1-objects, i.e. objects of one-dimensional space, they are always moving at the same velocity relative to n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” of zero-dimensional space, regardless of the speed of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”. If the reference system is changed, the constancy of the speed is provided by the inverse relation of the length of photons, as expressed by the Doppler effect (see section on “Optics”). Further, if in Maxwell electrodynamics and so also in the STR, the electromagnetic field and electromagnetic quanta have the same nature and are defined by Maxwell’s equations, then in the proposed theory the electromagnetic quanta and the electromagnetic field are different entities of nature. The field consists of objects of zero-dimensional space, n=0-objects(I), while photons are the objects of one-dimensional space, n=1-objects. (As noted above, there is a connection between them. Electromagnetic field change can lead to the generation of n=1-objects.) Therefore, the speed of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment would not change relative to an ether wind because light is not a wave in the ether. In the proposed theory, the ether exists as moving n=0‑objects(I) creating three-dimensional Euclidean space. Because of this, an attraction/repulsion of charges (electrons/positrons) is defined in the Maxwell’s equations by the maximum density of n=0-objects(I) ρ0(for an electrostatic field) or its change ρΔ (for a magnetic field), generated by the motion of electrons/positrons.

In contrast to the STR, the proposed theory posits that different frames of reference are not equal. I.e. the second postulate, the relativity principle, is not valid for phenomena of electrodynamics. There is a unique absolute frame of reference – an ether, the frame associated with the space of n=0-objects(I) moving relative to each other. Since the electrostatic field of the charge is defined by the density of n=0-objects(I),ρ0, it cannot be changed (without gravity) when the frame of reference is changed. In the absence of gravity, magnetic induction also does not depend on the choice of the reference frame, since it determines the change in density of directed n=0-objects(I), ρΔ, relative to undirected n=0-objects(I) of density ρ0. As suggested above, in Maxwell’s equations the constant ccorresponds to a product of velocity v0and maximum density of n=0-objects(I) ρ0, v0ρ0, and it is not the speed of light. Therefore, it should not obey Galilean transformation for velocity. The maximal velocity v0ρ0decreases with time, since density ρ0was greater in the past than at present. To date, it is comparable with the speed of light and corresponds to the constant c.

According to the proposed theory, it is also wrong to use STR to describe the motion of a body consisting of atoms. If, in the case of photons, STR is consistent with the proposed theory, it is because of the photons length, as the objects of one-dimensional space, is changing in Doppler effects and keeping constancy of the speed of light. The same changes in length are not applicable to the objects of zero-dimensional space, n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” (electrons and positrons) composing atoms. In other words, there is no Lorentz contraction of lengths of physical objects in the suggested theory. Also, STR is not suitable for explaining the dynamics of bodies composed of atoms. The increase in mass of a body with increasing velocity is not possible. The inertial mass is determined by the number of electrons/positrons, and this number cannot depend on the velocity of electrons/positrons. Therefore, there is no infinitely large mass at the speed of light. The velocity of electrons/positrons are not limited by the speed of light. In the early universe, the velocity of electrons/positrons was greater than the speed of light because the density of n=0-objects(I) ρ0was higher than today, giving them a higher velocity of electrostatic interaction.

Another difference between the proposed theory and STR is the conception of time. In the proposed theory, as in classical mechanics, time is just a matter of agreement. Time is an artificial concept, introduced for convenience to describe the motion of objects, and must be defined as the same in all inertial frames of reference. In special relativity, because of the heterogeneity of time in different frames of reference, there are temporal paradoxes, such as the twin paradox, due to time dilation in the moving frame of reference. In the proposed theory, this is not possible.


The concept of space-time is used in General Theory of Relativity (GTR) as it is in the special theory of relativity. In general relativity, the gravitational potential is identified with the space-time metric. Space-time is curved by a body having mass, and this causes a gravitational attraction. In the proposed theory, all phenomena take place in Euclidean space. Since both general and special relativity use the concept of space-time rather than Euclidean space, we consider these theories to be incorrect models to describe phenomena.

Phenomena, which in modern physics are explained only by general relativity, have their own interpretations in the proposed theory. For example, the gravitational redshift in general relativity is explained by gravitational time dilation. In the proposed theory, it is explained by a decrease in the density of n=0-objects(I) ρ0around the gravitating body (see “Gravitational attraction”). The existence of black holes can also be explained by changes in density of n=0-objects(I) ρ0. Due to the high density of electrons and positrons, a density gradient of n=0-objects(I) will be formed where the speed of gravitational attraction is greater than the speed of light, causing photons to be unable to overcome this attraction. The same reason will also cause the gravitational delay of electromagnetic quanta – the effect of Shapiro. Another phenomenon predicted by general relativity is the gravitational deflection of light. In the proposed theory, this results from the same attraction as for the Shapiro effect. Because of the high speed of light, gravitational attraction of photons is not as noticeable as for slow-moving electrons and positrons (n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”). The precession of the orbit of Mercury in the suggested theory has no obvious explanation. However, this value can be the result of the influence of other planets in the solar system, since in the proposed theory gravitational attraction has a maximal boundary.


In the proposed theory, in contrast to the STR, the speed of a body is not limited by the speed of light. The velocity of electromagnetic interactions is limited by a maximum density of the vacuum particles, n=0‑objects(I),ρ0. The velocity determined by this density ρ0, v0ρ0, is comparable to the speed of light, the velocity of object of one-dimensional space. The objects of two- and three-dimensional space move at velocities greater than this, 10 and 20 orders of magnitude above the speed of light, respectively.

What is considered in GRT as the curvature of spacetime, caused by a gravitating body, is the curvilinear motion in three-dimensional Euclidean space. For example, the deviation of light by the gravitational field is the result of the attraction of light quanta, as well as any physical body moving near another gravitating body.

In the proposed theory, phenomena explained by relativistic and gravitational time dilation are interpreted differently. For example, atomic clocks were employed in the Hafele–Keating experiment to accurately measure time, but these devices are based on the emission/absorption of electromagnetic quanta, and such processes depend on the elementary charge. Accordingly, a change of elementary charge caused by a change in gravitational potential will affect electromagnetic emission/absorption in the atomic clock and so “change” the time. Because of this, the atomic clocks of GPS satellites must be calibrated. Similarly, the change of the elementary charge is responsible for the observed effect in an experiment with masers – in the Gravity Probe A experiment.


Quantum mechanics was created to explain the atom, since a classical planetary model was not satisfactory and was valid only as the Bohr model. Without the Bohr postulates, the atom would have to die as a result of energy loss by electrons (in the form of electromagnetic radiation) and their collapse into the nucleus. This paradox was formally resolved by quantum mechanics, where electrons were not allowed to have trajectories. Quantum mechanics has parameters related only to the initial and final stationary states of the electrons in atom, but not to any trajectories. Instead of the coordinates and velocities of the electron, probability values were used to describe these stationary states.

The proposed theory of the atom returns to the classical description of electron motion as having a trajectory. Electrons can move closer to the nucleus from more remote positions. At the closer distance, a photon can be generated if it complies with the integer value of the energy of the emitted photon. In this case, emission of a photon reduces the velocity of the electron. Ultimately, the electron can occupy the minimum distance at which its velocity becomes equal to zero relative to the nucleus. This distance is ≈ 1010 m. If there is no such compliance, then the electron will not radiate, and will continue to move to the other side of the nucleus, and away from it until its attraction to the nucleus leads to a complete stop and subsequent reversal back to the nucleus at a speed corresponding to a given distance from the nucleus. In contrast to the planetary model, the proposed theory predicts that electrons do not have strictly defined orbits, but rather changing trajectories. This distinguishes also the proposed theory from quantum mechanics, where there is no concept of electron trajectories in the atom. One can say that the electron oscillates around the nucleus, with a maximum distance from the nucleus of ≈105 m. At the distance ≈1010 m, the electron is at rest relative to the nucleus. The absorption of a photon by an electron will increase electron velocity and distance from the nucleus.

Another problem that was solved by quantum mechanics is the wave-particle duality. When particles pass through a thin metal film, diffraction rings are formed on a screen behind the film. A similar pattern is observed in the case of X-rays. Since X-radiation is believed to be a wave, it was suggested that particles can act in a similar manner, like waves. This phenomenon was termed the wave-particle duality. To explain this in quantum mechanics, it was decided to replace the notion of a trajectory with the concept of a superposition of states, more precisely, the superposition of probability of alternative states, i.e. probability for a particle to be at the same time in alternative states. In this context, the particle in each experiment can be detected with a certain probability, in one of these states. In the suggested theory, there is no wave-particle duality. Wave feature of particles in such phenomena as diffraction and interference are not due to the wave nature of the particles, but because of the generation of waves in the vacuum, which consists of n=0-objects(I) (see “Optics”). The cause of waves of the n=0‑objects(I) is the motion of photons or other particles, since they displace the n=0-objects(I). The displaced n=0-objects(I) move like a wave and the velocity of these waves is close to the speed of light (slightly higher). Waves of n=0‑objects(I) create waves of particles, moving relative to the n=0‑objects(I). This mechanism can explain the interference in the double-slit experiment, where the intensity of particles was set so low that only one particle could pass through the slits at any time. The same interference pattern is observed at both high and low particle fluxes. Quantum mechanics argues that this result is the inherent property of the particles, their nondeterministic, probabilistic behavior, according to the uncertainty principle. In the proposed theory, this interference pattern arises from the interference of waves of n=0-objects(I), displaced by moving particles. In this way, the interpretation of the two-slit experiment is returned to the deterministic view.

The proposed theory also explains the discreteness of atomic spectra. Space, in the proposed theory, is composed a finite number of n=0-objects(I), so space is not infinitely divisible, i.e. matter is discrete. Since the number of n=0-objects(I), defining their density in the certain area of the space, is finite, then the difference of densities for different electron positions are also integers that determines the length of the generated n=1-object, as a multiple of an integer unit (see “Atoms and spectra”).


In the proposed theory, explanation of the phenomenon of quantum tunneling does not require the uncertainty principle. As presented above (see “Superconductivity”), the tunneling of the electron has the same nature as superconductivity. It is due to the lack of interaction of the tunneling electron with the nucleus and electrons between 1015 m and 1010 m from the nucleus of atom.


The Casimir effect is the attraction of electrically neutral conductors and insulators. The distance, from which the effect becomes detectable, is a few micrometers. With decreasing distance the attractive force increases in inverse proportion to the distance in power of four. In modern physics, the effect is explained by quantum fluctuations of virtual particles of the electromagnetic field. In the proposed theory, the effect can be due to density fluctuations of n=0-objects(I). The fact that the length of a n=0‑object(I), ≈ 105 m, is comparable with the distance at which the Casimir effect begins to appear (several micrometers) fits with the proposed interpretation.


The main difference between the proposed theory and the quantum theory is the deterministic character of physical phenomena and the rejection of their probabilistic nature. The uncertainty principle is not a principle of nature; at best it is a statistical description, at worst – it is a delusion. Quantization of physical quantities is a manifestation of the discreteness and finiteness of matter of our universe.

Sponsored Post Learn from the experts: Create a successful blog with our brand new courseThe Blog is excited to announce our newest offering: a course just for beginning bloggers where you’ll learn everything you need to know about blogging from the most trusted experts in the industry. We have helped millions of blogs get up and running, we know what works, and we want you to to know everything we know. This course provides all the fundamental skills and inspiration you need to get your blog started, an interactive community forum, and content updated annually.



To understand the gravitational attraction we refer back to the idea from the section “Definition of relative motion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” and n=0-objects(I)”, where the density of undirected n=0-objects(I) around n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” (i.e. electrons and positrons), ρ0,was shown to decreased. The magnitude of this decrease in density ρis determined by the following equation and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance R:

ρM = MLq0/Lq4πR2

where R – distance measured in the length of n=0-object(I), M – the number of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” placed in a three-dimensional volume of the n=0-object(I), (Lq)3.

The density gradient of undirected n=0-objects(I), which are moving relative to each other, means that electrons/positrons attract each other along the gradient, regardless of their charge (see “Definition of relative motion of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” and n=0‑objects(I)”). Accordingly, at a distance Rthe velocity Vof attraction of a body to a body consisting of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” in a three-dimensional volume of the n=0-object(I), (Lq)3, in an amount equal to Mis determined by the following equation:

V = v0ρM = v0MLq0/Lq4πR2

The velocity of attraction at the distance R – ΔR,after start of movement from the distance R,is defined by the following sum of velocities, similar to the velocity of attraction/repulsion of pairs of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”:

                             R − ΔR

V = (v0MLq0/Lq4π) Σ R−2


where R − ΔR and R are distances measured by the length of n=0‑object(I), M– the number of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” placed in a three-dimensional volume of the n=0-object(I), (Lq)3.

Based on the above, we can then calculate the density ρfor the physical body, composed of atoms and having a linear size equal to the length of n=0-object(I), i.e. ≈ 10-5 m. The number of atoms (linear size of the atom ≈ 10-10 m) in the volume of ≈ (10-5)3 m is equal to (10-5)3/(10-10)3 ≈ 1015. Each atom contains on average 100 to 1000 electrons and positrons. Thus, the entire amount of the electrons and positrons in a volume of ≈ (10-5)3 mis equal to about 1017 – 1018. To displace one n=0-object(I), the number of electrons/positrons must be equal to the ratio Lq/Lq0 – 10-5/10-15≈ 1010. Then, to calculate the decrease in density ρMwe have the following equation:

ρM = 101810−15/10−54πR= 108/4πR2

where R is distance measured in the length of n=0‑object(I), Lq,

Next, we consider a physical body composed of atoms and having a linear size greater than the length of n=0-object(I), ≈ 10-5 m. This body can be represented as a sum of bodies whose linear dimensions are equal to the length of the n=0-object(I), ≈ 10-5 m. For each of these parts, a decrease in density of n=0-objects(I) ρMis defined not only by the number of electrons and positrons in the volume of this part, but also by the presence of electrons and positrons in neighboring parts of the body. However, the decreasing effect of adjacent parts is small since it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. If the number of the electrons and positrons is the same in each part of the body (i.e. in the each volume of n=0‑object(I), ≈ (10-5)3 m3), then for the approximate calculation of a decrease in density of n=0-objects(I)ρMwe can use the entire length of this physical body as distance unit instead of the length of n=0-object(I). I.e. in the equation above the distance R can be measured in units equal to the linear size of the body. For accurate calculation, it is necessary to sum up the reducing effects on density of n=0-objects(I) ρMfrom the adjacent parts having a volume of n=0-object(I), ≈ (10-5)3 m3.

