Issue 86
July/August 2009
Infinite Energy Magazine

Commentary on the Work of Don Hotson

Bill Zebuhr

In 2002, Infinite Energy published a two-part article by Don Hotson, “Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy.” As a casual reader of IE at the time the articles first appeared, I did not pay close attention to the depth of the material; however, I was motivated to read them more carefully when Billie Westergard, an astronomer who published an article IE #68, stated that he thought Hotson’s work might be the best published in physics. By then, I was a technical editor for IE and I reread the Hotson articles. First I read them through, realizing I was missing a lot. Then I studied them, trying to see the justification for each assertion and came to the conclusion that Billie Westergard was probably right and these articles might be the best material written in physics; I went on to state this in an editorial (IE #69). Don saw my editorial and said that I “smoked him out of his cave.” That started a two-year effort that resulted in the third article that is in this issue (“Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part 3: Structure and Unification”).

Those two years encompassed a long and difficult journey for Don Hotson and during that time I learned some of how the first two articles were written and realized the tremendous effort and concentration that was put into their creation. In the fall of 2007 I visited Don for a few days in the San Francisco Bay area and I think in that time we spent about 20 or so hours in the most interesting conversation that I have had with one person in that kind of timeframe. Most of this time I was driving as we were seeing the sights of the Bay area. There have been an amazing variety of experiences and thoughts that have contributed to his work over the years. The three articles are a result of more than a twenty year effort to resolve the inconsistencies and unknowns in physics.

Don has studied a lot of physics but does not have a formal degree in it. In an undergraduate course he was told to forget a career in physics because he insisted on asking questions that exposed embarrassing inconsistencies that the professor could not answer—and, for that matter, that no one could answer at the time. He pursued other things, including French literature and a career in land surveying, but the questions lingered and decades after they were asked he started to work on the answers. The pursuit became serious, like a job, then almost an obsession. That is what it takes when the questions are fundamental and no one in the world knows the answers. Some give answers but you know they are wrong. That makes it even harder because there are few “experts” to consult and most of the best have their own theory because they, too, know the given answers are wrong. The existing paradigm becomes under siege from multiple fronts but each attacker has a weakness that denies final victory. Furthermore, the attacks do not lend themselves to a coordinated effort because the weapons are not compatible.  Scientists working outside the paradigm tend to work alone on the deeper and more radical aspects of their theories.

Don stood on the shoulders of giants as all good thinkers do, but his contribution to the theory had to deal with a formidable array of unanswered questions and also had to comply with facts derived from massive amounts of empirical evidence gathered over many years by thousands of researchers. The Dirac equation has four roots, two of them negative, and at the time it was derived in 1931 no one knew what to do with the negative ones. The equation’s implication was that the universe could be made up of electron-positron pairs (epos), two of them with positive energy and two with negative energy. The negative roots were taken out of discussion by making some assumptions and declarations that seem to have stalled physics for over 70 years. Don has studied the implications of taking the equation at face value and extending the theory and seems to have derived a very impressive set of answers to the most intractable problems with the standard model. Among them are the following:

1. It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.

2. The concept of “zero point” or “vacuum energy” grew out of the equations of the vacuum electromagnetic field. These equations showed that, if one removes all positive energy from any mode of this field, there still remains an energy of hν/2, and this vast energy, calculated to be greater than the energy density of a neutron star, was supposed to exist at the “zero point.” This however is impossible, as the zero point has no volume. How can a point of no volume contain almost unlimited energy? But if one removes all positive energy, what remains, Don showed, is negative energy. This energy belongs to the negative-energy Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) which is all-pervasive, but undetectable except by its effects on our dimensions, such as non-locality. Don also showed that this vast BEC is the power supply for all matter. The spin energy possessed by all particles, which conservation cannot explain, comes directly from the BEC.

3. The concept of negative energy is broadly encompassing and has been kept under the rug for over 70 years. Both the Dirac equation and the energy equation, including the momentum term, have positive and negative roots. This theory describes the result and its implications for the structure of the universe. The view of the whole universe changes dramatically when it is included and understood.

4. The nature of the electromagnetic field is revealed and explains for the first time how it can act at a distance and also instantaneously. Neither can be explained by conventional theory.

5. It explains the roughly equal numbers of electrons, protons and neutrons in the universe. Electrons appear to be simple particles, not made up of parts, whereas protons and neutrons appear to be made up of many parts, so one would expect that there would be far more electrons than protons and neutrons. The theory makes a strong case for the universe to have started from neutrons with the other particles resulting, in their observed numbers, from beta decay.

6. This synthesis also produces electrons and protons of exactly equal charge even though they differ radically in mass and structure.

7. Experiments show matter and antimatter to be created in exactly equal amounts, but we observe a very small portion of antimatter in the universe. This theory shows that the quantity of antimatter is equal to the quantity of matter and explains why it is not observed.

