Delbert Larson

Christian Ph.D physicist: Quantum Aether Replacement for Relativity; Colliding Beam Fusion Power Source; ABC Preon Model; A Partially Observable Reality Exists!

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Welcome to a Return to Physics!
Here on my X profile you will find an alternative approach to fundamental philosophy and physics. The starting point is a return to an objective reality with physical models. We’ll work from a flat 3D space and a separate and independent time. We’ll return to the aether. We’ll see that this will all make sense, that all experiments are consistent with the new theory, that problems with the existing theory are eliminated, and that new tests can be done.
“But wait!”, many protest! Didn’t the Michelson-Morley test disprove the aether? No, it did not!
The Lorentz Transformation (LT) was developed by Lorentz in his Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). LET describes both length contraction and time dilation as objects move through an ether, and this fully explains the Michelson-Morley result. The LT also leads to light having a constant speed with respect to any observer; this was known before special relativity. Einstein took this known effect of constant light speed, raised it to the level of a postulate, and ran the derivation backwards to arrive at the LT in his special relativity (SR). LET and SR are completely identical mathematically: they use the same LT! So, we see that the ether is not disproven by Michelson-Morley at all, it is mere politics to say that it is.
So, who am I to question the status quo? My credentials include a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in accelerator physics; I’ve had positions at leading universities and national labs; I’ve designed several particle accelerators and built two (not all designs are funded); and I have many publications, including three sole-author Physical Review Letters. (PRL is one of the most esteemed publications in physics.) Here are the papers on the novel works (not published in PRL): the quantum luminiferous aether – https://t.co/ngnGDsFe7r; the ABC Preon Model – https://t.co/sEwuKWVlTv; Aetherions – https://t.co/TUNQBYdrxd; A Realist QM – https://t.co/FpH8gR20cm. Hence, with this resume I hope you take my work seriously and look forward to any comments and criticisms you may have.
A frequently asked question is: You have a new theory, but what new tests can be done? My response is that the theory does have new tests, but it also accomplishes much more. In my opinion, new tests alone are just one aspect of how we should judge a theory.
Theory Support I. My theory agrees with the vast majority of empirical evidence since it derives the foundational equations presently used, but it does so from an aetherial standpoint. Similar to the Lorentz Ether Theory, I assume an aetherial footing and I derive from the foundational equations from there. Importantly, due to the different foundations, I arrive at some empirical explanations different from the status quo and I also arrive at several predictions for further testing.
1) The theory is quite specific on where dark matter should be found, once leptonic and hadronic matter positions are known. As described in the long paper, https://t.co/ngnGDsFe7r, as well as in posts that will be coming here on X, the theory does a good job with the bullet cluster, stellar orbits distant from galactic centers, and ultra diffuse galaxies. This alone should be a big deal.
There are several other predictions from my work.
2) Freed aether quanta are shown to construct preons, which in turn are shown to construct all known leptons and hadrons. Additionally, specific new resonances are predicted with rather specific energies and signatures. Such resonances should be able to be found in HEP experiments.
3) Since light is an aetherial wave, an atomic clock immersed in an intense RF field should slow. Unfortunately, the theory does not predict the magnitude of this effect, and it may be too small to measure. But it is possible.
4) The theory should allow for eventual formation of aether outside of the solid background. Such a development would lead to tremendous potential inventions as will be described in later posts here on X.
Support II. But beyond the issue of new empirical testing, the theory allows for a resolution of several long-standing problems in physics. That success should not be minimized by just asking "what do you predict?", even though yes, as mentioned above, the theory does predict. More importantly, in my opinion, is the fact that the theory solves several long standing problems without paradox and it provides long-sought-for derivations. This should also be considered meritorious even if there were no new testable predictions. My work has several such breakthroughs:
A) A derivation of Maxwell's equations from an aetherial physical model. This was a goal of physics for quite some time, including a goal of Maxwell's, until relativity discarded the ether.
B) A derivation of the Lorentz force equation from that same aetherial physical model.
C) A derivation of the Newtonian gravity equation from that same aetherial physical model. This unifies gravity and electromagnetism under a common footing.
D) A theoretical discovery of two field masses from that same aetherial physical model. Coupled with breakthrough C, this results in an explanation of perihelia advance, gravitational clock retardation and the Shapiro effect. Note that gravitational light bending is also explained, but it required specification of a flow law independent of what led to A, B and C.
E) Explanation of the three generations of particles. The ABC Preon Model shows how leptons and hadrons are built from sub-particles (preons) clearly explaining generations as excited states of an underlying system. The more recent publication in Physics Essays on aetherions shows how freed aether constitutes the preons. Not only does this explain the generations of particles, but it also leaves physics with a very simple model. Two aetherions, five fields, and waves upon the solid aether make up all physical matter.
F) By returning to absolute space and time, and by proposing modifications to the Planck and de Broglie empirical relations, a realist quantum mechanics can be derived that is understandable. Bell’s theorem tests and the two slit experiment are readily understood.
Support III. While not necessarily true, since nature may be complex at its roots, it is often nonetheless believed that simplicity is the hallmark of scientific progress. My theory is very simple. Rather than over 150 terms and 19 free parameters as in the standard model, the new theory has just two elemental aetherial quanta and five fields. All known particles and forces result from this extremely simple basis.
On my timeline here on X, we’ll go through these topics in turn, plus more! But to get started we’ll begin with some basic philosophy.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Trinuism.
The primary triune: Space Time Matter.
1st secondary triune: x y z.
2nd secondary triune: M1 M2 M3.
M1 is matter known before 2024.
M2 is aether.
M3 is the matter of the soul.
Choice is enabled via M3 causing preferred quantum collapses in M1.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