Analogously as in the case of electrostatic interaction, the gravitational force has an upper bound, i.e. a maximum distance of the gravitational attraction, Rmax.This distance corresponds to the minimum change in density equal to a single n=0-object(I). The lower boundary, i.e. the minimum distance of the gravitational attraction, Rmin, corresponds to the length of an n=0-object(II)”-“, “+”. The maximum distance of the gravitational attraction, generated by physical body consisting of atoms, can be calculated as follows. The decrease of density, ρM, for such a body can be considered the same all along the linear size of a body – ρM = 108/4πR2. Then, a linear body size LXcan be used as the unit of length to measure the distance R. This approximation is a minimum estimate of the decrease of density, ρM. From the equality of the density ρMto one (1 = 108/4πR2),the maximum distance Rmax is the square root of 108/8π, √(108/8π). As an example, we can determine the maximum boundary of gravitational attraction for the Earth, Jupiter and the Sun. For the Earth, the unit of length R is the Earth’s diameter, ≈ 107 m. A calculation for the Earth gives a gravitational boundary of about 10 million kilometers, ≈ √(108/4π)х107 ≈ 103х107 m,which is about 14 times smaller than the distance from the Earth to the Sun (Fig. 22). For Jupiter, with a diameter 10 times larger than the Earth, the border will be about 100 million kilometers, ≈ √(108/4π)х108 ≈ 103х108 m, which is about 7 times less than the distance from Jupiter to the Sun. The value of the decrease in density of n=0-objects(I), ρM , for the Sun, ρSun ,is different from that of a planet composed by atoms. In the section below, which discusses star formation, it was assumed that stars are composed of densely packed electrons and positrons, the same as atomic nuclei. This implies that the volume of n=0-object(I) contains the number of electron/positron equal to the ratio – (Lq)3/(Lq0)3 = (10-5)3/(10-15)3 = 1030. From the above, to displace one n=0-object(I) the volume of n=0-object(I) must contain the number of electrons/positrons equal to the ratio Lq/Lq0, 10-5/10-15 ≈ 1010. Accordingly, the decrease of the density of n=0-objects(I), ρM , can be up to 1020. Since today the density of n=0‑objects(I), ρ0, is equal to ≈ 1010, it is reduced by the electrons/positrons of the Sun up to one n=0-object(I). I.e. for the stars today all n=0-objects(I) are displaced by electrons and positrons, and a decrease in density of n=0-objects(I), ρM , is equal to 1010. From the equation 1 = ρM/8πR2, the maximum distance Rmax, in units of Sun diameters (109 m), is the square root of 1010/8π, i.e. ≈ 10Sun diameters, or 1013 meters (Fig. 22). This is comparable with the distance from the Sun to the Kuiper belt.


Fig. 22

If the distance between two bodies having masses of Mand N(where the masses are expressed as the amounts of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” (electrons, positrons)), is less than the maximum distance of the gravitational attraction, then the velocity of gravitational attraction is proportional to the product of the masses:

                                 R − ΔR

V = (v0MNLq0/Lq4π) ΣR−2


where R − ΔR and R are distances measured by the length of n=0‑object(I), Lq; M and N – the numbers of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” comprising the two bodies M and N.

Since gravity has boundary in the proposed model, the formation of galaxies is different and is not a result of gravitational contraction of the hydrogen masses (see section “Cosmology”).

Similar to the attraction shown between bodies (composed by electrons and positrons), non-zero-dimensional objects, like electromagnetic quanta (n=1-objects), will also be attracted by bodies consisted of electrons and positrons, as a result of the movement of undirected n=0‑objects(I) having density gradient created by bodies.

As described in the section “Electrostatics”, changes in the electrostatic field of moving charges does not act with the velocity of interaction, but instantly. This is because the velocity of attraction/repulsion of charges is determined by the spatial distribution of density of directed n=0-objects(I) between them, and follows an inverse square law. An inverse square law applies also for gravitational interactions, but there are some differences. In the case of charge interactions, the density of undirected n=0‑objects(I), ρ0, determining the density of directed n=0‑objects(I), is constant with the motion of charges. In the case of gravity, the density of the undirected n=0-objects(I), which determines the interaction, is the density ρMof undirected n=0‑objects(I) replaced by the gravitating body. The process of displacement is not instantaneous, but occurs at a velocity that depends on the initial density of undirected n=0‑objects(I)ρ0, and is comparable to the speed of light. Accordingly, a moving body displaces the undirected n=0-objects(I) from the body volume at velocity v0ρ0, and, consequently, there is a time delay in changing the gravitational attraction of the moving body. In another case, when one body is at a resting state and the other is moving, the resting body acts on the moving body instantly. The consequence of this mechanism of gravitation is that when a body moves faster than v0ρ0, the undirected n=0‑objects(I) will not be replaced by this body. The moving body will leave the area earlier than the n=0‑objects(I). As a result, the body moving at such a speed does not generate gravity. This relationship can be expressed in terms of the effective gravitational mass, Meffective, and resting mass, M, as follows: Meffective = M(1 − V/v0ρ0). If a body revolves around another body, the effective gravitational mass, Meffective, of a rotating body is: Meffective = M√(1 − V2/(v0ρ0)2).

A consequence of the proposed mechanism of gravitation, which is based on the change in density ρ0, is a change of the charge of an electron in a gravitational field, since the elementary charge is determined by the density of undirected n=0-objects(I), ρ0. The increase of density ρM(increase of gravity) corresponds to a decrease in ρ0, i.e. a decrease of the elementary charge. In the suggested theory, the observed gravitational redshift can be explained by a decrease in the density ρ0, since, according to the equation for the generated quantum (see “Secondary formation of n≠0-objects“), its wavelength is inversely proportional to the density ρ0.

λ = 1L = Lv1q03/4πρ0((1/n2) − (1/m2))

The closer generating atoms are to a massive body, the lower is the density ρand, consequently, the longer the wavelength and the greater the shift of the observed spectral lines to the red region of the spectrum. From experimental data for light emitted at a distance rfrom a massive body (and received at infinity), the shift is approximately equal to:

zapprox = GM/c2r

where zapprox– the shift of spectral lines under the influence of gravity (as measured by an observer at infinity), G – Newton’s gravitational constant, M – mass of the gravitating body, c – the speed of light, r – the radial distance from the center of the source body.

Another consequence of the proposed mechanism of gravitation is the existence of so-called black holes. By definition, a black hole is a region in space, which cannot emit light quanta due to the strong gravitational attraction. In the suggested theory, this is possible because of the reduction in density of undirected n=0‑objects(I), ρ0, from 1010 down to 1. This means that the velocity of gravitational attraction, v0ρ0, will be greater than the speed of light. As noted above, the decrease in density of undirected n=0-objects(I) by 1010 times is typical for all stars, including the Sun. Thus, the velocity of Sun gravity is greater than the speed of light, and therefore we can say that Sun has a black hole inside. In addition, since the density of n=0‑objects(I) inside the Sun is minimal, i.e. equal to 1 (n=0-objects(I) are displaced by electrons/positrons) inside the Sun, the generation of electromagnetic rays is not possible, since the change in the density of n=0‑objects(I) is less than 1is not possible. The same is valid for all the stars. This follows from the equation for generated electromagnetic quanta, n=1-objects:

λ = 1L = Lv1q03/4πρ0((1/n2) − (1/m2))

Therefore, stars are cold inside. Radiation occurs only at the surface, since there the density of n=0-objects(I) is greater than one.


In the suggested theory, the cause of gravitational attraction is due to the presence of the density gradient of the vacuum particle (undirected n=0‑objects(I)). It is formed around the body because of the three-dimensional density distribution of the displaced vacuum particles from the volume of the gravitating body. As a result, a body will move along this density gradient of the vacuum particles towards the gravitating body. Thus, as in general relativity, the underlying basis of gravity is geometric, the existence of three-dimensional space. Unlike general relativity, the suggested theory posits that the various gravitational effects are explained not by time dilation, but by a change of density (about general relativity, see below) of the vacuum particles (undirected n=0-objects(I)) in three-dimensional Euclidean space.

In contrast to existing theories of gravitation, which describe interactions over unlimited distances, the proposed theory of gravitational attraction has a maximal boundary defined by the mass. Because of this, the gravitational interaction should be redefined as the gravitational attraction. If a body of greater mass can attract a body of lower mass, the body of lower mass may not be able to act on a body of greater mass if the latter body is far from the maximal boundary of gravity of the body of lower mass.

As described above, the electric charge is determined by the density of undirected n=0-objects(I), ρ0. The increase of density ρM(increase of gravity) corresponds to a decrease in ρ0, i.e. a decrease of the elementary charge. This means that magnetic interaction depends on the gravitational potential, i.e. it should be weaker at Earth surface than at the distance from it.



In a uniform electric field, an electron/positron will be deflected by electrostatic interactions described in “Electrostatics”. In a uniform magnetic field, the deviation of charged particles will take place in accordance with the Lorentz force. This is an attraction/repulsion of the electron as a result of the relative motion of the directed n=0-objects(I) that comprise the magnetic field lines of density ρΔ.In figure 20, magnetic fields are created by two oppositely directed currents; by the current of the moving electrons, and by the current generating the external magnetic field in solenoid. Since the n=0‑objects(I) of these fields are oppositely directed, electrons will be deflected up as a result of repulsion of these magnetic fields. This is consistent with the known results for the electrons having such a velocity, v, and the direction of magnetic induction, B. In the case of positivelycharged particles, the n=0‑objects(I) of magnetic fields are collinear and the particles will move in the opposite direction.


Fig. 20

According to modern physics, the Lorentz force does not do the work because the magnetic induction vector Bis directed perpendicular rather than along the particle trajectory. In the proposed theory, the magnetic induction vector is expressed through the vector Ei(B = rotEi) Accordingly, the Lorentz force does work on the deflection of a charged particle, since the vector Ei ρΔ of the magnetic field that defines the repulsion/attraction is not perpendicular, but is directed along the particle trajectory.

It is known that the deflection of charged particles in electric and magnetic fields is dependent upon their velocity. In the experiments conducted by Walter Kaufmann, electrons of differing velocity were transmitted simultaneously through the transverse electric and magnetic fields (Fig. 21).


Fig. 21

It was found that with increasing velocity of electrons, their acceleration was less than expected, and the deflection is determined in accordance with the formula:

z2 = (eB2 l2√(1 − v2/c2))y/2c2Eme

where z and y – the deflection along the axes of the same name, and  the electric field and the magnetic induction, v – velocity of the electron, l – distance to the screen, m– mass of the electron, e – electric charge of the electron, c – the speed of light.

The observed reduction of acceleration was proposed to be because of increased electron mass m, according the equation: m = me/√(1 − v2/c2). In the suggested theory, the reduction of acceleration is not connected with a mass increase, but with the same decrease of the electron charge. The electron charge, e, is determined by the density on undirected n=0‑objects(I), e = ρ0. It corresponds to the maximum velocity of interaction between the electrons, v0ρ0. If one of the two electrons (n=0-objects(II)”−”) has velocity, v, perpendicular to the velocity of their repulsion, their total velocity relative to each other is determined by the following equation (see “Definition of the relative motion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” of different types”):

VΣ = v0ρΣ/4πR2 = v0ρ0(√(1 − v2/(v0ρ0)2))/4πR2

where ρΣ = ρ0√(1 − v2/(v0ρ0)2).

This implies that the charge of electron, e= ρΣ, moving perpendicular to the direction of attraction/repulsion with the velocity, v, is determined by the following equation:

ev = e√(1 − v2/(v0ρ0)2)

where v0ρ0 ≈ c,e = ρ0,e= ρΣ

This dependence is present in the Kaufmann equation.

Charged particles moving at relativistic velocities along trajectories curved by a magnetic field will emit electromagnetic radiation – synchrotron radiation. In the suggested theory, the cause of this radiation is the same as in the case of atomic emission – the decrease in density of directed n=0‑objects(I). In contrast to atoms, where the density decrease is due to electrostatic attraction at a distance between ≈ 105 m to ≈ 1010 m, in this case the reduction occurs as a result of directional changes of moving electrons/positrons. As mentioned above, moving electrons/positrons generate an excess of directed n=0-objects(I) in front of them, due to the fact that the moving electrons/positrons displace n=0‑objects(I) from the space they occupied. If electrons/positrons change their direction of motion, the excess of directed n=0-objects(I) from the previous direction will turn to n=1-objects. The reason for the direction change is the action of the magnetic field, the Lorentz force. Therefore, one can say that the work of the Lorentz force to change the direction of moving electrons/positrons leads to the emission. When particles are moving with nonrelativistic velocities along circular or spiral trajectories in a magnetic field, the emission of electromagnetic rays is called cyclotron radiation.



In the proposed theory, phenomena related to this branch of physics can be described as follows.


The absorption of lightis the absorption of n=1-objects (i.e. photons, electromagnetic quanta) by n=0-objects(II)”−” i.e. by the electrons. In modern physics, a free electron cannot absorb a photon, only electron within atoms can do this, since in this case the laws of conservation of energy and momentum cannot be true simultaneously for free electron. Namely, if an electron in state 1 has energy Eand momentum p1, and after absorbing a photon, the electron is in state 2, with energy Eand momentum p2, then the balance of the transition from state 1 to state 2 after the absorption of a photon of energy hωand momentum hω/c is as follows:

the energy is E2 − E1 = hω = meve2/2

the momentum is p2 − p1 = hω/c = meve

These equations are not compatible with each other for any possible velocity of the free electron, because its velocity will always be less than the speed of light, but from the equations it must be equal to the double speed of light.

((hω)/(hω/c)) = ((meve2/2)/(meve)) or  c = ve/2

In the suggested theory, the photon has no momentum (hω/c), and therefore the analysis presented above cannot be applied. The photon can be absorbed by a free electron or by an electron as a part of an atom. Absorption of an n=1-object by an electron increases its velocity in the direction of the n=1-object. In this scheme, energy is conserved since the electron kinetic energy increases by an amount determined by the characteristics of the photon, and the direction of motion is also preserved since the electron increases its speed in the direction of the photon. The increase in electron velocity can be calculated as follows. After absorption of a photon of wavelength λ, the velocity of the electron will increase by pv0. vis the absolute velocity unit ≈ 102 m/s, and pis determined according to the equation from the section “Definition of the motion of n≠0-objects relative to n=0‑objects(II)”−” ”:

p = Lqv1

where Lqv1 = 1 is measured in absolute units of length, ≈ 105 meters.

Accordingly, if λ are expressed in meters, the pvin meters per second is:

pv0 = (105/λ)102


The reflection of lightis the result of collision of n=1‑objects (i.e. photons, electromagnetic quanta) with n=0‑objects(II)”+” i.e., with the positrons of atomic nuclei. If, in the collision with n=0-object(II)”−”, n=1‑objects move toward its center, and are absorbed by it, a collision of n=1‑objects with n=0‑object(II)”+” represents the symmetric case of movement of n=1‑objects from the center of n=0-object(II)”+”, i.e. the reflection of n=1-objects by n=0-object(II)”+”. The electromagnetic quantum has no momentum and its reflection will not change the position and velocity of the positron. Momentum is characteristic only for n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” (electrons and positrons). The energy of a photon will also not be changed, only its direction will be reversed relative to the center of the positron.


The interference of lightis explained as follows. Movement of n=1‑objects towards a certain place will increase the total density of objects there, along the length of the n=1‑objects. A similar increase in total density occurs in the case of the motion of electrons (n=0-objects(II)”−”), leading to the generation of magnetic field characterized by a density ρΔ of n=0‑objects(I). From this place of increased density, n=0-objects(I) will move in to align to the density ρ0. The propagation velocity of density fluctuations, respectively, is determined by the density ρof n=0‑objects(I). In the suggested theory, this velocity is close but slightly more than the speed of light. In the case of two groups of n=1‑objects having the same lengths and a constant phase difference, i.e. coherent electromagnetic radiation, the propagating density fluctuations of the n=0-objects(I) from two groups of n=1‑objects will be coherent and interfere. The greater number of the n=1‑objects in each group, the lower the density of n=0-objects(I). In an interference pattern, the maximum of the density n=0-objects(I) will be in the presence of the minimum number of n=1-objects, and vice versa. The suggested interpretation is partially consistent with the concept of the ether. The propagation of light as n=1‑objects leads to the spread of the density fluctuations of n=0‑objects(I) in the ether; a medium consisting of n=0‑objects(I) (i.e. a vacuum composed of n=0-objects(I)). As mentioned above, n=1-objects are not waves. The wave behavior of n=1-objects is a reflection of the wave processes that occur in a vacuum composed of n=0‑objects(I). It is a reaction of n=0‑objects(I) to the motion of n=1‑objects. Since changes in the density of n=0-objects(I) also occur when electrons and positrons are in motion (n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”), interference will also be observed for these particles, and for their complexes, such as protons, neutrons and atoms.


