"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
British Royal Society

The Wright Brothers

Starlifter C141A


Much is made in science about being open-minded, and rightly so. In my mind, a rare exception is when a person is undertaking to do an experiment to test a hypothesis or a conjecture. You should not undertake to do an experiment unless you have a strong belief, even a passionate belief, that the hypothesis is correct. You have to be invested in the hypothesis. It is this, only this, that can keep you going even as you encounter frustrating failures and sapping setbacks, of which there will be a seemingly endless string. You may also have to negotiate the "It will not work"-types looking over your shoulder. If success comes, then the experiment will have to be reproduced many times under critical scrutiny of colleagues. This is where science will be safeguarded. If success does not come, you – and not others – should decide when to cut your losses. There, you have to be pragmatic.



Here’s my definition:

First, mass in physics is a rigorously defined quantity. When this definition is unambiguous, whatever fits the definition is mass. The most unambiguous definition of mass is:

Mass = Momentum/Velocity,

expressed as a scalar quantity (the velocity being less than the velocity of light.

Second, matterless is a subjective qualifier used to counteract our orientation and our bias. When we think of mass, we think of something that is made of matter - something visible and touchable like a pound of sugar, or something invisible like a gram of air. If you can give up this inherent bias, then the label matterless is completely unnecessary.

Static magnetic field in empty space is not matter – but it is mass just the same.

My theory, published and not refuted to date, says that a static magnetic field is a mass. What this means in simple terms is that if you take a bar magnet, then there is an invisible mass all around it, corresponding to the magnetic field all around it. I have discussed the problem of experimentally verifying this result in my original paper, and also later.

But the best way to capture one’s imagination may be for me to simply quote an email I received from Robert Bielik:

“A practical experiment to prove whether SFMS actually have mass (and thus inertia), is to place a magnet on an axle with the N and S poles facing radially outwards (i.e. the axle goes through the middle of the magnet). Then in the extension of the magnet, i.e. radially to the axle, place hall sensors to measure the flux from the magnet. Now, if this setup is brought to rotation, the flux from the magnet (SFMS) should "lag" the magnet itself during acceleration due to its mass and inertial properties. This should be readily detectable by the hall sensors by reading a lower flux during acceleration of the magnet/sensor setup.”

Of course, when one starts to think about it, many detailed considerations will arise. The actual design of the experiment may turn out to be quite different from what one started with. One must also remember that the mass of magnetic field is extremely small. But the main point here is that this is a project that requires more imagination and innovation than resources and manpower. A modern physics/EE laboratory would probably already have the necessary resources for an experiment. And in my view, a successful outcome will make a most significant contribution to physics.


BACKGROUND: In the conventional view, magnetic field at a point P in the empty space near a magnet is only a convenient mathematical definition that allows one to calculate, for example, the force on a small compass needle or a moving charge at P, due to the magnet.

I have presented a view that there is an actual physical entity at P, and that this is a mass. It is a matterless mass. The object of the following experiment is to test this idea.

At the outset, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the above idea and the mass-energy relation. Both say that when a piece of metal is magnetized, its mass increases. However, the mass-energy relation states that the mass of the metal increases: the extra mass is in the metal. The present theory says that there is also a mass in the empty space surrounding the metal.

The first consideration in planning the experiment is that the density of the proposed mass at P is extremely small: 8.85x10**(-12)xB**2 kg/m**3, where B is the magnetic field in Tesla. Therefore, any attempt to measure this mass directly in the laboratory would have to be a very elaborate project.

However, magnetic field itself is more easily detectable. Therefore, if one could identify an effect whereby a measurement of this field would be the evidence of mass, one might be looking at a far simpler experiment.

Accordingly, and building on the suggestion of Robert Bielik, I outline here in a little more detail an experiment that may be able to indirectly detect any mass of magnetic field.

BASIC NEEDS: Here are the resources needed for the experiment.

