Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy

"Dirac's equation has profound implications for both science and for the search for new energy," says Don Hotson in the preface to his two-part article that takes Dirac as a starting point to explain where the Standard Model of physics has gone wrong.

Hotson also indicates the direction we should take to arrive at a more realistic interpretation of experimental results and of the data obtained through astronomical observations. He develops a model, based on what Dirac originally intended with his equation, that is intuitive and provides a good base for further research.

"If we continue to use the wrong model (and the Standard Model is profoundly wrong) we will continue to get confusing results," says Hotson, going on to develop an explanation of "the nature of the energetic, non-stationary aether that Einstein missed, that Dirac's equation demonstrates, and that Heisenberg and others destroyed when they dismantled this equation."

Flower of life - (I found the image on Richard Lalancette's blog, as part of an article titled: Zero Point Energy & The Dirac Equation)

If, like me, you are mathematically challenged, please do not get discouraged by the use of Dirac's equation. That is merely a starting point for an immensely readable, if somewhat lengthy, treatise in plain language of what's wrong with physics and where to look for better answers.

Don Hotson's article was first published in 2002 in Infinite Energy magazine and, due to its importance, is scheduled to be re-published in an upcoming special edition of the same magazine.

Dr. Brian Ahern (PhD, physics, MIT) called it "The best physics yet written". Dr. Hal Puthoff said it was "A true tour de force" and apparently plans to do some analytical work based on it. Dr. Nick Herbert, author of the book "Quantum Reality", offered to write an introduction and an astronomer called it "The finest example of beauty and simplicity in all of physics".

I hesitated to read the article when I first saw it, and only did so recently on the insistence of the author. Having read it, I do recommend that you download the two PDF files and print them out for reading. Get the files here:

Quoting from the Abstract:

Dirac's wave equation is a relativistic generalization of the Schrödinger wave equation. In 1934 this brilliantly successful equation was shorn of half of its solutions by a questionable bit of mathematical sleight-of-hand. Because it was "politically correct," this bit of juggling became the accepted interpretation. However, recent developments have shown the very basis of this mathematical trick to be invalid, in that it would involve massive violations of conservation. A reevaluation is therefore warranted.

The Schrödinger wave equation has been said to "contain most of physics and all of chemistry." Since Dirac's equation is a relativistic generalization of this already generally applicable wave equation, in formulating it Dirac expected that its solutions would describe "everything that waves." Since all matter and energy evolve as waves, Dirac thought his equation would be a unitary "theory of everything." However, the discovery of several new particles and peer criticism resulting in the truncation of the equation frustrated this expectation, and it is generally known at present as "Dirac's equation of the electron."

Dirac's complete equation, however, describes a quantum spinor field, which has as solutions four different kinds of electron: electrons and positrons of positive energy, and electrons and positrons of negative energy. Such supposedly "fundamental" entities as quarks and gluons have no comparable wave equations; yet they wave. Therefore they cannot be truly fundamental. Since in principle the Dirac field comprises "everything that waves," the equation therefore predicts that the entire physical universe can be made from these four kinds of electron. This study validates this prediction: all matter and all forces are shown to be necessary combinations and applications of just these four kinds of electron, fulfilling Dirac's unitary expectation.

In addition, direct applications of Dirac's equation provide simple, logical, and natural models of the electromagnetic field, the "photon," the "strong nuclear" force, the Ψ wave, inertia, and gravitation. It provides direct-contact physical models that agree with experiment, as opposed to the purely mathematical (and unworkable) models so much in vogue. The phase-entanglement feature of quantum mechanics, demonstrated by Bell's Inequality and the proofs thereof, requires that our reality be non-local. This seems to banish causality. However, Dirac's equation provides causal, direct contact models which are nonetheless non-local.

Great theorists from Bohr to Feynman have asserted that "no one understands quantum mechanics." The student is warned for the sake of her sanity not to try to understand "how it can be like that," but to take all its strangeness on faith (Feynman, 1985). Like the White Queen in Alice, quantum physicists must "believe six impossible things before breakfast." However, merely with the single assumption that the Dirac equation means what it says, these features are intuitively, understandably resolved: all the "strange" or "odd" features of quantum mechanics follow simply, logically, naturally, and necessarily.

About the Author

The Hotson "family business" is English literature. Mr. Hotson's father and uncle had Harvard Ph.D.s in the subject, and his late uncle was a famous Shakespeare scholar. Mr. Hotson, however, always intended a career in physics. Unfortunately, he could not resist asking awkward questions. His professors taught that conservation of mass-energy is the never-violated, rock-solid foundation of all physics. In "pair production" a photon of at least 1.022 MeV "creates" an electron-positron pair, each with 0.511 MeV of rest energy, with any excess being the momentum of the "created" pair. So supposedly the conservation books balance.

But the "created" electron and positron both have spin (angular momentum) energy of h/4π. By any assumption as to the size of electron or positron, this is far more energy than that supplied by the photon at "creation."

"Isn't angular momentum energy?" he asked a professor.

"Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular momentum is the energy needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave around the proton. Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion principle, hence for the extension and stability of all matter. You could say it is the sole cause of the periodic table of elements."

"Then where does all this energy come from? How can the 'created' electron have something like sixteen times more energy than the photon that supposedly 'created' it? Isn't this a huge violation of your never-violated rock-solid foundation of all physics?"

"We regard spin angular momentum as an 'inherent property' of electron and positron, not as a violation of conservation."

"But if it's real energy, where does it come from? Does the Energy Fairy step in and proclaim a miracle every time 'creation' is invoked, billions of times a second? How does this fit your never-violated conservation?"

"'Inherent property' means we don't talk about it, and you won't either if you want to pass this course."

Well, this answer sounded to him like the Stephen Leacock aphorism: "'Shut up,' he explained." Later Mr. Hotson was taken aside and told that his "attitude" was disrupting the class, and that further, with his "attitude," there was no chance in hell of his completing a graduate program in physics, so "save your money." He ended up at the Sorbonne studying French literature, and later became a professional land surveyor.

However, he has retained a lifelong interest in the "awkward questions" of physics, and with Dirac's Equation has found some answers.

D.L. Hotson, P.O. Box 789, Green Mountain Falls, CO 80819
donhotson AT yahoo DOT com

And here once more the links to Don Hotson's article in two parts, just in case ...

Diracs_Equation_Hotson_Part1.pdf

Diracs_Equation_Hotson_Part2.pdf

For part III, check: Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy - Part III