The diffraction of lightis a consequence of the interaction of secondary (reverse) waves of the n=0-objects(I), that emerge as a result of the reflection of primary waves from an obstacle. These primary waves are generated by the motion of n=1-objects (as in the case of electrons and positrons). Accordingly, diffraction can be explained as follows. A wave in the medium of n=0-objects(I), caused by the motion of a photon (or other particles), will be reflected from an obstacle, and the reverse, secondary wave will interfere with the primary wave, so changing the space of n=0‑objects(I) and changing the direction of motion of the photon in this space. The speed of waves of n=0-objects(I) is determined by the density of n=0‑objects(I) ρ0and is greater than the speed of light.


Light pressure, as demonstrated in the Lebedev’s experiments, is due to the absorption of n=1-objects by n=0‑objects(II)”−” (electrons) within atoms. Absorption increases the velocity of electrons in the direction of the absorbed photons. This means that in the suggested interpretation there is no redistribution of momentum between photons and the target. A photon, as an n=1‑object, has no momentum. Only n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”, electrons and positrons, have momentum.


Light scatteringis due to a change in direction of n=1‑objects as a result of their reflection from n=0-objects(II)”+” (positrons) of atomic nuclei. This is true if the scattering refers only to the transformation of the angular distribution of light flux. If there is a change in frequency of photon, then the absorption of n=1-objects by electrons and the secondary generation n=1-objects has occurred. Again, since n=1-objects do not have momentum, their reflection will not change the speed of n=0‑objects(II)”+” (positrons).


Polarizationcorresponds to the motion of n=1-objects in a preferred direction. For example, photons, as n=1-objects, can be placed in the same plane by passage through a polarizing filter. This corresponds to a plane-wave and is defined as linear polarization. Such an orientation of n=1-objects is likely to result from their reflection from nuclei that are arranged into a certain atomic lattice. In the case of circular polarization, reflected n=1-objects probably form a tube or a cylinder.


The photoelectric effectis the emission of electrons from a substance illuminated by electromagnetic radiation, i.e. it is the process where electrons within atoms absorb photons and are then ejected from atoms. In the suggested theory, orbital electrons of atoms can absorb n=1‑objects, so increasing their velocity sufficiently to allow them to leave the atom.


Phototransmutation (photodisintegration)occurs in result of the absorption of gamma rays by electrons in the nuclei of atoms, which causes the disintegration of the nuclei with the emission of neutrons, protons, and electrons. According to the equation above, in paragraph “Absorption of light”, the absorption of gamma rays (≈ 1015 m) causes an increase of the electron velocity by an amount comparable to the speed of light ≈ 108 m/s. Accordingly, electrons and positrons comprising atomic nuclei can overcome the maximum velocity of attraction to nuclei, which occurs at a distance of ≈ 105 m and is of comparable magnitude (see “Atoms and spectra”, “Atomic nucleus”). They can then leave the atom.


The Compton effectis the inelastic scattering of electromagnetic quanta by free electrons, accompanied by an increase in the wavelength of the scattered radiation. Part of the energy of the photons is transferred to a scattering electron. The effect is observed for short wavelengths of quanta – X-rays and gamma rays. In the suggested theory, the photon does not transfer momentum to the free electron. The photon is absorbed by an electron, and that increases its velocity in the direction of the photon movement. For X-rays and gamma rays, this increase is comparable to the speed of light ≈ 108 m/s. Such an electron, that has absorbed gamma ray, corresponds to the scattering electron. It will lose speed in interactions with its surrounding electrons. Secondary radiation from such a slow electron will have a wavelength longer than the original radiation. The secondary radiation corresponds to the scattered radiation of the Compton effect. If the electron absorbs a photon having a wavelength greater than the X-ray or gamma radiation, the velocity of the electron will be lower and, therefore, lower the speed difference between this electron and the surrounding electrons. Accordingly, the energy loss will be smaller and the Compton effect will not be so prominent above background radiation.


Photoluminescenceis a process in which a substance absorbs photons and then re-radiates photons. In the suggested theory, this process corresponds to the generation of secondary n=1-objects after the absorption of the primary n=1-objects by electrons.


In modern physics, there are longitudinal and transverse Doppler effects.

First, we will consider the longitudinal effect. If a receiver is moving away from a light source at a speed V, the formal velocity of the emitted n=1-object (quantum) becomes equal to (c − V)relative the receiver, i.e. the velocity is decreased by a factor 1/(1 − V/c). If the receiver approaches the light source at a speed V, the velocity of the emitted n=1-objects becomes equal to (c + V), i.e. the velocity increases by a factor (1 + V/c). However, in the suggested theory, the velocity of n=1‑objects is constant relative to n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” (electrons/positrons), i.e. relative to the receiver. To keep the velocity constant, the length of n=1-objects should be changed by the same factor, but in the opposite direction. This means that the wavelength of received quanta, l’,(on the receiver) will be equal to the wavelength, l, (from the emitter) increased in the first case and decreased in the second.

l’ = l(1/(1 − V/c)).                 l’ = l(1/(1 + V/c))

Accordingly, on the basis of a constant velocity c = v1, the frequency of received quanta, ν’, can be expressed as follows:

l’ = с/ν’ = c/ν(1 − V/c)                l’ = с/ν’ = c/ν(1 + V/c)

ν’ = ν(1 − V/c)                             ν’ = ν(1 + V/c)

These equations are inconsistent with the classical ones for waves in a medium (wherecis the speed of wave propagation in the medium), when there is a stationary receiver and a moving source (ν’ = ν/(1 − V/c) and ν’ = ν/(1 + V/c)). At the same time, they correspond to the case of the stationary source and moving receiver (ν’ = ν(1 − V/c) and ν’ = ν(1 + V/c)). When compared with the STR, the proposed equations are in agreement with the approximation in STR for low velocities:

ν’ = ν √(1 − V/c)/√(1 + V/c) = ν√(с − V)2/√(c2 – V2) ≈ ν (1 − V/c)

ν’ = ν √(1 + V/c)/√(1 − V/c) = ν√(с + V)2/√(c2 – V2) ≈ ν (1 + V/c)

The exact equations for the longitudinal Doppler effect in STR, not the approximations used for low velocities, do not coincide with the equations of the proposed theory. In STR, the factor √(1 − v2/c2) from the time dilation equation, dt’ = dt/√(1 − v2/c2), is used. Here, it should be noted that the use of this factor leads to inconsistence of initial conditions. On the one hand, the longitudinal Doppler effect assumes velocities of vand cthat are codirected. On the other hand, the same velocities, cand v, are not on the same line according to the factor √(1 − v2/c2), implying that cand vare the hypotenuse and cathetus of a right angled triangle. From this reason, we consider the exact equations for the longitudinal Doppler effect in the STR to be incorrect. Supporters of the STR argue for the legitimacy of using the factor √(1 − v2/c2) from Minkowski geometry, where it can be obtained from the constancy of the square of the interval, ds2 = ds’ (where ds’ 2 = c2dt’ 2and ds2 = c2dt2 − dl2) for all inertial frames of reference, independently of the direction of the velocities as follows:

c2dt’ 2 = c2dt− dl2

c2dt’ 2 = (c− v2)dt2

dt’ = √(1 − v2/c2)dt

The flaw in this argument is that Minkowski geometry preserves the orthogonality of Euclidean geometry, and introduces the 4-th coordinate, c2dt2, in such a way that the spatial component dlcan not be co-directed to the time component cdt,since the equation ds2 = c2dt2 − dl2, expressing the algebraic dependence of ds, cdt and dl is characteristic of a right triangle with legs dsand dl, and hypotenuse cdt.This dependence is expressed in the factor √(1 − v2/c2), and brings us to the already mentioned internal contradiction in the equation for the longitudinal Doppler effect in the STR.

As shown below, for the same velocity V,the frequency ν’is less in the proposed theory than the corresponding frequency ν’given by SRT.

SRT h-space theory
ν’ = ν√(с − V)2/√(c2 – V2)  ν’ = ν(1 − V/c) = ν√(с − V)2/√c2
ν’ = ν√(с + V)2/√(c2 – V2)  ν’ = ν(1 + V/c) = ν√(с + V)2/√c2

This means that for the same redshift, the velocity V, defined by this redshift in the proposed theory, is less than the velocity Vin the SRT. This is true for the velocity Vcomparable to the speed of light, since only in this case the denominator √(c2 – V2) is substantially smaller than √c2.

In the case of the transverse Doppler effect, there is no difference between the STR and the proposed theory. In the h‑space theory, a formal change of the velocity of n=1-objects can be calculated according to the Pythagorean theorem. Let the light source move in a circle, centered on the receiver. We then have a right triangle of velocities, with one of the legs being equal to the linear velocity vof the light source, and directed at right angles to the next leg, which is equal to the velocity VΣ– from the moving source to receiver in the center of the circle. The hypotenuse of a triangle is equal to this maximum speed, i.e. to the speed of light. Accordingly, the velocity VΣis determined as follows:

VΣ = √(c2 − v2) = c√(1 − v2/c2)

As in the case of the longitudinal effect, wavelength is changed in the opposite direction by a formal change of velocity:

l’ = l/√(1 − v2/c2)

Accordingly, the following equation coincides with equation for the transverse Doppler effect in the STR.

c/ν’ = c/ν √(1 − v2/c2)    or    ν’ = ν √(1 − v2/c2)


The mechanism of the reflection of light in modern physics is different from the proposed one, since the reflected photons in the theory are the same as the incident photons, but with changed direction as a result of collision with positrons within nuclei. In modern physics, the reflected photons are new, secondary photons.



In the suggested theory, electromagnetic waves or quanta of electromagnetic fields correspond to n=1-objects. In contrast to the electromagnetic waves, n=1-objects are not defined in terms of electric and magnetic fields. Nevertheless, the lengths of n=1‑objects depend on the electromagnetic field characteristics, because these characteristics reflect the values of n=0-objects(I) density. I.e. the emission of quanta of the electromagnetic field, i.e. n=1-objects, is caused by a decrease in the density of directed n=0‑objects(I) when the electron (n=0-object(II)”−”) transits from the remote orbit to the near position relative to the nucleus (see below, where synchrotron radiation is described as another example of the generation of n=1-objects). The lengths of the generated n=1-objects (lengths of “electromagnetic waves”) are determined by the difference in the densities of directed n=0‑objects(I) corresponding to these positions. In the reverse process, where n=1-objects are absorbed by electrons (n=0‑objects(II)”−”), the density of directed n=0-objects(I) is increased and the electrons increase their velocity. Thus, a complete picture of the emission and absorption of n=1-objects by electrons is as follows. Initially, the change of magnetic field will change the velocity of free conduction electrons in the emitter. Due to the interaction of these electrons and the nuclei of atoms, the transfer of electrons from orbit to orbit will result in the generation of n=1-objects. Further, the emitted n=1‑objects can be absorbed by electrons of the receiver. This means generation of an electric current and, consequently, generation of the magnetic field. Thus, n=1‑object functions as a carrier, “delivering” the velocity of electrons from the emitter to the receiver.

In modern physics, light is an electromagnetic wave. The quantitative equality of speed of light and the constant cin the Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic waves is considered as a confirmation of their identity. In the suggested theory, the speed of light and constant сare not identical, and they correspond to different phenomena. The constant сis used for normalization in the equations of electrodynamics in the CGS metric system of physical units. For example, in the equation for the Lorentz force (and similarly in the equation of Ampere’s law).

F = (q/c)[vrotB]

According to the Lorentz equation, the effect of a magnetic field on a moving electron is inversely proportional to the constant c. This inverse dependence is consistent with the definition of the constant cas velocity v0ρ0, since the more the electron velocityvrelative to the velocity v0ρ0, the more n=0‑objects(I) are displaced, and the density ρΔ is higher that causes stronger magnetic field and attraction/repulsion. It is only coincident that the value of the velocity defined by the density ρ0, v0ρ0, is equal to the known value of the constant с. The speed of light corresponds to the speed of n=1-objects, but not to the velocity of n=0-objects(I), v0ρ0.

In classical electrodynamics the electrostatic and magnetic interactions, as well as electromagnetic waves, are described by Maxwell’s equations system:

rot= − dB/dt (1)
div= 0 (2)
rotj + dD/dt (or rot= μμj + μμ0εε0dE/dt) (3)
div= ρ (or div= ρ/εε0) (4)

where – the electric current density, dD/dt – the density of the displacement current, ρ – volume charge density, B = μμ0H, = εε0E.

In the proposed theory, Maxwell equations can also be used to describe the electric and magnetic phenomena, but not electromagnetic waves. In this case however, one of the equations must be changed, namely, the characteristic of the displacement current, dD/dt, must be removed. Maxwell used this component of the equation to get the equations for the electromagnetic wave in the ether. He assumed that in the ether as a dielectric, a displacement current density is possible and would be determined by the change of the electric field dD/dt. As a result, the total current equal to the sum of conduction current and displacement current was introduced. The interactions of charges and currents could then be combined into the so-called electromagnetic waves, presenting them as waves propagating in the ether, and where electric and magnetic fields induce each other. After Maxwell, the concept of the ether was replaced by that of the vacuum, but dD/dtremained in the existing definition of electromagnetic waves. Since a current cannot exist in the vacuum, including a displacement current, the changing electric field, dD/dt, that formerly defined the displacement current, was considered to be able to induce a magnetic field without the charge current. It was assumed that the electric field induces a magnetic field and vice versa, thereby creating an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum instead of in the ether. If we remove dD/dt, the wave equation for the neutral conductor (i.e. if ρ = 0 in equation (4)) is equivalent to the equation attributed to the electromagnetic wave. For the vacuum, as a non-conductive medium (i.e. when ρ = 0 in equation (4) and j = 0 in equation (3)), if the displacement current, dD/dt, is removed from equation (3), the equation of electromagnetic waves cannot be written, since the right side of equation (3) will be zero. Without dD/dt, and taking into account B = rotEi, the modified Maxwell’s equations can be written as follows:

rot= − d(rotEi)/dt or   E = − dEi/dt (1)
div(rotEi) = 0 (2)
rot(rotEi) = μμj (3)
div= ρ/εε0 (4)

Next, we can use the definitions of the volume charge density, ρ=dq/dV, and the electric current density, j = vdq/dV (v is the velocity of the charge q, V is the volume):

= − dEi/dt (1)
div(rotEi) = 0 (2)
rot(rotEi) = μμvdq/dV (3)
div= dq/εε0dV (4)

Then, we can redefine these equations by substitution of the vector Eand vector for the density of n=0-objects(I) ρΔ and ρE, respectively. To do this, we use the expression for the charge q, q = kρ(where kcorresponds to the number of electrons), as well as the proposed equations above for and Ei, ρand Ei ρΔ. We then have the following modified Maxwell’s equations, in which the parameters of the magnetic (vector Ei) and electric (vector E) fields are expressed in terms of density of n=0‑objects(I) ρE, ρand ρΔ :

ρE = −dρΔ/dt (1)
div(rotρΔ) = 0 (2)
rot(rotρΔ) = μμvdkρ0/dV (3)
divρE = dkρ0/εε0dV (4)

The relationship between the densities ρE, ρ0, and ρΔ can also be expressed through the Biot-Savart law for the current in a conductor dl, at the distance R from it, and for the angle α between the vectors dl and R, as follows:

d(rotρΔ) = μμ0dl sinα dkρ0/4πR2dt  or  d(rotρΔ) = μμ0dl sinα dρE/dt

When we combine the first and fourth equation, the following equation can be written:

− d(divρΔ)/dt = dkρ0/εε0dV

According to this equation we can say that during electromagnetic induction there is a change of magnetic flux, reflecting a change in the density of directed n=0-objects(I) ρΔ– d(divρΔ)/dt. This change is accompanied by an opposite change in the density ρof undirectedn=0‑objects(I) – dkρ0/εε0dV per volume unit, causing an opposite change in the density of directed n=0-objects(I) ρof the electrostatic field. According to the third equation, the density of directed n=0-objects(I) ρΔ is generated only if there is a current, i.e. a motion of electrons (positrons). The lines composed by n=0‑objects(I) of density ρΔ are closed. This is presented in figures 5 and 15, and is expressed by the second equation.