(1) A few strong permanent magnets of different shapes, sizes, strengths;
(2) A sensitive, fast-response magnetometer with a voltage output signal;
(3) A variable speed motor capable of spinning the above magnets;
(4) A compact, battery-powered laser light source (a laser pointer pen, e.g.);
(5) A fast-response laser light detector with a voltage output signal;
(6) A suitable oscilloscope with at least two simultaneous, real-time display channels;

THE EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENT: Mount the motor on a rigid base with its shaft vertical, and pointing up. Extend this shaft so that the magnetic field of the motor is not a factor in the experiment. On this shaft, mount rigidly a permanent magnet. Call the plane of rotation of the magnet the reference plane. The orientation of the magnet should be such that when viewed with the magnetometer located at a distance in the reference plane and hooked up to the bottom channel of the oscilloscope, the magnetic field shows the maximum variation during one cycle of rotation. In other words, the periodic curve seen on the oscilloscope should have as much “feature” as possible. The magnetometer should be placed as far away from the motor as possible without losing the signal, but not so far that feature loses its “sharpness”.

On top of this magnet, mount rigidly the compact laser source such that the beam sweeps a plane parallel to the reference plane. The angle between the laser beam relative and the magnet should be made adjustable. Near the location of the magnetometer, set up the laser detector such that the beam sweeps across its aperture. On the top channel of the oscilloscope, the output of this detector should appear as evenly spaced spikes when the motor is in uniform motion, with this spacing expanding or contracting when the motor decelerates or accelerates. (If the motor puts out voltage spikes corresponding to its angular positions, then these spikes could replace the laser arrangement spikes. Other arrangements are conceivable in case a laser detector is not readily available).

THE OBJECTIVE: My theory is applied here to the magnetic field in the empty space surrounding the magnet. If the field has a mass, then there is an inertia associated with the rotating magnetic field, no matter how small. There is also an inertia associated with the rotating shaft-magnet combination.

Consider the motor speeding up from rest. As soon as a torque is applied to the motor, it is instantaneously transmitted to the magnetic field mass in empty space. The latter, having nearly zero inertia, will respond immediately. However, the shaft-magnet assembly will respond according to its own mass. Thus, one expects a lag between the magnetic field structure and the magnet.

Therefore, when the magnet is speeding up or slowing down, one expects to see a lateral shift between the top and the bottom traces on the oscilloscope screen. One hopes to detect this inertia differential, rather than detect the very small mass of the magnetic field.

Since, according to the conventional theory, magnetic field is only a mathematical definition of the force due to the magnet, no such shift is predicted.

METHOD OF OBSERVATION: The reference state for the measurement is obtained when the motor is in uniform motion. In this state, examine the bottom trace from the magnetometer, and identify a fiduciary mark such as a discernible peak or trough or a zero-crossing. Then go back and adjust the orientation of the laser source so that when the motor is back in uniform motion, the spike from the laser source in the top trace lines up exactly with the identified feature. Overlap the two traces.

Now, if the magnetic field has an inertia, then, during slowing down or speeding up of the rotation, the spike and the feature will separate laterally.

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES: Some difficulties are foreseeable even before doing the experiment. The transient time shift between the top and the bottom traces may not be discernible with naked eyes. If the time base is greatly expanded, definition of the bottom trace may be lost. If it is greatly compressed, the shift will not be visible. One has to think ahead how to address this situation. One might be able to increase the rate of deceleration by braking the motor, for example. The experiment should be repeated with different magnets, different uniform motor speeds, and different shaft-to-magnetometer distances, and different masses of the rotating shaft-magnet assembly.


In Section 10 of my paper, I describe an experiment involving weighing a solenoid of known inductance L when a current I is passing through it, and when there is no current passing through it. The former weight should be larger by a well-known amount given by the mass-energy relation in terms of L and I. However, if my theory is correct, the mass increase will be twice as much.


Please read first this introduction.

Then please read the theory, and its possible ramifications.


I describe here a conceptual experiment designed to attempt to create such a structure in the laboratory.


The idea of this experiment follows the lines of an artifice I used to make my theoretical deduction. That artifice was a planar ring current system that served as an intermediate step towards constructing the source-free state. Thus, this current system may be seen as a precursor to that state. Hence, the plan is to take a cue from the theoretical construct and design an experiment on that idea.