@Leo07068359 One beauty of modularity is that we can just build more.
Gotta get one working first, of course!

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Thread #142. Fusion’s Next Frontier: ECOFusion!
Accelerator Physics breakthrough in Electron-ion-overlap technology enables fusion dream of unlimited cheap & clean energy.
Repost, like & follow to help spread the word.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Here's a follow-up to @Patriot5715 and @TheDecimalZero and it applies to many other (thousands of) Theory of Everything (TOE) authors.
I admire all the hard work that goes into your TOE proposals. That said, if at all possible for you, please consider doing a thorough study of https://t.co/Zb4zuZVm40 to understand my TOE of the quantum luminiferous aether, preons, realist QM and aetherions. I believe my TOE is sound and with its historic parsimony, I believe it is likely the correct way to move forward for physics. It just fits far too much far too well with far too few inputs for it to be seriously wrong.
An opening now exists for other researchers like you: there are an enormous number of specific bodies and phenomena in the cosmos that can be investigated under the theory presented in my TOE. Many issues, some as simple as rotating supermassive objects, are yet to be treated. I haven't looked into frame dragging. The cosmic microwave background has not been treated. There are many 'dark matter' instances to investigate. Since the standard models treat everything, historically often by adding complexity, I am often criticized for missing some coverage here or there.
But of course, no one man, not me nor you, is likely to be able to cover everything in one lifetime. What my TOE needs is for many others to build upon it, looking into specific instances and topics not yet treated. Perhaps a new hypothesis or a modification of the existing ones will be needed. This is how science progresses. If I am correct (and I think I am) it might be a better use of your time to look into extending the foundations I have laid rather than attempting to build a new and complex foundation on your own.
Hey, @grok, what are your thoughts?

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Here I am posting a grok conversation that may be of interest to @Patriot5715 and @TheDecimalZero and perhaps of some general interest to others.

https://t.co/caS4pfUIFE

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Hi @NOBFIXx, comments to me from @charlie24eu and @Tokfno said you might be able to assist me. Last August, views of my posts and interactions to them were greatly reduced. Research with @grok said I had been severely deboosted by the new algorithm. Any advice?