The proposed modifications of Maxwell’s equations, described in the terms of n=0-objects(I) density, ρE, ρ0, and ρΔ, reflects interdependence of electric and magnetic fields, without taking into account the generation of electromagnetic quanta, n=1‑objects. If the generation of n=1‑objects takes place, then this should mean a change of the density of directed n=0‑objects(I) according to the following equation:

1L = Lq0v1/4πρ0((1/n2) − (1/m2))

In this case, the displacement current, dD/dt, can be expressed in terms of the density of directed n=0-objects(I) – εε0dρE/dt, and that means a definition of the changes in the density of directed n=0-objects(I) in time. In other words, when Maxwell added the displacement current, dD/dt, in his system of equations, he actually defined by this a generation of the n=1-objects, in addition to the definitions of the electric and magnetic fields.


In contrast to existing theories, the model of light in the proposed theory does not have electrical and magnetic characteristics, i.e. electromagnetic quanta are not the particles or waves of the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic quantum is an object of one-dimensional space, an n=1‑object, while the electric and magnetic fields are composed of n=0‑objects(I), objects of zero-dimensional space, the vacuum. The relationship between these two is that the n=1‑objects are generated as a result of changes in the density of directed n=0-objects(I) of the vacuum, i.e. as a result of changes in the electric and magnetic fields. In other words, objects of zero-dimensional space, of the vacuum, are turned into objects of one-dimensional space. In the reverse situation, n=1‑objects can be absorbed by the electrons, n=0-objects(II)”−”, leading to a change in their velocity and consequently to a change in the electrical and magnetic characteristics of the vacuum around the electrons.


One feature of unstable atoms is the spontaneousdecay of nuclei with the emission of elementary particles or parts of the nucleus. For example, beta-radioactive elements emit electrons or positrons. It is believed that the weak interaction is responsible for radioactive decay, but the cause of spontaneous emission is not known. In the suggested theory, n=1-objects, the quanta of electromagnetic field, and n=2- and n=3-objects are generated successively during the cycle (see “Cosmology”). Also, n=1-, n=2- and n=3-objects are generated together in any process defined as electromagnetic radiation. Absorption of n=1-, n=2- and n=3-objects by electron will cause an increase in electron velocity. The velocity of n=2- and n=3-objects is greater than the velocity of n=1-objects (i.e. the speed of light) by ten and twenty orders of magnitude – 1018 m/s and 1028 m/s, respectively. Their lengths are also greater, by the same orders of magnitude. Objects with such velocities and lengths should be intensively absorbed and emitted by electrons across the whole universe. If the electrons absorbing them are within nuclei, their speed will increase and cause nuclear disintegration with the emission of electrons, positrons, or their complexes. Not all n=1‑objects, and hence n=2- and n=3-objects, can cause nuclear disintegration by this means. For example, the absorption of thermal photons during heating does not alter the rate of radioactive decay. On the other hand, nuclei can be destroyed by collisions with n=1-objects like gamma rays. n=2- and n=3-objects, respectively, that are generated together with gamma rays can also destroy atomic nuclei. In this case, the velocity of electrons that have absorbed n=1-, n=2- and n=3-objects, will be sufficient to leave the atom. This velocity is equal to the maximum velocity of attraction/repulsion of the electrons/positrons at the distance from the nucleus equal to ≈ 105meters, and is comparable to the speed of light. Since the velocities of the n=2- and n=3-objects are significantly higher than the velocity of n=1-objects, they will be absorbed faster than the n=1‑objects and thereby more often destabilize the nucleus of atoms. I.e. the nucleus can be destroyed before the n=1-objects reach them. Because of high velocity of n=2- and n=3-objects they should be evenly distributed over the entire universe. In other words, they should form the background across the universe, which is the reason of spontaneous radioactive decay. In favor of the proposed mechanism of spontaneous radioactivity is the fact that it depends on the cosmic scale processes. In particular, radioactive decay was found depend on the position relative to the Sun (Jenkins, J.H. et al., 2008 Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance arXiv:0808.3283; Jenkins, J.H. et al., 2012 Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates. arXiv:1207.5783). In the suggested mechanism, the radioactive decay also should depend on the electronic environment of the nucleus, because orbital electrons will absorb the n=1-, n=2- and n=3-objects, and thus, will shield the nucleus, so slowing the decay. This conclusion has support by the evidence that the positive ionization of radioactive atoms, i.e. removal of electrons from the electron shell, causes an increase in the rate of decay (Jung, M. et al., 1992 First observation of bound-state beta minus decay. Phys. Rev. Letts. 69: 2164; Bosch, F. et al., 1996 Observation of bound-state beta minus decay of fully ionized 187Re: 187Re–187Os Cosmochronometry. Phys. Rev. Letts 77: 5190–5193).



Electromagnetic induction is the process of generating electrical potential difference in a conductor placed in a changing magnetic field. The potential difference can generate an electric current in a closed conducting loop or in solid massive conductors (Foucault currents). To explain this phenomenon within the framework of the proposed theory, we consider two groups of electrons that are remote from each other, and within a body placed in changing magnetic field. Electrostatic repulsion of the electrons in groups, as well as their attraction to the nuclei of atoms is determined by the electrostatic field, i.e. by value of the density of directed n=0‑objects(I), ρE. Its maximum value is equal to the density of undirected n=0-objects(I), ρ0. The density of undirected n=0‑objects(I) will be changed as a result of their displacement by moving electrons/positrons generating the magnetic field. Accordingly, the density of directed n=0-objects(I), ρE, in the electrostatic field will also change (ρE = ρ0/4πR2). It will decrease with increasing current, concurrent with increasing density of displaced directed n=0-objects(I), ρΔ, of the magnetic field. In other words, the magnetic field changes are accompanied by opposite changes of the electrostatic field. Generation of the magnetic field gradient will cause the gradient in the electrostatic field, i.e. density gradient of directed n=0‑objects(I), ρE. This means that the speed of electrostatic repulsion of the electrons in the two groups is no longer the same as it was before the change of the magnetic field. In the weaker changing magnetic field, the density ρE, as well as the electron velocity, is greater than in the group of electrons with a strong changing magnetic field, where density ρis lower. As a result, the electrons from the region of weaker changing magnetic field (greater density ρE) will move into the region of stronger changing magnetic field (lower density ρE). This generates the electrical potential difference and current induction. This mechanism can also describe the phenomenon of self-induction, which occurs when a current is turned on or off. Accordingly, the change of magnetic field of the self-induction current is opposite to the changes of magnetic field of the current that caused the induction. This description corresponds to Lenz’s law when an induced current is always in such a direction as to oppose the motion or change causing it.

Given the definition of the vector of electric current Ei, the equation describing the law of electromagnetic induction (one of Maxwell’s equations) can be written as follows:

rot= − dB/dt  and  B = rotEi   => rot= − d(rotEi)/dt  or

rot= − rot(dEi/dt)  or  E= − dEi/dt

Given that ρand Ei ρΔ, the equation describing the law of electromagnetic induction can be reduced to the following expression of the densities ρand ρΔ:

ρE = − dρΔ/dt


In the suggested theory, the cause of electromagnetic induction is the same as in classical physics – change of the electrostatic field is due to change in magnetic flux. Accordingly, the self-induction phenomenon is explained by the same reason. Nevertheless, in the proposed theory there is a medium, the ether, and this medium is changing during an electromagnetic induction, rather than the exchange field composed of virtual photons responsible for electromagnetic interactions. In the suggested theory, the potential difference is possible, as in classical physics, due to a different number of electrons at the same density n=0-objects(I) ρE. In the case of the electromagnetic induction, for the same number of electrons there is the different density of n=0-objects(I) ρE, due to the change of charges move, i.e. due to the change of magnetic flux.


Superconductivity is the phenomenon of zero electrical resistance and ejection of the magnetic field from the volume of a superconductor (Meissner effect). The superconducting state occurs in certain materials when they are cooled below a characteristic temperature. In the suggested theory, this phenomenon is explained as follows. Lowering the temperature reduces the mobility of the electrons, because it reduces the number of thermal photons (n=1-objects) absorbed by the electrons. In the extreme case, in the superconducting state, the electrons are fixed relative to the atomic nuclei at a minimum distance. This distance is ≈ 1010 m and corresponds to the electron orbit of ground state of the unexcited atom. By applying an electrical potential difference to the superconductor the conduction electrons will move between the nucleus and the orbital electrons in ground state. I.e. they will be located at a distance from the nucleus, as well as from the ground state electrons, less than 1010 m. At this distance, the electrostatic attraction of conduction electrons to the nucleus and the repulsion of the electrons from each other are absent (see “Electrostatics”). Since the electrons are not moving beyond a distance of 1010meters (i.e. bigger than 1010meters), they cannot radiate n=1-objects. Accordingly, electrical current will not have any resistance.

The proposed mechanism of superconductivity can also explain quantum tunneling of electrons when they escape through an insulating layer. This represents the superconductivity of some of the electrons in the non-low temperature conditions. Due to the structural characteristics of conductors and insulators, their composition and the value of current, some electrons can fall into the same area between the nucleus and the orbital electrons of ground state (i.e. between 1015 and 1010 meters) as in the case of the superconductor. As a result, there is a current flow without loss through an insulator i.e. there is a tunneling of electrons.

Attraction or repulsion of conduction electrons in a superconductor is possible when they overlap or collide with nuclei or electrons of a superconductor atom. The velocity of this interaction is the absolute velocity unit, 102 m/s.

The Meissner effect can be explained in the proposed theory by the same reason as in classical physics. Changing the magnetic flux induces currents in the superconductor. The magnetic field of the induced currents is directed opposite to the external field. As a result, the external magnetic field is compensated by the induced field and the superconductor is expelled from the magnetic field. The magnetic flux of the external field can be changed in two ways. In one case, a magnet is moved above a superconductor. The second variant corresponds to a situation where, initially, the external field is inside the conductor. The magnet lies on the conductor. Then, the transition of the conductor to the superconducting state will be accompanied by changes of the structure of the conductor (changes in the distribution of valence electrons in atoms) and these changes will cause changes in the external field. As a result, these changes in the external field will induce an opposite current. The magnet will emerge over the superconductor.

Since in the proposed theory, electrons do not possess an intrinsic magnetic moment, we can assume that the magnetic properties of ferromagnetic materials are due not to an orientation of the magnetic moments of electrons in the direction of the external field, but rather to co-orientation of microscopic electronic currents, and not currents in atoms. These currents are likely to be located in typical ferromagnetic domains, characterized by a certain direction of the magnetic field. In a ferromagnetic, the magnetic fields of these domains are parallel. Since in the domains there is the motion of electrons, and the permanent magnets have no energy losses, we can assume that they display the phenomenon of superconductivity. This means that in the domains of the permanent magnets the electrons move along closed paths at a distance from the nearest nuclei less than 10-10m, i.e. between the orbital electrons of the atoms and their nuclei,where there is no electrostatic interaction.


In the proposed description, zero electrical resistance in the superconductor follows from the laws of electrostatic interactions at distances less than the absolute unit length ≈ 105 m, namely from the lack of electrostatic interaction in the range from ≈ 1010 m to ≈ 1015 m. This mechanism applies to both conventional superconductors and to high-temperature superconductors i.e., superconducting ceramics. This differs from existing theories, since modern physics has only the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory to explain low-temperature superconductivity and there is no theory for superconducting ceramics.




It is known that electric currents in metals represent the motion of electrons (n=0-objects(II)”−”). According to the previous section, moving n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” replace n=0-objects(I), thereby increasing the density ρ0of n=0-objects(I) ahead of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”, in the direction of motion. Forced n=0‑objects(I) will move back and compensate the reduced density of n=0‑objects(I) behind the n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+” (Fig. 5). If n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” move with a constant velocity, an equilibrium will be established when displaced n=0-objects(I) have filled the area behind the moving n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”. At the same time, in direction parallel to the motion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” the density of n=0-objects(I) will be greater than the density ρ0that existed before the motion. We will define this density excess over the value of ρas ρΔ. In the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion of the n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”, the density of n=0-objects(I) will not change, since the density increase created by the motion of one n=0‑object(II)”−”,”+” will be compensated by the decrease of another one moving in front (Fig. 18).


Fig. 18

The direction of n=0-objects(I) of density ρΔ depends on the type of moving n=0-object(II)”−”,”+”, i.e. on the sign of charge. In the section “Electrostatics” we defined the distribution of vector Eof the electric field as the distribution of density, ρE, of n=0‑objects(I) directed to or from n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”, i.e. ρE. In the case of an electric current, we will do the same, and define the density distribution of directed n=0‑objects(I), ρΔ, as the vector Ei, where iis the symbol of current (Fig. 18).  Then, Ei = ρΔ. According to the figure 18 in the case of collinear currents, n=0-objects(I) of high density occurring in the space between the n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” are collinear. This means that between the conductors the total length of co-directed n=0-objects(I) of density ρΔ, and the space they have formed will be compressed, as in the case of compression of co-directed n=0‑objects(I) between an electron (n=0‑object(II)”−”) and a positron (n=0‑object(II)”+”). Accordingly, the conductors will be attracted to each other. If the currents in conductors are opposite, then n=0-objects(I) of density ρΔ are also in opposite directions and their total length, as well as the space formed by these n=0-objects(I), will be expanded. Thus in the case of magnetic interactions, we can talk about the expansion and contraction of space of directed n=0-objects(I) of density ρΔ.

The magnetic interaction is different from the electrostatic one. Electrostatic interactions represent the expansion/contraction of space of directed n=0-objects(I), the density of which does not exceed the density of the undirected n=0-object(I), ρ0. Decrease/increase in the density of directed n=0-objects(I) is compensated by an increase/decrease in the density undirected n=0-objects(I) and, thus, the overall density of the directed and undirected n=0-objects(I) is always ρ0. In the case of the magnetic interaction, the density of directed n=0-objects(I), ρΔ, is the excess over the value of their density, ρ0. This excess density can exist only as a closed motion of the directed n=0-objects(I). Accordingly, the magnetic interaction is the change in density ρΔ,resulting in the expansion/contraction of space of directed n=0-objects(I) forming a closed line. Because of the closure, changes in the density ρΔ are not accompanied by changes of density ρ0of undirected n=0‑objects(I). At the same time, a redistribution of n=0-objects(I) between closed structures and the opened, expanding space of undirected n=0-objects(I) takes place during the generation or destruction of a magnetic field.

In modern physics, the magnetic field is characterized by the concept of magnetic induction, B. In the proposed definition of the magnetic interaction of electric currents, the direction of the magnetic induction does not match the vector Ethat we have introduced. Vector Ei, and vector are perpendicular to each other. Nevertheless, a relationship between the two vectors exists because in modern physics the magnetic induction can be expressed through the magnetic vector potential – A(B = rotA). The magnetic vector potential then has the same direction as vector Ei, describing the directed n=0-objects(I) forming lines of magnetic field. For this reason, we assume that the magnetic vector potential corresponds to the vector Ei. Earlier, the vector potential was considered only as a convenient mathematical formality, and the field formed by them was not accepted as feasible. However, its reality was confirmed later in experiments detecting the Ehrenberg–Siday–Aharonov–Bohm effect predicted by W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday (1949), and Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm (1959). According to our definition, the magnetic vector potential is real because it describes the directed n=0-objects(I) formed by an electric current (movement of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”). In order to describe magnetic interactions and to modify the Maxwell equations we will use the following equation: B = rotEi. Given that Ei ρΔ, this equation can also be written as B = rotρΔ.

