Now, in this concluding section of this Lecture, we shall revert to the first of those Letters to the Editor, which was entitled 'The Proton Enigma'. In writing that 1985 Letter to the American Journal of Physics I had in mind that 10 years earlier I had, in collaboration with Dr. D. M. Eagles [1975a], reported on the process by which protons are created from energy shed by the aether. This is a continuous creation process but it is governed by energy equilibrium so that matter can regenerate itself in its primordial form. This is something of extreme importance to physical science and it has its implications for new energy technology, but the achievement was really the proof, as evidenced by the derivation of the proton-electron mass ratio being exactly in accord with its measured value.

Now I spoke earlier in this Lecture about the significance of numbers in relation to the physical constants, meaning the dimensionless formulations, and the implications one might draw from a decoding exercise to trace what is hidden in the physics that determines those quantities. You will see an example of this as I come below to quote the text of that 'Proton Enigma' Letter. The prime number 23 is mentioned in connection with a property of the neutron, which I see as an anti-proton neutralized by the presence of a positron and a varying admixture of electron-positron pairs. I give the full theory, as it developed later, in reference [1986d] which is reproduced in full in my 1996 book 'Aether Science Papers', so you can tell from the 1986 date that I knew far more about that factor 23 than I was revealing in the short Letter I wrote in 1985 to the Editor of American Journal of Physics.

In the full theory, the neutron has four different states and it flips between states as it is attacked by the ever-present virtual muon bombardment that is ongoing in the aether, spending most of its time in the ground state. In that ground state and in two of the remaining states the anti-proton component stands a little apart and it is this that accounts for the fact that the magnetic moment of the neutron is -1.913043 nuclear magnetons. Allowing for the g-factor of 2 which applies to the proton (or anti-proton) if wave resonance states cannot develop around it, as is the case in this multi-particle neutron system, this tells us that the fourth of those states of the neutron exists for the proportion of time:

Now, if you are reasonably adept at using a pocket calculator, you may run through the exercise that I performed when I first saw this figure for the measured magnetic moment of the neutron reported at a conference I attended at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards in 1981. I was sitting in the conference auditorium and I had my pocket calculator at hand. I pressed a few keys to evaluate the above quantity and then the key showing its inverted or reciprocal value, to find that the number that appeared was 22.9998735. That got me excited, because it was virtually the integer 23. So I checked further, taking note of the experimental precision of that measurement and ... well, see for yourself in what I wrote in the Letter published by American Journal of Physics.

Before quoting from that item to conclude this Lecture I will just add the further note that my [1986d] paper explained that the factor 23 came about, not because of wave resonance around the neutron, but rather because of the odds of the chances of transition between the four neutron states, given that each presented a different target for the virtual muon bombardment. You obtain the number 23 by virtue of the different electron-positron presence giving different target exposure and, wonder of wonders, this allows the mean mass of the neutron in flipping between states to be calculated. The value, expressed in energy terms as an excess over proton mass, is in perfect accord with that measured, theory giving 1.2933214 MeV and observation giving 1.293323+/-0.000016 MeV.

If you wonder how 23 comes from the odds of Nature's statistical game of chance, then you must read that paper [1986d]. It explains how there are four neutron states, A, B, C and D. It shows that the equilibrium ratio between states B, C and D is 2:3:1 with state A as the ground state. It develops a theme based on charge volume conservation and energy conservation in lepton transmutations which shows that the electrons and positrons develop in groups of 166. The B, C, D group must have 64 electrons and positrons collectively, because states A, B, C and D have an electron/positron target exposure areas of 3, 5, 5 and 7, respectively, corresponding to electron-positron pair populations of 1, 2, 2, 3. This complies with the need for 166-64 to be divisible by 3. Note that 7x2+6x5+4x5=64. State A is the ground state and state D is the only state in which the neutron exhibits its truly neutral character so far as magnetic moment is concerned. The equilibrium ratio of states A, B, C, and D is found to be 17:2:3:1 or, to get the 166 electron-positron combination, 34:4:6:2. This results in state D prevailing for 1 part in 23.

This may all seem a little complicated but it has a logical simplicity and the underlying truth of it all is confirmed once the mass-energy of the neutrons in the various states is averaged according to the same probability distribution. As already stated above, one gets the precise mass of the neutron as measured.

The text of 'The Proton Enigma' reads:

This letter refers to the editorial entitled "Small things in physics can be big things." [1] It begins by commenting that "Surely, the proton is predictable" and, after showing how minor discrepancies have led to major advances in theoretical physics, ends with the challenging reminder that, even after 50 years, there is still no resolution of what is a major discrepancy involving the proton magnetic moment. It is discrepant by a factor of almost 2.79285, with this its value measured in nuclear magnetons.

Having recently [2] responded to Victor F. Weisskopf's concern about the proton-electron mass ratio, by drawing attention to a 1975 theoretical derivation of this quantity, now valid at the one part in 10 million level of its precision measurement, I offer also a comment in response to the challenge of Ref. [1].

I believe that the proton magnetic moment and, indeed, the neutron magnetic moment are explicable fully by a theory involving a standing wave system centered on the proton and its quantum electrodynamic interaction with virtual muons and electrons in the surrounding field. The method is too long to outline in this short letter, but it is hoped that my papers on the subject will be published in the scientific literature in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, readers can share my own fascination with a quite remarkable result, which, if fortuitous, would be a cruel act on the part of nature. The theory gives reason for believing, first, that the basic proton magnetic moment is governed normally by the usual g factor of 2, but that standing wave excitation increases this to its anomalous value of nearly 2.79285. Second, the neutron responds to a wave excitation between virtual muons and electrons in the magnetic field as if separated from a neutralizing charge to become a non-excited (g=2) antiproton for 22/23 parts of any short period of time. The standing wave resonance indicates integer relationships; it is relevant that the nearest integer 207 to the muon-electron mass ratio includes, as its highest prime factor, the integer 23. The consequence is that the neutron magnetic moment should then be (2)(l-1/23) or 44/23 nuclear magnetons attributable to a negative charge. Evaluated, this gives a theoretical neutron magnetic moment of -1.913043478 nuclear magnetons, in excellent accord with the measured value of -1.91304308(54)(0.28 ppm) reported by Greene et al. [3].

If this standing wave explanation eventually finds acceptance, the theme of the editorial will still hold, because it was the explanation of a small discrepancy connected with the electron magnetic moment that suggested the standing wave approach to the proton and neutron.

References
[1] J. S. Rigden, Am. J. Phys., 53, 107 (1985).
[2] H. Aspden, Physics Today 37, 15 (1984).
[3] G. L Greene, N. F. Ramsey, W. Mampe, J. M. Pendlebury, K. Smith, W. B. Dress, P. D. Miller, and P. Perrin, Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants, edited by B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips (Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984). The above Letter to the Editor of American Journal of Physics was written from my then-address at the University of Southampton in England.

H. Aspden June 19, 1997