8. The size and mass of the nucleons is derived and explained. Conventional theory gives no rationale for either

9. The strong force is explained and unified with the Coulomb force. The strong force is observed and measured but so unlike any other force that the standard model has no explanation for it. It is nearly 2,000 times stronger than the Coulomb force and operates in a completely anomalous matter: up to a distance of a little more than a Fermi it is very strongly repulsive to keep the nucleons from merging. At that distance it turns strongly attractive to hold the nucleus together and after that it decays rapidly until, at a distance of about three Fermis, it is no longer measurable. Instead of a fundamental rationale, the conventional theory is patched with the invention out of thin air of the gluon, made unobservable, and assigned it the role of holding the nucleons together. The Dirac/Hotson theory accurately models both the strength and the very peculiar shape of this force. This is a very strong indication of the merit of the theory because the odds of obtaining this kind of precise fit with observation of such anomalous values is vanishingly small as an accidental byproduct of an erroneous theory. The unification of the strong force and the Coulomb is a major achievement.

10. The theory explains the nature of gravity and unifies it with the electromagnetic force. This description is consistent with the observation that gravity seems to act instantaneously. Gravity is shown to be limited in distance so that it is weakened near the edges of galaxies. This eliminates the need for so-called dark matter that has been invented in an attempt to save the current theory of gravity.

11. The structure of atoms is addressed (in the current article) to give a solution that can justify the observed strength of materials in spite of the huge proportion of empty space compared to the size of the nucleus and electrons. A proposed structure of a hydrogen atom is given that offers a rationale for the rigid positioning of the electron at a given radius around the proton and how this builds a structure that prevents the intrusion of other electrons and atoms.

12. One of the great strengths of the theory is that it is not limited in scope. All forces are unified and applied to the macrocosm as well as the traditional quantum world. The spacing of the planets and moons in the solar system that follow Bode’s Law is shown to be a result of gravity in combination with a wave of polarization that originates with them. This explains a number of anomalies about the behavior of planets and moons that have not had satisfactory explanations to date.

13. The implications on the theories of cosmology are profound. In 1921 the German physicist Walther von Nernst predicted that light from distant galaxies would be found to have lost energy in transit as every other example of transmission over a distance had demonstrated. This “tired light” theory did not gain acceptance because it was argued that space was empty so that the energy lost in transmission would have nowhere to go. Thus the red shift was attributed to the Doppler effect and has profoundly shaped cosmology ever since. This theory overcomes the objection to the loss of energy and resulting red shift and is a much better explanation. Thus the “big bang” is not needed and probably never happened.

These highlights are profound, but much more is offered by this theory and all science is affected by extension. Among them are the transmutation of elements that seems to occur in experiments that on the surface seem to be only chemical in nature and that seem to occur in plants and animals. These transmutations have been noted many times for over 100 years but seem never to attract the attention of mainstream science. The probable reason is that there is no current explanation for them and they are only an embarrassment if discussed. A better understanding of these phenomena may facilitate the science of cold fusion as well as biology and the medical profession.

Another very controversial subject is the existence and properties of so-called psi phenomena, which encompasses a variety of currently unexplainable events such as telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis, ability to see future events, and even extends to some UFO phenomena. A lot of serious work (as well a lot of nonsense) has been devoted to this subject without it being seriously considered by science in general. Again, this is mostly because there is no room for it in mainstream thinking and also because it is notoriously irreproducible. However, as the cold fusion community knows, and the Wright Brothers knew, early experiments are not based on a sound understanding of the science and there is a lot of fumbling in the dark. The Dirac/Hotson theory opens a door for the study of these things. Even if it is all nonsense except for a single event that cannot be explained by the existing paradigm, then the paradigm has to change to accommodate it. I think there is plenty of evidence that psi is real and that science has a lot of explaining to do. IE has cited the work of William Tiller and other well respected scientists who have offered proof and some explanations for psi and Don extends this thinking in the paper presented in this issue.

The theory presented in the Hotson papers is radical in nature and huge in scope. It is the result of over 20 years of hard creative work but is just the beginning of a potentially very important and comprehensive addition to our understanding of the universe. Others must now comment and extend the thinking. Some ideas may not be valid upon further study, but the theory addresses so many open questions so well that a very strong case is made for it being worthy of further study. IE readers include a significant portion of the thinkers that may be able to make constructive comments and we welcome them. There is a good chance that a lot of new science can come from this effort. The value of that would be hard to over-estimate. The whole view of quantum mechanics, relativity and cosmology would change radically and as the engineering community gained an understanding, exciting new technologies would be developed. The current paradigm would be in chaos and heads would roll, but new and better ones would replace them and a new era in understanding of the universe could begin.