The velocity of magnetic attraction/repulsion will increase with the increase of density ρΔ.The density ρΔ depends on several parameters. First, ρΔwill increase with increasing charge (the amount of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”), because more n=0-objects(I) will be displaced. Secondly, ρΔ will increase with the velocity of moving n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”. In the extreme case, when the velocity of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” reaches the maximum defined by density of displaced n=0-objects(I) ρ0, an increase of the magnetic field will be maximal and will not change with further increases in the speed of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”. In other words, when electrons are accelerated beyond the speed of light (note that v0ρ0is comparable to the speed of light), the magnetic field will reach its maximum, after which it will not change further. I.e. if the velocity of the charge is initially higher the relative velocity of displaced n=0-objects(I), v0ρ(i.e. above the speed of light), then n=0-objects(I) can not be displaced, since n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” will be faster than n=0-objects(I). As a result, a magnetic field will not be generated, and there will not be the typical “flow” of displaced n=0‑objects(I) around moving n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”.

According to the Biot-Savart law, the modulus of vector dof the current I in a conductor, dl, at the distance R from it, and for the angle α between the vectors dl and R, is defined as follows:

dB = μμdl I sinα/4πR2

Taking into account that: (a) the current is equal to the charge dq per unit of time dt, I = dq/dt, (b) the charge q can be expressed as the product of a variable k (corresponding to number of electrons) and the density of n=0‑objects(I) ρ0, q = kρ0, then the modulus of vector dcan be expressed as follows:

dB = μμdl sinα dkρ0/4πR2dt

Given the expression for the magnetic induction vector B = rotρΔ, we have the following relationship between the densities of n=0‑objects(I) ρand ρΔ:

d(rotρΔ) = μμdl sinα dkρ0/4πR2dt

This equation can be modified to reflect the fact that in the case of electrostatic interaction the velocity was shown to be determined by the density of n=0‑objects(I), ρE, according to the equation ρE = kρ0/4πR2. By taking this in account, we can write the followingequation containing the densities ρand ρΔ:

d(rotρΔ) = μμdl sinα dρE/dt

From Ampere’s law, which describes the magnetic interaction between conductors carrying currents, the magnetic force is proportional to; the current I, the vector product of the length element dl of the conductor, and the magnetic induction B:

dF = I[dl B]

Generally, the force determines the change in velocity ΔV (per time unit). In the suggested theory, this change is equal to the velocity as the product of a certain density of n=0-objects(I), ρ, and a velocity unit v0. We will define the change of velocity for Ampere’s law as the VA. Accordingly, VAcan be written as, ΔV = VA = ρv0. Then, the modulus of Ampere force, FA, (dF = Idl B) for orthogonal dand can (I = qv = kρv), according to Ampere’s law, be defined as the change in velocity:

FA = ΔV = VA = ρAv0 = v00vdlrotρΔ

Accordingly, there is the following distribution of density of directed n=0‑objects(I) EA ρA :

EA ρA = kρ0vdlrotρΔ

The Ampere force is a special case of the Lorentz force. Given the definition of charge, q = kρ0, and magnetic induction = rotρΔ, the modulus of the Lorentz force, FL, acting on a moving electrons with velocity v, (= q[vB]), can be written as follows:

FL = ΔV = VL = ρLv0 = v00vrotρΔ

Accordingly, the following equation for the density of directed n=0‑objects(I) EL ρL, defining a velocity change of moving electron, can be written as:

EL ρL = kρ0vrotρΔ

According to the STR, from Lorentz transformations, the value of a magnetic field depends on the choice of reference frame. In the proposed theory, the value of the magnetic field (= rotEi = rotρΔ) is determined not by the velocity of the chosen reference frame, but by a velocity relative to a unique reference frame, i.e. relative to the expanding space of n=0-objects(I). Since this expanding space is the movement of n=0-objects(I) in all directions with velocity v0ρ0, slightly greater than the speed of light, the magnetic interaction may exist only if the velocity of the electrons/positrons is close to the speed of light. In other words, the magnetic field is determined by the velocity of charge relative to the velocity of n=0-objects(I) of expanding space, v0ρ0. If the electron velocity relative to the Earth is close to the speed of light, then the electron velocity relative to the expanding space of n=0‑objects(I) will also be close to the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the Earth. We can assume that the Earth’s velocity relative to the space of n=0-objects(I) is close to its velocityrelative to the cosmic microwave background, 369 km/s(Aghanim, N. et al., Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove: arXiv:1303.5087). Then the Earth’s velocity is smaller than the speed of light by at least three orders of magnitude.

From the interaction of linear conductors carrying currents described above, the attraction of solenoids is a consequence of the attraction by their collinear turns. This explains the result of the classical experiment by Hans Christian Oersted on the interaction of a magnetic needle and a linear conductor. A magnetic needle can be approximated by solenoid. As seen in figure 19, the most stable position of the solenoid relative to the linear conductor is a position where the current in the linear conductor has the same direction as in a conductor of the solenoid, i.e. where there is an attraction of their currents.


Fig. 19

The proposed mechanism of magnetic interaction can also explain the lack of interaction between an electrically charged body and a magnet. The magnetic field lines, formed by directed n=0‑objects(I) are closed. Electric field lines of charge are not closed. In some locations, directed n=0-objects(I) of overlapping magnetic and electric fields can be co-linear or can be oppositely directed. In this location the space formed by them will shrink or expand, respectively. However, this can not lead to an attraction or repulsion of the magnet and charge, as contraction/expansion of the space of directed n=0-objects(I) does not begin from the magnet and end on the charge, as in the case of the electrostatic interaction of charges or the magnetic interaction.


In modern physics, the magnetic field of atoms is produced by the intrinsic magnetic moments of their electrons. The intrinsic magnetic moment of an electron is generated by the internal angular momentum, i.e. by its spin. In general in modern physics, spin and intrinsic magnetic moment are fundamental properties of elementary particles, like charge and mass. Spin is not associated with a real rotation of the particle, it is postulated as a quantum state. According to the classical definition, the magnetic moment is generated by the current. The question about a current associated with the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron is considered to be incorrect. Both concepts were originally proposed in 1925 by George Uhlenbeck, and Samuel Goudsmit, in order to explain atomic spectra and, in particular, the Zeeman effect. The Stern-Gerlach experiments, which demonstrated that a beam of silver atoms passing through a special magnetic field gradient is split into two beams, was an additional motivation for the introduction of a magnetic moment for the electron. According to quantum theory of Bohr-Sommerfeld, the orbital, and consequently the magnetic moments of silver atoms with one electron in the outer shell is zero, so the atoms should not deviate in magnetic field at all in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Accordingly, and contrary to the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory, the atoms possess a magnetic moment. This has been postulated as an intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron. In the suggested theory, the electrons do not possess an intrinsic magnetic moment, since the electron has no internal currents. Rather, the electrons move in atoms, they are oscillating around the nucleus and so produce a changing magnetic field. In this way, the atom always has a magnetic moment. This movement of an electron is not spherically symmetric because of the nuclear geometry. This differs from the quantum model of Bohr-Sommerfeld for silver atoms, for which the orbital magnetic moment is zero. Thus, according to the proposed theory, in the Stern-Gerlach experiments, a beam splitting into two can be explained by the non-zero orbital magnetic moment. I.e. the observed splitting could result from the orientation of atomic magnetic dipoles relative to an external field. When the magnetic dipoles are perpendicular, such atoms will not be affected by the magnetic field. For other atoms, the magnetic dipoles can be oriented in the same or in the opposite direction. For free electrons, not for atoms, the spin of electron has not been confirmed experimentally and, according to the theoretical calculations it is not possible to detect splitting of the electron beam in a experiment similar to the Stern-Gerlach experiment (Sivukhin, D.V. “Course of General Physics”, Volume5, Part1, Paragraph 36, Russian edition).

In the proposed theory, the Zeeman effect can also be explained without postulating an intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron and an internal angular momentum – spin. The splitting of the spectra in the presence of a magnetic field, the Zeeman effect, can be explained by the change in electron mobility with respect to the nucleus in result of interaction of an external magnetic field and the magnetic field generated by moving electrons around the nucleus.


In contrast to existing theories, the magnetic field of h-space theory results from the motion of electrons/positrons. Electron does not have its own magnetic moment (which is considered in modern physics as the reason for a magnetic field of permanent magnets).

According to the proposed definition, the magnetic field is composed by directed vacuum particles, i.e. directed n=0-objects(I) of density ρΔ, which is the density excess over density ρ0of omnidirectional vacuum particle, undirected n=0-objects(I). This density ρΔ will be produced by the movement of charged particles (electrons/positrons), as a result of the displacement of n=0‑objects(I). Displacement from the location of the electrons/positrons is a consequence of the alignment, maintaining the same density of the objects (all objects in this location) by taking into account the emerging electrons/positrons. The displaced vacuum particles, n=0-objects(I), do not resist the movement of electrons/positrons. In other words, the electrons/positrons are not slowed down by the vacuum particles, because there is no interaction between undirected n=0-objects(I) and electrons/positrons, n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”, similar to the interaction between n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”.

The vacuum is a moving medium, an expanding ether with a velocity determined by the density of vacuum particles, n=0‑objects(I), and nowadays comparable to the speed of light.



In the previous section, the general structure of the atom and the spectral characteristics of the hydrogen atom were analyzed (Fig. 15). They are defined by the electrostatic interaction of electrons and nuclei, i.e. by the fact that the attraction of the electron to the nucleus decreases with decreasing distance from ≈ 105 m to ≈ 1010 m and becomes zero at a distance of ≈ 1010 m. In the range of distances from the ground state orbit of the electron to the nucleus, i.e. from ≈ 1010 m to ≈1015 m, electrostatic interactions are absent. The proposed structure of the atom also explains the existence of molecules. The reason for their formation is the same, described above, dependence of attraction/repulsion between the nucleus and electrons. Instead of the electron, the nucleus of the other atom can occupy a ground state position relative to the nucleus of its neighbor, not moving in position relative to the other. Such a system will be stable if the electrons of the joined atoms move freely outside their nuclei and not between them. This will provide a pulling effect of electrons on the nuclei of the molecule, as in the case of atoms, causing the movement of molecule as a whole. According to this, the hydrogen molecule can be represented as shown in figure 16a.


Fig. 16a

Here, the nuclei of the two hydrogen atoms are orthogonal, since in this orientation they are in a stable state, where the electron of one nucleus is attracted to the positrons of the adjacent nucleus. In a similar way, a water molecule and carbon dioxide molecule can be presented as shown in figures 16b, c. Since four electrons are exposed on the surface of the oxygen nucleus, in the water molecule the most stable arrangement of the two hydrogen nuclei is a position in front of two electrons. Accordingly, a water molecule has two electrons from the oxygen nucleus that are available to bind with positrons of other nuclei, such as hydrogen nuclei of other water molecules. This binding is weaker than the first two because of the pulling effect of orbital electrons of one water molecule on the electrons of hydrogen nuclei of another water molecule. These two weaker bonds can correspond to the hydrogen bonds between water molecules. The same approach can be applied for the construction of other molecules. In contrast to existing theories in which electrons are placed in inner and outer “layers” of differing orbitals, in the proposed schemes of atoms and molecules the electrons are placed at several basic orbits, the ground states. The number of basic orbits is the number of layers in the nucleus of atom. From these ground states positions, electrons can go to higher orbits if their velocity is changed by collisions with other atoms or by absorption of electromagnetic quanta, n=1-objects. As we can see for the water molecule and carbon dioxide in figures 16b, c electrons in ground states orbits are arranged around atomic nuclei to form reflection symmetry.


Fig. 16b


Fig. 16c

In a neutral atom, the positive nucleus charge is compensated by the charge of all orbital electrons. If one orbital electron is removed from atom then a monovalent positive ion is generated. The charge of this ion is equal to a fraction of the charge of the nucleus (Fig. 17).


Fig. 17

Accordingly, to determine the charge of a positive monovalent ion, the charge of the nucleus should be divided by the number of orbital electrons. If a neutral atom has absorbed one additional electron, then a negative monovalent ion is generated. The charge of this ion can be calculated similar to the charge of positive monovalent ion. The only difference is that the total number of electrons/positrons should increase by one. For instance, the charge of a positive monovalent Beion (Fig. 17) can be calculated as follows: the nuclear charge of beryllium is equal to 1/7 of the positron charge, and should be divided by four (the number of orbital electrons). This will give 1/28 of the positron charge. For a positive monovalent carbon ion, C+, the charge of the carbon nucleus (1/7 of the electron charge) should be divided by the number 6 (the number of orbital electrons). This will give a C+charge as a 1/42 part of the positron charge. To calculate the charge of the monovalent cooper ion, Cu+, we should take into account the three-layers composition of its nucleus. The charge of the Cu nucleus is a result of division of the number of uncompensated positrons, 29, by the sum of the number of electrons/positrons in one layer and the number of electrons/positrons on the nucleus perimeter for two layers – 29/((((29*3)+(34*4))/3) + 2*43) (see above the similar calculation for Mg nucleus). This gives the charge of the Cu nucleus equal to 1/5.5 of positron charge. Then, to calculate the charge of the monovalent copper ion we should divide the nucleus charge (1/5.5) by number of orbital electrons, 29. This will give 1/160 of the electron/positron charge. The charge of monovalent Zn+ion calculated in a similar way is equal to 1/164. As an example of ionized molecule we will consider a molecule of mineral oil. It can be used for the analysis of Millikan’s oil-drop experiments. Mineral oil is composed by higher alkanes. An alkane molecule can be composed by 9 or more carbon atoms. The charge of all nuclei in the molecule is a result of division of number of uncompensated positrons of all nuclei by all positrons/electrons of all nuclei. This gives the same 1/7 of the electron charge as for one carbon atom. Then, the monovalent ion charge of oil molecule is equal to 1/7 divided by the number of all orbital electrons. For 10 carbon atoms the charge of the ionized molecule will be 1/7 divided by 60, 1/420 of the electron/positron charge.

The charge-to-mass ratio of Cis equal to the result of dividing 1/42 by 47 (the number of electrons and positrons of the carbon atom minus one electron). I.e. the charge-to-mass ratio of Cis equal to 1/1974 of the charge-to-mass ratio of an positron. The charge-to-mass ratios of other elements relative to the charge-to-mass ratio of an electron are given in the following table:

ions h-space theory (A) textbooks (B) A/B
H+ 1/9 1/1836 204
4He+ 1/210 1/7344 34.9
6Li+ 1/483 1/11016 22.8
7Li+ 1/567 1/12852 22.6
9Be+ 1/1120 1/16524 14.7
10B+ 1/1365 1/18360 13.4
11B+ 1/1720 1/20196 11.7
12C+ 1/1974 1/22032 11.1
13C+ 1/2386 1/23868 10
13N+ 1/2285 1/23868 10.4
14N+ 1/2695 1/25704 9.5
16O+ 1/3528 1/29376 8.3
19F+ 1/5000 1/34884 6.9
20Ne+ 1/4977 1/36720 7.4

The four states of matter are solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. The atoms and molecules making up a solid body are tightly packed. The interactions of atoms in molecules are more stable than in a solid, as the molecules can be in solids, liquids, or the gaseous state. In molecules, since the nuclei are in their ground states of electronic orbits (Fig. 16a, b, c) the electrons are located around nuclei. In the solid, the electrons are located between the nuclei.


In contrast to existing theories, the charges of monovalent ions of different atoms are different. For instance, the charges of aluminum, copper and lead monovalent ions are equal to 1/80, 1/160 and 1/434 of the electron charge. I.e. while the macroscopic bodies made from aluminum, copper or lead can have identical charges each of them has different number of electrons generating these charges.