First, take a printed-circuit substrate, metalled on one side. Identify its center O. Around this center, there are to be concentric rings of metal, separated by infinitesimally narrow rings of etched-out substrate. The width of the unetched rings is to be according to a Bessel function scheme described in my paper. The Bessel function amplitudes and zero-crossings may be found in tables. The circles of etched-out substrate correspond to the zero-crossings of the Bessel function. It will be necessary to approximate the sinusoidal Bessel wave as a step wave. Also, it will be necessary to truncate the ring system out at some practical radial distance (The theoretical structure has an infinite number of rings out to infinite radial distance).

Now, make a narrow etched-out straightline along a radius. This will create in each metal ring a very small gap. At this gap, attach two wire leads at the two sides of the gap, and bring these leads out below the substrate through holes in the substrate. These should be coated thin copper wires. All these leads should then be collected and brought to a point away from the substrate.

The leads should now be configured for applying voltages to them as follows:

(a) In the alternate rings, current flows in opposite directions.

(b) The magnitude of the current is given by the Bessel function amplitude (averaged out for a step wave).

Finally, all the lead wires should be so configured that a single switch operates the entire circuitry.


Once a steady state current system is established, the idea would be to cutoff the current “non-explosively” within a time period much shorter than the inductive time constant of the current system. If this can be done, then we could hope that the magnetic field system will not have time to dissipate (i.e. its energy reentering the battery or becoming heat through arcing or sparking), and might thus go over to a source-free structure of which this field system is a precursor.

Using an oscilloscope and a standard switch, first determine what the typical time constant for the overall current system is. It may be adjusted by using inductive and resistive circuit elements. But resistors are to be avoided if at all possible. The time constant t1should be much longer than some time t4, which we will discuss now.


Now energize the circuit with step voltages lasting for a time t2, and spaced t3 apart (t3 > t1). The voltage must go to zero from its full value in a time t4 << t1. In that case, we are expecting the repetitive generation of source-free structures during the period t3.


In this method, consider the switching diagram below. Energize the circuit by bridging the switch to the battery. Next, close the circuit on itself (excluding the battery) by a second switch, and then disconnect the battery. This switching sequence must be accomplished in a time t5 << t1. Then we expect a source-free structure to be generated.

The above are just two illustrations of how one might think to proceed. They may not necessarily be the best approach.


The detection of the source-free structure, once it has been generated, is a problem that needs as much thought as the creation itself.

First, it is a problem of detecting a field that may be both steady and time-varying. Therefore, a sensitive magnetometer is needed.

The probes of the magnetometer should be mounted around the current structure, and their outputs continuously monitored.

Second, does the structure, once created, detach itself from the source current? If it does, does it fall ground-ward – assuming that static magnetic field is mass?

To allow for this outcome, set up the current substrate in a high place in the laboratory. Then set up a number of magnetometer probes along a vertical line below the substrate. Monitor these probes on different channels of a multichannel oscilloscope, triggered at the switching off of the substrate.

If the source-free structure is generated and free-falls, one should see successive signatures in the oscilloscope channels in accordance with the law of gravity.


My paper A new mode of radio communication describes the theory of companion wave.


The conceptual design of an experiment, and the considerations involved, are discussed in this page..

An alternative way of testing the concept of companion waves might be this: If there are companion waves, chances are they would permeate the universe just like radio waves. Construct a ”null antenna” with as high a receive amplification as possible, and set it up in a sky survey mode. Examine if there is any received signal over a period of time.


There is a practical, proven invention which claims what seems to me to be radically new physics (that physics which I developed). However, this matter has got bogged down in inconclusive theoretical debate. For those with the necessary laboratory facilities (most universities would have them, spread around the campus maybe; beg, borrow or steal!), here is a great opportunity to consummate a nearly finished potential "discovery". Students can do this! My impression is that people involved here for many years (engineers all) have had their fill - everybody wants to talk, nobody wants do the extra bit of work. The current attitude seems to be: The device works - let's leave it at that. In this ennui lies the golden opportunity. Seize it, and its yours. For detailed description of the issue, and my prescription of the experiments, please visit here.