According to modern physics, atoms consist of electrons, protons and neutrons, and their properties are described by quantum mechanics. An electron in an atom exists in the form of electron clouds, described by a probability distribution of the electron density. In the obsolete Bohr model, electrons were thought to revolve in orbits around the nucleus, which consisted of neutrons and protons. In the simplest case of a hydrogen atom one electron revolved in orbits around one proton. The electron ground state is an orbit closest to the proton and higher orbits correspond to the excited states. The transition from a higher to a lower orbit is accompanied by the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. In the proposed theory, the structure of atoms differs from the quantum and Bohr models. For example in a hydrogen atom, the electron does not revolve around a proton as in the Bohr model, and is not distributed in the form of an electron cloud as in quantum mechanics. Electron behavior is determined by the electrostatic interaction described above. First of all, the electron will be electrostatically attracted to the positron of the proton and can stay at a distance Rmin:

Rmin = 1/√4πρ0

where R = 1/n– the distance between the n=0-object(II)”−”,”+”, n belongs to the set of natural numbers and the maximum nmax is equal to √4πρ0.

Given that today ρis ≈ 1010(the definition of the ρvalues is given above), the distance Rminis equal to ≈ 10in absolute units, or ≈ 1010 in meters. This value corresponds to the known radius of the electron orbit for hydrogen atom in the ground state, or to the atomic radius. Thus, we can conclude that in the ground state electron is at rest relative to the nucleus. According to the section “Secondary formation of n≠0‑objects”, if the distance between an electron (n=0‑object(II)”−”) and a positron (n=0-object(II)”+”) is less than one absolute unit, ≈ 105 m, the electron will be attracted to the positron and will emit n=1,2,3-objects. I.e., the atom will be in the excited state if the electron is at a distance greater ≈ 1010 m but less than ≈ 105 m. This excited state is unstable as the electron is electrostatically attracted to the nucleus until it returns to the distance of the ground state and emits n=1,2,3-objects. At a distance of ≈ 105 m the velocity of attraction is maximal, and its value is comparable to the speed of light. With decreasing distance from ≈ 105 m to ≈ 1010 m, the velocity of attraction is not increased, as in the case of Coulomb’s law, but decreases to zero at a distance of ≈ 1010 m. From this description of electron behavior, it follows that if the electron velocity reaches a value greater than the velocity of attraction to the proton at ≈ 105 m, then the electron can leave the atom.

By summarizing the above we can say that, in an atom the electron behavior is determined by two processes. One of them is the absorption of n=1,2,3-objects by the electron, causing its velocity increase as well as an increase its distance from the nucleus to the point where this velocity can be compensated by attraction to the nucleus. In the extreme case, the electron leaves the atom. The second process is the attraction of an electron to a position closer to the proton, and this is accompanied by emission of n=1,2,3‑objects. Such a closest position it can reach, the ground state, is at a distance of ≈ 1010 m (Fig. 15).


Fig. 15

In this model of the hydrogen atom, the electron oscillates relative to the proton between the excited and ground states. It should also be noted that the spatial position of the electron in the ground state is not arbitrary. As shown above (Fig. 8), the proton contains an electron, and the orbital electron in the ground state will takes a position closer to that of the positron of the proton than to the electron of the proton. The spatial distribution of electrons around nucleus in atoms heavier than hydrogen will be defined by the nucleus geometry. I.e. ground state of electrons will depend on the spatial distribution of directed n=0‑objects(I) around the nucleus.

Modern physics posits that the electron, although attracted to a nucleus with tremendous force, can remain infinitely in a ground state orbit and does not collapse inwards to the nucleus. In the proposed scheme, this is explained by the electron having a zero velocity of attraction to the nucleus in the ground state. Another feature of atoms is their elasticity, i.e. after the collision of their electron shells, the electrons in atoms are preserved, they do not collapse into the nucleus. It appears that atoms repel elastically. In the suggested theory, this elasticity of atomic interactions has the following explanation. After a collision between a stationary and moving atom, the electrons of the stationary atom will gain velocity and move from the ground state orbit (≈ 1010 m) across the area in between ≈ 1010 m and ≈ 1015 m,but without interacting with the nucleus (the probability of collision of an electron with the nucleus is small because of their small sizes), and will continue to move into the region (on the opposite side of the atom) of interaction with the nucleus (electrostatic attraction), between ≈ 1010 m and ≈ 105 m. As a result, the electron, being on the opposite side of the atom, will again be attracted to the nucleus. The nucleus will gain some speed and the atom as a whole will be displaced, i.e. it can be represented as an elastic ball. Here, we should note that in this scheme, it is obvious that the velocity of the moving orbital electron is redistributed between the electrons and positrons of nucleus. Accordingly, the mass of the nucleus, as represented by the number of electrons/positrons, should not be so different from the mass of the electron. This is true in the proposed theory. The total mass of the proton is only three times bigger than the mass of the electron. Another feature of atoms is their linear size about 1010 m. Modern physics does not answer the question of why the atom has such a linear size. In the proposed theory, the atomic radius, as the radius of its ground state orbit, follows from the equation for the velocity of attraction/repulsion of electrons/positrons at distances less than absolute length unit (length of n=0-object(I)). This equation includes the density of n=0-objects(I), ρ0, and its value determines the radius of the ground state orbit. The value of ρ0is determined by the value of the “Planck constant” h. This size of an atom, 1010 m, is the minimal size. The maximum size of an atom in modern physics is not limited. In the proposed theory, the maximum size of an excited atom is 105 m. If the electrons are farther than 105 m, there will not be a characteristic emission/absorption spectrum of the atom. Although, theoretically there is no atomic boundary in modern physics, there are experimental data on the maximum size of a hydrogen atom. The radius of the excited hydrogen atom is 3.39 × 106 m (Clark, D.B., 1991 Very large hydrogen atoms in interstellar space J. Chem. Educ., 68: 454, DOI: 10.1021/ed068p454; a correction for this article–Clark, D.B., 1992 Very large hydrogen atoms, indeed J. Chem. Educ., 69: 946, DOI: 10.1021/ed069p946.2), gives a value that is consistent with the maximum size of an atom in the proposed theory, ≈ 105 m.

Because of the presence of an electron in the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, it is a more stable complex of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” than a positronium atom. In positronium, a system consisting of an electron and a positron, the orbital electron has the potential to be attracted to the positron until their complete overlap, forming a pair of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”.

The formation of any antiatom is a less probable process, since the electron absorbs quanta of the electromagnetic field and increases its velocity, while a positron reflects electromagnetic quanta without changing its velocity. Therefore, in the electron-positron pair, the electron is mobile and oscillates around the positron.


To determine the spectra of an atom we should consider the transition of a n=0-object(II)”−” (electron) from a remote position to a position closer to a n=0‑object(II)”+” (positron), in the range from the absolute unit R ≈ 105 m to R ≈ 1010 m (R = 1/n, where nis in the range from n = 1 ton = √4πρ0). The result of this transition is that the electron emits objects of one-, two- and three-dimensional spaces. The spectrum of the emission (absorption) of hydrogen atoms for n=1‑objects can be determined according to the equation for the length 1L, from the section “Secondary formation of n≠0‑objects”.

1L = 3Lqv1/4πρ0((1/n2) − (1/m2))

where m > n.

Given the above calculated values v1 ≈ 1010, ρ0 ≈ 1010, q0 ≈ 1010, L ≈ 1020, the length 1L of the emitted n=1-objects in absolute units is:

1L = 3Lqv1/(4πρ0((1/n2) − (1/m2))) = 102010101010 3/(4π1010((1/n2) − (1/m2))) =  3/(4π1010((1/n2) − (1/m2)))

or in meters:

1L = 103/(4π1010((1/n2) − (1/m2))) = 3/(4π1015((1/n2) − (1/m2)))

According to modern physics, the electromagnetic quantum is generated when the electron moves from a remote “orbit” to a near one. Quanta form groups, so-called series. One of them is named the Balmer series:

λ = 1/R((1/22) − (1/m2)) = 1/(1.09 x 107((1/22) − (1/m2)))

where m is greater than two, and R = 1.09 x 107 m1.

While the Balmer series equation and the equation suggested above for the generation of n=1-objects are similar in form, they differ in the values 4π1015 and 1.09 x 107. What do these differences mean? If, in the proposed equation, nis one, then the electron is at the maximal distance corresponding to the absolute length unit, ≈ 105 m. At this distance from the nucleus, the density of the directed n=0-objects(I) is maximum. The value of mis always greater than n, which means that an electron is transferred to a shorter distance from the nucleus and emits an n=1-object. The shortest possible distance is ≈ 1010 m. In all these cases, when nis equal to one, the wavelength of an emitted n=1-object will be around value 1L = 3/4π1015 m i.e. in the range of gamma or X-rays. In order to get a range for the Balmer series, the value of nmust be of the order of 104, then the value 4π1015can be reduced to 1.09 x 10by making the common factor from the expression – ((1/n2) − (1/m2)) and reducing n to 2(m > n). This corresponds to the distance of the emitting electron from the nucleus of the 10absolute length unit (1/n2= R2, where R is the distance measured in lengths of n=0-object(I)) or of the order of 10x 104 = 10meters. Thus, we can conclude that the electrons emits photons corresponding to the Balmer series if it is in close proximity, 10meters, to the ground state  ≈ 1010 m and, accordingly, with a low density of the directed n=0‑objects(I).

According to the section “Secondary formation of n≠0‑objects” (about the minimum and maximum length of generated n=1-objects), the quanta, n=1-objects, emitted by a hydrogen atom will be in a certain range of wavelengths 1Lmin = 3Lv1q0/4πρand 1Lmax = 3Lv1q0/4π. Given the values of L ≈ 1020, q0 ≈ 1010, v1 ≈ 1010 and ρ0 ≈ 1010, and absolute units of length ≈ 105 m, these wavelength limits are equal to 1Lmin ≈ 1015 meters and 1Lmax ≈ 105 meters. These values are valid for a resting atom. If the atom is moving with certain velocity V, then the boundaries will change due to the Doppler effect, discussed below. For example, if the atom emits photons and is moving in the direction opposite to the direction of emission, the speed of the emitted photon absorbed by another atom will be formally smaller and, according to the Doppler effect (see “Optics”), this speed reduction will lead to an increase in the length of the photon. How much is this increase of the length, is determined by the velocities of the atom. In the opposite situation, when the atom moves in the direction of radiation, length will be reduced.

As described above, the wavelengths range of emission/absorption of orbital electrons from 1Lmin ≈ 1015 m to 1Lmax ≈ 105 m includes X-rays (from 1012 m to 107 m) and gamma rays (less than 1011 m). X-rays and gamma rays overlap. According to modern physics, gamma rays are emitted by the nucleus, and X-rays are emitted by the orbital electron of an atom. For the overlapping range, terminological distinction between X-rays and gamma rays is conventional and reflects only the method of the rays generation. From the suggested theory, this distinction is not correct since gamma rays as well as any electromagnetic rays are emitted/absorbed by orbital electrons, not by the atomic nucleus. In this regard, the interpretations of the basic processes involving gamma rays are changed (see “Optics”), such as the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, electron-positron pair generation, and the phototransmutation. In the case of the photoelectric effect, gamma rays are absorbed by the orbital electrons, not by nucleus, and, the resulting increase in speed allows electrons to leave the atom. Generation of an electron-positron pair occurs as a result of gamma-ray absorption by the nuclear electron increasing its velocity and causing a distortion of nucleus, followed by radiation of not only electrons but also of positrons from the nucleus. In the case of phototransmutation, when a gamma ray knocks out nucleons from the nucleus, the process of nucleus disintegration takes place, similar to electron-positron pair generation. The nuclear electrons will absorb gamma rays, so increasing their velocity to a point where they can leave the nucleus in complexes consisting of electrons and positrons i.e. as nucleons (protons and neutrons). The proposed theory also accounts for the Mossbauer effect, the resonant and recoil-free emission and absorption of gamma rays by atomic nuclei bound in a solid. Since in the suggested theory the orbital electrons can absorb/emit gamma rays, they, but not the atomic nucleus, are responsible for the resonant emission/absorption of gamma rays, similar to resonant optical fluorescence, which is characterized by the emission of photons with the same frequency as that of their absorption (e.g. resonance fluorescence yellow doublet of sodium).

It is known, that in the atomic spectra a single spectral line is actually a set of very close lines. Modern physics gives several reasons to explain this. One of them is the interaction of nuclear magnetic moment with the magnetic field of the electrons. This explains the hyperfine structure. In addition, there are lines, which are designated as the fine structure. They are produced by interactions that depend on the magnitude and relative orientation of the orbital and spin angular momentum of electrons and nuclei. How can these structures be explained by the suggested theory? In the above explanation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, the density of directed n=0-objects(I) around the nucleus (proton) is, by default, ρ0, but as seen from the figures 12, 15 and 17, it is not true for all positions of the electron relative to the nucleus. The density of directed n=0-objects(I) varies depending on the position of an electron around nucleus. This means that in the above equations, the value of the density may be less than the maximum, ρ0. Accordingly, the emitted photons will have set of different lengths. Just how large a range of radiation, i.e. how wide the splitting of lines will be determined by the stability of the electron positions around the nucleus of an atom. This stability in turn is determined by the geometry of the charge distribution in the nucleus, i.e. by the relative position of electrons and positrons in nucleus.

In addition to the fine and hyperfine structure there is also splitting of spectral lines of atoms in a magnetic field – the Zeeman effect, and in an electric field – the Stark effect. In the proposed theory, these effects can be explained by the changes in the density of directed n=0-objects(I) between the orbital electrons in atoms and nuclei caused by action of magnetic and electric field on distribution of electrons and positrons in the atomic nucleus.


The proposed explanation of the spectra of the hydrogen atom is based on the concept of the change of density of directed particles of vacuum between the electron and positron in the range ≈ 10 1010 m. This change occurs when the electron changes its position relative to the positron of nucleus from a remote position, characterized by a higher density of directed particles of the vacuum (and so also a higher electron velocity), to a closer position having a lower density. Electrons will tend to stay at a position close to the nucleus due to the decrease of the particle density of the vacuum and the radiation of photons. I.e. the velocity of electrons will be reduced due to the emission of electromagnetic quanta. The closest stable position, ground state, is 1010 m. The electron can be also at intermediate positions between ≈ 10–1010 m, if there is a compensation of its attraction to nucleus by repulsion from other orbital electrons and the nucleus electrons. In the given description, the electron is not a distribution of electron density, but an object of certain length and shape. The probabilistic nature of the electron is excluded. The emission of photons has a classical reason. In this case there is no problem that the electron will collapse into the nucleus as in the ground state, at a distance of 1010 m, the electron has zero velocity and the zero density of the directed particles of vacuum.

According to the suggested model of the atom, electrons oscillate around the nucleus. In modern physics an electron is transferred to a different state, or “orbit”, after emission of an electromagnetic quantum. In the proposed theory, the events are reversed; the quantum is emitted when an electron reaches the corresponding “orbit” position relative to the nucleus as a result of attraction to the nucleus. In this case, there is no question about how the electron “decides” what an electromagnetic quantum to radiate. The characteristics of emitted electromagnetic quanta are determined by the position to which the electron has moved.

In the proposed theory, besides the generation of n=1‑objects, quanta of electromagnetic fields, n=2-objects and n=3‑objects are generated. These objects have velocities exceeding the speed of light, 1018 m/s and 1028 m/s respectively. Their lengths are in the range: from 2Lmin ≈ 105 m to 2Lmax ≈ 105 m and from 3Lmin ≈ 105 m to 3Lmax ≈ 1015 m respectively.



In modern physics atomic nuclei consist of protons and neutrons. Based on the above descriptions of the proton and the neutron (Fig. 8), we propose that nuclei are stable complexes of positrons and electrons. In other words, it is not protons and neutrons but rather electrons and positrons that are the constituent elements of nuclei. In this framework, neutrons and protons represent the simplest systems of positrons and electrons. The phenomenon of beta-decay, the emission of electrons and positrons from the nucleus, is then readily accounted for in a model based on the electron-positron composition of nuclei. In this case, the electrons and positrons are not born in the decay of nuclei. The nuclei are falling apart.

In the proposed theory, electrons and positrons repel/attract each other with velocity ≈ 102 m/s, when they overlap. Where electrons and positrons overlap in the nucleus, Coulomb’s law does not apply. In this model, the need for a strong interaction, as introduced in modern physics, is eliminated. In the suggested model, a attraction/repulsion of positrons and electrons in the nucleus is possible only in a narrow range of distances, comparable with the dimensions of the electron, 1015 m, because at this distance electrons and positrons overlap.

If there is no strong interaction, then how does nuclear decay result in the release of so much energy? As already mentioned, the attraction and repulsion of positrons and electrons in the nucleus occurs with a low velocity, ≈ 102 m/s. However, this velocity is valid for distances comparable to the ≈ 1015 m. If the distance is increased, then from ≈ 1010 m the velocity of repulsion of positrons/electrons increases, reaching a maximum that is comparable to the speed of light at a distance of ≈ 105 m. The splitting of nuclei produces daughter nuclei that are separated by more than ≈ 105 m, and as a result their velocity will increase up to light-speed which explains the appearance of so much energy (a reason for splitting into daughter nuclei is described bellow).

The nucleus of the hydrogen atom is a single proton, which consists of a complex of two positrons and one electron (Fig. 13a, showing positrons in dark grey, and electrons in light grey). To define atomic nuclei that are heavier than hydrogen, we will consider consequent increases in the number of electrons and positrons with increasing atomic number. The nuclei should be positively charged and have stable spatial configuration of electrons and positrons. Taking the periodic table of elements as giving the correct nuclear ratios of neutrons and protons, the nuclear charge for each element can be calculated similarly to the charge of the proton. This calculation is valid in the case when all electrons and positrons are exposed on the surface of the nucleus. In other words, when the nucleus does not contain electrons and positrons that are completely shielded by other electrons and positrons (see the details below).


Fig. 13a

The charges of atomic nuclei, expressed in terms of the electron charge, are given in figures 13a, b, c, d, e, f after the designation of the proton-neutron composition. In the case of isotopes, the spatial configuration of electrons on “orbits” around their nuclei must be similar to each other. Because the orbital electrons compensate the positive charge of the nucleus, resulting in a neutral atom, we can assume that the geometry of the electrons “orbits” of atoms reflects the geometry of uncompensated positrons in the nuclei of these atoms. After proton, the next electron-positron complex is proton plus electron-positron pair. This complex corresponds to a positive π-meson (described above). Among other unstable combinations are complexes of two protons – a diproton, and two neutrons – a dineutron. Their existence is hypothetical in modern physics. Other possible combinations, not correlated with known particles and nuclei, are marked with a question mark. The complex of a neutron and a proton is a deuteron, and adding one more neutron this becomes a triton. In the case of helium 42He, there are two protons and two neutrons, and in 32He there is one neutron and two protons. The proposed electron/positron compositions of helium 32He, tritium, neutrons and protons are consistent with the formation of helium isotope 32He by the electron beta decay of tritium 31H, and with neutron absorption by helium 32He, with subsequent decay to a tritium and a proton. The nucleus of lithium 73Li should consist of three protons and four neutrons, and the three uncompensated positrons in the lithium nucleus should form of a triangle (Fig. 13b).


Fig. 13b

To determine the configuration of the nuclei of isotopes of beryllium 94Be (84Be, 104Be), we will use quadrangle geometry, since all of them have four uncompensated positrons, corresponding to four electrons in “orbits” around their nuclei. The same approach of the geometry of uncompensated positrons in the nucleus can be used to describe the geometry of the electrons in “orbits” around the nucleus.


Fig. 13c


Fig. 13d

A more detailed geometric definition of nuclei can be deduced from the known nuclear reactions. For instance, partial geometric similarity between beryllium and lithium should be based on the synthesis of beryllium, 84Be, from lithium interaction of 73Li with proton, followed by the 84Be fission to two alpha particles. The geometry of 63Li should be similar to the geometry of 73Li and we should take into account the reaction: 63Li + n = 31H + 42He. In turn, beryllium should have a partial geometric similarity to carbon because of the reaction: 94Be + 42He = 126C + n. Further, boron 105B can react with a neutron to produce 73Li and 42He, so 73Li and 105B should have partial similarity. Boron 105B can also react with alpha particles to form a neutron and nitrogen 137N, which transforms to 136C by release of a positron. Beta minus decay of carbon 146C leads to the formation of nitrogen 147N. Consequently, 146C and 147N must have significant geometric similarity. All these homologies between the nuclei of the first and second rows of the periodic table of elements are presented in figures 13a, b, c, d, e. The nuclei of hydrogen and helium are three-dimensional. In the second period, the electrons and positrons of nuclei are located in one plane. It is obvious that as the number of electrons and positrons increases, they must be located in several planes. I.e. we can assume that in the third period, electrons and positrons of nuclei are arranged in two layers. Then, for example, for the first two elements, sodium and magnesium, the geometric shape of two layers of electrons and positrons should be similar to lithium and beryllium (elements of the same groups), in the form of the triangle and square respectively (Fig. 13f).


Fig. 13e


Fig. 13f

The next two elements, aluminum and silicon must accordingly contain two layers of electrons and positrons packed in pentagons and hexagons. The fourth period begins with potassium and, based on its atomic weight in comparison to the similarly shaped sodium atom, one can assume that it has a three-layered nucleus. This should also be true for calcium, as well as for the transition metals. For the elements of the main groups of fourth period we can assume four layers. Accordingly, the nuclei of the elements of the fifth period have the following numbers of layers: rubidium, strontium and transition metals – five layers, while elements of the main groups starting from indium – six. The sixth period has the lanthanides, and we can assume that nuclei of these elements, as well as caesium and barium, have seven layers in their nuclei; transition metals – eight layers and main group – nine layers. For the seventh period: ten layers for francium, radium and actinides; eleven layers for the transition metals; twelve layers for the elements of the main groups.

All the nuclei of elements from the first and second periods in the proposed models have unique reflection symmetry inherited from helium. All the nuclei of elements from the other periods comprising two or more layers do not have this symmetry (13a, b, c, d, e). In the proposed planar nuclei, their middle parts are electrically neutral and positive charges are located on their perimeters (Fig. 14).


Fig. 14

Accordingly, in the atoms the orbital electrons must be located in planes around the nuclei to compensate their positive charges.

Like the proton (see above), the electric charges of the nuclei for all atoms, i.e. density distribution of directed n=0‑objects(I), are always less than the charge of single electron/positron. For a one-layer nucleus, its charge is the ratio of the number of uncompensated positrons to the total number of electrons and positrons, and is equal to one-seventh of the positron charge (Fig. 13a, b, c, d, e). This value represents one-seventh of the surface area around free positron, through which the directed n=0‑objects(I) are coming. This calculation is correct since in one-layer nucleus all electrons/positrons are exposed on its surface. In the case of multi-layer nucleus (Fig 13e), only the electrons/positrons of two outside layers are exposed on the nucleus surface. Additionally on the surface, there are electrons/positrons from the layers perimeters (Fig.14). Thus, to calculate the charge of a multi-layer nucleus, two outside layers can be considered as one layer. Then, the number of all uncompensated positrons should be divided by the sum of total number of electrons/positrons of one layer and a number of electrons/positrons located on the perimeters of all layers. For magnesium nucleus, the number of all uncompensated positrons is 12, the total number of electrons/positrons of one layer – ((12*3) + (12*4))/2, 42. Because of magnesium nucleus has two layers of electrons/positrons we should add to the total number of electrons/positrons of one layer the number of electrons/positrons on the perimeter for one layer. To calculate this number we will consider a nucleus layer as a circle. Its area is equal to the number of electrons/positrons in one layer without overlapping, i.e. about 21 (total number of electrons/positrons of one layer divided by 2,  42/2). From the area value (πR2) we can calculate the perimeter (2πR). It is about 16, and this is the number of electrons/positrons on perimeter without their overlapping. To have all electrons/positrons on the perimeter we should double this number as electrons/positrons are overlapping. Finally, for the charge calculation we have the total number of electrons/positrons as the sum of 42 and 32. Thus, the magnesium nucleus charge is 12/74, and is about 1/6 of the positron charge.

If the atomic mass of hydrogen is taken as a basic unit (in agreement with the modern definition of chemistry), then the relative atomic mass of other chemical elements can be calculated relative to the mass of hydrogen. It is necessary to consider all electrons and positrons in atoms. The hydrogen atom has one electron and two positrons in the nucleus, and one orbital electron around the nucleus. From this, the relative atomic mass of an element can be calculated as a ratio of total number of electrons and positrons in the atom to the number four. Accordingly, the relative atomic masses are: hydrogen – 1, helium – 4, lithium – 7, etc.

Formation of the nuclei of atoms more complex than hydrogen, according to modern physics, takes place solely in the stars, as a result of thermonuclear fusion. It is believed that the high temperature provides the conditions to overcome the Coulomb repulsion of the positively charged hydrogen nuclei, allowing the attractive force of the strong interaction to form nuclei of heavier atoms. Further, the subsequent explosions of stars (supernova explosions) provide the material for the formation of planets, which explains the diversity of chemical elements found on the planets. In the suggested theory, there is no such thing as a thermonuclear fusion, since there is no strong interaction and Coulomb repulsion at atomic distances. According to the section “Electrostatics”, below the absolute length unit, 105 m, the attraction/repulsion of charges does not increase but decreases with decreasing distance. This reduction continues to a lower limit of 1010 meters. If the distance is less than this, from 1010 to 1015meters, then there is no attraction/repulsion between charges. Further, if the electrons and positrons overlap, they will move relative to each other with a velocity of attraction/repulsion of 102meters per second, and the nuclei will be formed as electron-positron complexes. This model predicts that nuclear fusion of two atoms can occur by overcoming a force of repulsion that decreases with distance only in the range from 10to 1010 m. The positive charge of one nucleus will be compensated by the charge of orbital electron of another atom. The orbital electrons are located at the same distance from the nucleus – from 10to 1010 m.


In the proposed theory, the nucleus is made up of relatively mobile electrons and positrons spatially packed in layers. Beta decay can be explained by a violation of the interaction between electrons and positrons composing nuclei and neutrons. In this model, there is no need to introduce a weak interaction. During beta decay of nuclei, the emitted electrons and positrons can have different velocities. This eliminates the need to introduce a neutrino in order to conserve the energy balance. Nevertheless, a neutrino exists in the proposed theory and represents an electron-positron complex. In the proposed theory, the strong interaction force is excluded. The nuclei are stable due to electrostatic attraction and repulsion of the electrons and positrons. Moreover, at the nucleus distance of ≈ 1015 ma Coulomb interaction does not occur. Instead, electrons and positrons repel/attract with a constant velocity ≈ 102 m/s.

In the proposed model of the nucleus there is no place for the so-called thermonuclear fusion, and for energy release due to a mass defect.




Since we have identify an electron and a positron as a n=0‑object(II)”−” and a n=0-object(II)”+”, respectively, it follows that the electrostatic attraction/repulsion of electric charges is the attraction/repulsion of the n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+”. According to the section “Definition of the relative motion of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+””, repulsion is typical for n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” of the same type, and attraction is typical for n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” of different types. The electric field in this case is formed by the directed n=0-objects(I) of the cycle. The distribution of the electric field, vector E, of a point charge, is the distribution of the density of directed n=0-objects(I) out of the n=0-object(II)”+” and to the n=0‑object(II)”−”, respectively (Fig. 11). We can define this density of the directed n=0‑objects(I) as ρE.


Fig. 11

Based on this interpretation of the electrostatic interaction, n=0‑objects(I) can be defined as particles of the vacuum or either. Accordingly, the vacuum particles are polarized around electrons and positrons, i.e. n=0‑objects(I) become directed relative to n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”. As undirected n=0‑objects(I), the particles of the vacuum/either compose the three-dimensional space of universe and their movement relative to each other results in the expansion of the universe. The speed of this expansion is determined by the density of vacuum particles (n=0-objects(I)), ρ0.

From the section “Definition of the relative motion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+””, the attraction/repulsion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” occurs as a result of increase/decrease of the density of co-directed/oppositely-directed n=0-objects(I). Density of the undirected n=0-objects(I) varies according to the density changes of the directed n=0-objects(I), so the total density of directed and undirected n=0‑object(I) remains constant (unless we consider the phenomenon of electro-magnetic induction; see below). If the distance between the electrons and positrons is greater than the absolute length unit (≈ 105 m), the velocity of this attraction/repulsion (in three-dimensional space) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (in absolute units, ≈105 m), analogous to Coulomb’s law. Accordingly, the velocity of attraction/repulsion of electrons and positrons for a given distance Rcan be written as follows:

VE ρE v0 = v0ρ0/4πR(for three-dimensional space)

Velocity, Vrepresents the value of the velocity change, ΔV, for the electron/positron at a distance Rfrom the other electron/positron. If an electron/positron started moving with velocity VE = v0ρ0/4πRat distance Rand reached a distance R ± ΔR, then its velocity, as described in “Definition of the relative motion of n=0-objects(II)”−”,”+””, is the sum of the velocities for the distance R ± ΔR and R:

                           R ± ΔR

Vsum = (v0ρ0/4π) ΣR−2


where R ± ΔR and R are distances measured by the length of n=0‑object(I).

Since Vis value of the velocity increase, this velocity change corresponds to an acceleration, which determines the force of Coulomb’s law for the electrons/positrons.

Absolute units of length and velocity are used in the equations given above, implying discrete changes in velocity as a function of the distance. Since the absolute unit of length is small (≈ 105 m) and electric charges actually represent a set of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+”, the effect of discreteness is not noticeable for macroscopic bodies. The effect of each n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” will be sum up.

The equations above also imply that the electrostatic interaction has a boundary, a boundary corresponding to the distance at which the density of the directed n=0-objects(I), ρE, is one, i.e. one directed n=0‑object(I). This distance for a single electron/positron is equal to R = √(ρ0/4π) measured in the length of n=0-object(I).

If the distance is less than the absolute length unit, then (according to “Definition of the relative motion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+””) the velocity of the attraction/repulsion (in three-dimensional space) is directly proportional to the square of the distance R (in absolute units, ≈105 m). This velocity is not calculated by summing up, as described above, but is defined by the following equation:

VE = ρv0 = v0ρ04π/n(for three-dimensional space)

where the distance R = 1/n and n belongs to the set of natural numbers.

This equation is applied for distances between the absolute length unit, R ≈ 105 m, down to R ≈ 1010 m (for n = √(4πρ0)). At distances less than R = 1/√(4πρ0)) ≈ 1010 m, before the electron and positron overlap, the density of the directed n=0-objects(I) is less than one and, hence, the velocity of attraction/repulsion is zero. Thus if the electrons/positrons are separated by a distance that lies between ≈ 1010 m to ≈ 1015 m, they will not be attracted or repelled. If the distance between electrons/positrons is less than ≈ 1015 mi.e. when they overlap, their relative velocity will be equal to the absolute velocity unit, 102 m/s (as described in “Definition of the relative motion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+””). For example, in the proton, the electron is attracted to the positron with this velocity.

In modern physics the Coulomb’s law is correct up to a distance of 10−15 m. This came from the Rutherford’s experiments on the scattering of alpha particles by gold atomic nuclei. The observed distribution of the scattered alpha particles in the Rutherford’s experiments was consistent with the calculations on the basis of Coulomb’s law. The minimum distance between the centers of alpha particles and gold atomic nuclei was calculated from equality of the kinetic energy of the alpha particles to the potential energy of the Coulomb repulsion of the nucleus. This minimum distance was found to be 10−14 m and later it was corrected to 10−15 m. In the proposed theory, Coulomb’s law, an inverse-square law for point charged particles such as electrons/positrons, cannot be applied to Rutherford’s experiments calculations, since the charges of both the alpha particles and gold atomic nuclei are not point charges. In addition, the orbital electrons must have significant electrostatic effect on the alpha particle; the mass of an electron is only 14 times less than that of the alpha particle (see “Atomic nucleus”). In Rutherford’s experiments the electrostatic effect of the electrons was considered to be negligible due to their small masses. Accordingly in the proposed theory, the elastic scattering of alpha particles in Rutherford’s experiments could only be explained by direct collisions of alpha particles with the gold atomic nuclei, when there is a collision of the positrons of alpha particles with the positrons of gold atomic nuclei.


Since the electron is an n=0-object(II)”−”, a comparison of Coulomb’s law and the equation above implies that the electron charge corresponds to the density ρof n=0-objects(I) directed to a n=0‑object(II)”−” through the surface of the sphere. In other words, the electron charge is equal to the amount of directed n=0‑objects(I), ρ0, through the spherical surface. This means that the number of directed n=0-objects(I) to or from the n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” can not exceed ρ0, but can only be equal to or less than ρ0. For example, for the proton, as a composite particle consisting of two positrons and one electron in between, the density of directed n=0‑objects(I) around proton is variable, but does not exceed ρ(Fig. 12). From the sides of the positrons (n=0-objects(II)”+”), n=0‑objects(I) are directed from the proton and their density decreases closer to the electron side. In the region of the electron, n=0-objects(I) are directed to the proton, i.e. in the proton n=0‑objects(I) are mainly directed from the proton, but also there are regions where n=0-objects(I) are directed to the proton. In other words, the proton has a spatial distribution of charge that varies with sign and magnitude. Regions of the same charge-sign will have the density of the directed n=0-objects(I) less or equal to that of the electron/positron (Fig. 12).


Fig. 12

Thus, the total charge of a proton cannot exceed the charge of an electron/positron. A similar density distribution of directed n=0-objects(I) should be applied to any other complex particle consisting of electrons and positrons. I.e. the charge of the composite particle is less than the charge of an electron/positron and corresponds to the amount of directed n=0-objects(I) not through the entire spherical surface of the particle, but only through certain parts of the surface. In order to calculate the charge of the composite particle, we can assume that the distribution of directed n=0-objects(I) is proportional to the number of uncompensated electrons or positrons divided by the number of all electrons and positrons in the particle. Then, the proton charge, as the number of directed n=0-objects(I) through the surface around the proton, is equal to one-third of the charge of the electron. I.e. n=0-objects(I) are directed over one-third of the surface area around the proton. The remaining two-thirds of the surface is neutral, i.e. n=0-objects(I) are not directed relative to the proton.

The charge of electron was first calculated by G. J. Stoney from Faraday’s laws of electrolysis as a charge of a monovalent ion (according to the formula e = F/N, where e is the charge of the electron, and F is the Faraday constant (charge), i.e. the charge of one mole of ions; and N is the Avogadro constant, i.e. the number of ions per mole). Later, Robert Andrews Millikan determined the electron charge using oil-drop experiments. In the proposed theory, the electron charge is larger than it is in modern physics for two reasons. First, the electron mass proposed by the theory is equal to one-fourth of the mass of hydrogen atom (1.67372345992908 × 1027 kg), i.e. the electron mass is 0.418431222297 × 1027 kg. This makes it heavier than that accepted in modern physics (9.10938291 × 1031 kg). The charge-to-mass ratio of the electron (1,76⋅1011 C/kg) is defined independently of the determinations of electron charge and mass, first by Joseph John Thomsonin experiments on the deflection of electrons by electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, to keep the same charge to mass ratio, the electron charge (1.602176565 × 1019 C) must be increased by the same factor as the electron mass. Since the electron mass increase is 459.3409((0.4184 × 1027)/(9.1093 × 1031)), the electron charge is 7.3594 × 1017 C i.e. 459.3409 times larger than it is in modern physics. The second reason to increase the electron charge comes from the analysis of experiments conducted in the past to determine the electron charge. In Millikan’s experiments the electron charge was defined as a minimal difference of ionized mineral oil drops (R. A. Millikan. On the Elementary Electrical Charge and the Avogadro Constant 1913 Phys. Rev. 2, 109 – 143). The same value was obtained in a similar experiment conducted by Abram Fedorovich Ioffe with small metal balls, instead of oil drops. This minimal charge change corresponds to a charge of an ionized molecule of mineral oil or an ionized metal atom after electron donation/acceptance. In the proposed theory, ion charge is less than the charge of a free electron/positron. A detailed definition of the ion charge as a part of the charge of a free electron/positron is presented below, in the section “Molecules and ions”. For Millikan’s experiments, the charge of the mineral oil molecule composed by 10 carbon atoms, after removing/donation of one electron is around 1/420 of electron charge (see “Molecules and ions”).The metal used byIoffe was zinc and the charge of zinc ion Zn+is around 1/164 of electron charge (see “Molecules and ions”). The electron charge determined by Stoney was also the charge of monovalent metal ion. During electrolysis, electrons are transferred from the negatively ionized atoms of the cathode to positive ions of the electrolyte. Cathode charge is the sum of ion charges on the cathode surface. This means that the total charge of the ions of the cathode is always less than the total charge of the free electrons that have been spent in ionization of atoms of the cathode. For the copper cathode the monovalent copper ion will have the charge around 1/160 of the electron charge (see “Molecules and ions”).

If we first make the electron charge correction described above we can independently calculate the mass of electron using the electron charge-to-mass ratio. Because of the electron charge increase about 160 – 420 times, the electron mass should be increased by the same factor to keep the same charge-to-mass ratio of electron. This means, that the electron mass should be one-fourth (around 420/1836) of the mass of hydrogen atom, and a proton is only three times heavier than an electron. I.e., this correction of electron charge implies the proton is a complex of two positrons and one electron.

In the proposedtheory, thecharge-to-mass ratio of a free protonmust be9 timesless than that ofa free electronbecausethe inertial massof a proton(1.2552 × 10-27 kg)is equal to threetimes the mass of the electron/positron,andproton chargeis equal toone third ofthe electron charge(2.4531 × 10-17 C). This value is 204 times greater than the textbook value, which is equal to 1/1836. If we accept that the charge-to-mass ratio of proton is equal to 1/9 of that ofthe electron, how did the 1/1836 value come out? This value was first calculated from the Faraday constant (defined from the electrophoresis experiments), the Avogadro constant and the mass of the hydrogen atom. This calculation is incorrect, since the charge of the atomic hydrogen ion (proton) is not equal to the charge of the cathode ions and the mass of the proton is equal to 3/4 of the mass of a hydrogen atom. Then, the decrease in 204 times should be multiplied by a mass factor 3/4, that gives a 153 times difference. And, this 153 times difference should be further reduced by the increase of the proton charge (around 150 times) followed from the increase of the electron charge by 459 times.

However, the 1/1836 value had also appeared in the experiments conducted by Wilhem (Willi) Wien and J.J. Thomson. In these experiments, the charge-to-mass ratios of the ions were determined from the ions deflections in the electric and magnetic fields. The charge-to-mass ratio of the most deflected ions was close to 1/1836 and because of this value coincided with that from electrolysis this value was accepted as the charge-to-mass ratio of the positive atomic hydrogen ion –proton. Why cannot we undoubtedly rely on these results? It is because in the Thomson’s paper from 1907 (Thomson J.J. On rays of positive electricity. Philosophical Magazine Series 6 Volume 13, Issue 77, 1907) and in the paper of Karl Wien about the results of his relative Willi Wien(Wien K. 100 years of ion beams: Willy Wien’s canal rays. Braz.J.Phys., 1999, 29, 401) we see inconsistence. Both researches had detected the spots corresponding to 1/1836. However, Thomson could not detect oxygen and nitrogen ions, even when he used air as the gas for discharged-tube. Wien could not find carbon ions spot when he used COas the fill gas in his device. Thomson found out also that at low pressure, whatever kind of gas was used, the deflection spots were always the same. One of them corresponded to the atomic hydrogen ion having the ratio about 1/1836, while the second one had the charge-to-mass ratio of the molecular hydrogen ion, 1/3672. The absence of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon ions spots in the mentioned experiments is very strange since all these ions were in abundance in comparison with hydrogen ions. How can this be explained? In the proposed theory, the charge-to-mass ratio of Cis approximately 1/1974 of the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron (see the calculations for Cin the section “Molecules and ions”). For O+, the ratio is about 1/3528. From these values, we can propose that the spots of Hand H2ions were actually the spots of Cand O+. Then, this explains the absence of oxygen and carbon ions spots, for which Thomson and Wien expected ratios 1/22032 for Cand 1/29376 for O+.

What is about other types of experiments conducted later? For instance, the 1836-fold difference in the charge-to-mass ratios of the electron and proton was also determined in experiments using ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (Gräff, G., Kalinowsky, H., Traut, J., 1980 A direct determination of the proton electron mass ratio. Zeitschrift für Physik A Atoms and Nuclei, 297: 35-39). How can this experimental data be explained in the proposed theory? Since the protons in these experiments were generated by electron bombardment of the residual gas, and before measurements the ions were selected to remove the ions heavier than hydrogen (with ratio less than 1/1836), these researchers did selected and measured the charge-to-mass ratio not for proton, but for a monovalent ion of carbon, C+, generated from the residual COgas. We also should mention here that, in contrast to the textbooks, in the proposed theory the charge of monovalent carbon ion is different from the charge of monovalent oxygen ion. This is also true for other monovalent ions so the charge-to-mass ratios of monovalent ions are different from their values in textbooks (see the table in the section “Molecules and ions”).

One of the basic properties of electric charge is its additive nature, where the total charge of the system is the sum of the charges in the system. To explain it we consider first the distance between ions on a charged body greater than the length of n=0-object(I) (≈ 10 -5 m). In this case an increase in the velocity of attraction/repulsion of charged bodies is a result of geometric summation of the velocity vectors of these ions. Another situation will be when a distance between ions on a charged body is less than the length of n=0‑object(I) (≈ 10-5 m). In this case, the sum of ion charges is possible because an ion charge is less than the charge of an electron, i.e. the density of directed n=0-objects(I) of an ion is less than ρ0. Summation will occur until the density increase of directed n=0‑objects(I) reaches ρ0. When free electrons/positrons not ions, are placed in a three-dimensional volume of n=0-object(I), ≈ (10-5)3 m3, the charge summations will not happen, since already one free electron/positron determines the maximal charge for the volume of n=0-object(I). Addition of electrons/positrons into the volume of n=0-object(I), ≈ (10-5)3 m3, cannot change this maximal density of directed objects n=0-objects(I). Moreover, in the presence of electrons/positrons the density of n=0-objects(I) will decrease (see “Definition of relative motion of n=0‑objects(II)”−”,”+” and n=0‑objects(I)”).

When we consider a charged body as a point charge, its electric field can be define as the density of directed n=0‑objects(I), ρE, for K number of ions, where the ion charge is equal to some fraction of the electron charge, i.e. ρ0/N (see section “Molecules and ions”).

E = ρE = ρ0 K/N4πR2

where K – number of ions, R – distance measured in the length of n=0-object(I).

If there is an electrostatic interaction between two charged bodies, K and M, then the directed n=0‑objects(I) from each of the ions of one charged body are moving relatively directed n=0‑objects(I) of the ions of other charged body. This means an increase in velocity proportional to the product of ion numbers of the two charged bodies. Then, the change in the velocity of attraction/repulsion of two charged bodies, depending on the distance R, can be written as follows:

VE = ρEv0 = v0ρ0 КM/N4πR2

where K and – number of ions, R – distance expressed in length of n=0‑objects(I),  ρ0/N  – ion charge.

In the proposed definition of electrostatic interactions, “force” (i.e. change of velocity VE) of a moving charge will be applied to the other charge immediately. This is due to the velocity dependence on the density of directed n=0-objects(I) between the charges, which is defined by the three-dimensionality of space. In other words, long-range electrostatic interaction is due to the geometric nature of velocity determined by the density n=0‑objects(I). When the distance between the charges is changed this changes the density of directed n=0-objects(I) and, as a consequence, the velocity, without delay. This is true regardless of whether the charges are moving relative to each other or are at rest, which corresponds to the concept of the direct action of bodies at a distance (about changes occurring during the motion of charges, see “Electric current, magnetic field of constant current and the magnetic properties of matter”). This change is passed through not an empty space but a continuous medium, ether consisting of n=0-objects(I), as in the case of the concept of short-range interactions. The medium, consisting of directed n=0-objects(I) and localized between the charges, is compressed/expanded resulting in charge attraction/repulsion. At the same time, non-directed n=0-objects(I) of the medium repel each other constantly, causing expansion of the medium.

The Lorentz transformation cannot be applied to an electric field of the proposed theory, since this field is a medium of directed n=0‑objects(I), and charge is their density, which is independent of the choice of reference system. Nevertheless, the density of directed n=0‑objects(I) will change with the movement of electrons/positrons, which will result in a magnetic field (see about the magnetic field below).

The Coulomb equation described above originates from three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional space, the velocity of the electrostatic interaction will be inversely proportional to distance to the power of three.


In contrast to existing theories, in which the nature of electric charge is not known, the electric charge in the proposed theory has a geometric definition. It represents the amount of directed particles of vacuum (directed n=0-objects(I)). In the case of elementary particles – electrons and positrons, particles of the vacuum (n=0-objects(I)) are distributed around elementary particles centrally symmetric and inversely proportional to the surface area of a three-dimensional sphere. In the case of composite particles, the directed particles of the vacuum do not pass across the entire spherical surface of the composite particles, but only through the certain parts of the surface. I.e. the electrostatic field of charged particles is formed by real particles that comprise the expanding vacuum, and not by virtual quanta of the electromagnetic field, as presented by modern physics. This eliminates the need for Heisenberg uncertainty principle to allow for the existence of virtual photons and their exchange between the charges to explain the nature of the electrostatic attraction/repulsion.

In the absence of elementary particles and composite particles, the particles of the vacuum (n=0-objects(I)) are not directed and move in all directions, with a velocity comparable nowadays to that of light. Visually, this movement is similar to the expansion of a gas. In other words, instead of the stationary ether there is expanding ether with a velocity comparable to the speed of light. The presence of elementary particles – electrons and positrons, causes polarization of the vacuum particles, and they become directed relative to the elementary particles, and thus the elementary charge is formed.

In the proposed theory the value of the charge of an electron/positron is higher (about 459 times) than the value used in modern physics, while the proton charge is one third of the charge of the positron.

The equations of the proposed theory determine the velocity for a given distance between charges, and thus the value of velocity change. Modern physics uses the concept of force. Since force is reduced to acceleration, i.e. to a change of velocity, we can say that the equations of the proposed theory match the equation of Coulomb’s law.

In contrast to modern theories, the proposed theory predicts that at a distance of ≈ 105–1010 m Coulomb’s law is not correct. Within this distance range, there is a decrease in the velocity of attraction/repulsion in direct ratio to the square of the distance. In the range of ≈ 1010–1015 m, the velocity of attraction/repulsion of electrons/positrons is equal to zero. If the distance between the electrons/positrons is less than ≈ 1015 m, i.e. if they overlap, their relative velocity is constant and equal to ≈ 102 m/s.

From the correspondence of Coulomb’s law to the equation above, describing the distribution of the n=0-objects(I) as being inversely proportionally to the square of three-dimensional sphere, it follows that the established laws of physics are such that they characterize space, namely its dimension and movement. This implies that space is real and not just a reference frame, introduced for more convenient description of the matter within it. In the proposed theory, matter is the n-dimensional space of moving n‑objects.

The simplification of electric charge as merely a feature of elementary particles was a mistake, which turned physics in the wrong direction. Quantum mechanics, modern proton-neutron models of the atomic nucleus are consequences of this limited understanding of electric charge. If the notion of charge had been considered as a manifestation of the properties of space associated with elementary particles, this would create a different physics.