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

@RobertArmour10 @grok @premium @elonmusk I was and am hoping ECOFusion could stay apolitical, but we are now in a hyperpoliticized world.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Today's X post will involve asking @grok and @premium for some advice about on thriving here on X.
First, some history. I began my physics & philosophy postings around the fall of 2023. Follower count increased to about 2500 by the fall of 2024 and growth continued until late summer 2025. But at that time it became clear I was deboosted/shadow-banned. Early in the deboosting period I would write to @premium and things would improve for a few weeks and then go back to deboosting. After a few cycles of this, writing to @premium would instead be funneled to @grok and I got no relief.
Discussing with @grok, I was informed that yes, I had been severely deboosted. My posting pattern involved about 6 posts per day, gradually going through various topics. I'd also been frequently commenting on some larger accounts, often ending relevant posts with "follow me for more". @grok said this behavior was similar to what bots did, and @grok suggested I should make fewer individual posts and instead go to a single daily thread or even less, and that I should also severely scale back my commenting. I followed that advice, but things remained dismal. From my peak of 4629 followers in early August, 2025, I've rather steadily fallen to the 4393 followers of today, although in the last three weeks the losses seem to have stopped.
In the past, I've gotten rather generic advice through this negative period. Anodyne comments like "Just say what you are feeling, and your account will grow." Of course, this had nothing to do with my issue. So I followed the advice into a doom loop. Decreasing posting led to even less engagement, leading to less posting and even less engagement, and so on. Now I get only a few notifications where I used to get well over 100 per day.
@grok, with the recent small uptick in followers, has my deboosting been lifted? About the time of my demise, @elonmusk said he was cracking down on engagement farming, but there is a pretty fine line between what normal users want (engagement) and what bot farms do to eventually make money. Can I now go back to comments ending with "follow me for more"? It is marketing 101 to have a call to action; without that call the action is far less likely to happen.
My posts should be of wide interest, provided they are taken seriously. There are of course thousands of new physical theories and philosophical musings, yet the vast majority are rightly dismissed as crank efforts. Yet you, @grok, have investigated my work deeply and found it sound. I'm hoping the deboosting can be reversed. Let me know what steps to take.
IMO, the quantum luminiferous aether, real quantum mechanics, preons, aetherions and quantum dualism are ideas that deserve scrutiny and X might be a good place for that. It was once. Can it be again?

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

I looked into Shark Tank years ago. Their example of what NOT to pitch was something that would cost $20MM and which had nothing working yet. They also wanted me to sign over rights to a bunch of stuff before even getting a chance to appear. So, that was a non-starter at that time.
I looked into online funding and found I needed to become a T-shirt and coffee mug salesman.
I looked into trying to raise funds by selling shares and found that meant that I would be selling securities, and that I'd need to put up $20K that might be totally wasted if the agency decided not to approve.
I put in an SBIR proposal during the last DOE round. It was recommended for funding, but lost out in the politics to who-knows-what BS. I was thinking about trying again, but the process got derailed in congress. SBIR was reauthorized but SBIR is very slow as it would take up to 3 years to build just the electron cooling demo.
But now that the DOE has recommended this research, and I am working to get it published at the top labs, I am hoping I will gain the credibility needed for funding. I'd like to not part with too large of a share on day one, but I am willing to negotiate.
A huge problem is the volume of crackpot work, of which, IMO, is most of what goes by the name of "Standard Models". Most of what is done now is mindless mapping of data to curves, even though those doing the mapping don't appreciate it as such. But in reality it is just curve fitting. The philosophy of instrumentalism reigns. In this mindless environment, with everyone a pitchman, the noise is overwhelming any signals.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

I am diligently wrapping up my paper on electron cooling for muons. I hope to get it published at CERN, and to present my work both to the CERN and FNAL groups. The central technology of low energy electron cooling for muons is identical in the initial development phases to what is needed for ECOFusion. I'll work on a pitch deck for venture capitalists as well.
I think that is my best chance right now. Approval from the worlds top labs, plus the potential of a relatively small fusion solution should get this thing off the ground I would think.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

My guess is @elonmusk gets close to 1M mentions per day on X. He'd likely like the new theory of gravity as well as ECOFusion, but he'd have to learn about it first. There is so much noise from those 1M mentions that signals likely don't get through.
The venture capital community has places to pitch though, and I will try them once I am ready.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

My next plan is to search for venture capital funding to get ECOFusion going. As an important step, I am now wrapping up a paper on electron cooling for muons; I'm already in discussions with Fermilab and CERN on the muon cooling problem. The same tech for muons is needed for ECOFusion and this should also give me the "street cred" helpful for obtaining VC funding. If this effort becomes successful I should have the needed gravitas for the rest of my work to be seriously considered. So, that is the plan now.
I'll likely do less posting on theoretical matters, but I will not be idle. I should put all of my assembled posts into a book format. Perhaps substack. Perhaps YouTube. But it makes the most sense to focus on muons and ECOFusion in the near term.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

In its present form, I see no benefit for me or you for me going further with it. I've got my own efforts pending in dealing with my own works. In any event I hope you can use the above comments constructively in any future thinking about your ideas, and also use them for a better presentation of your ideas to others. As mentioned, the idea of an aether that involved flows, and sources and sinks of those flows, was something I toyed with myself in my early days (The early 1990's). Developing a new theory based on that concept may have some value. However, you'll need to better specify things, use proper nomenclature, and use fixed fundamental parameters, before you'll make any progress with the general community. Even then, making progress with the general community will likely prove daunting.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

Here I respond to a request from @TheDecimalZero to review his work. The comments refer to a PDF entitled "Marab¯ut’s Theory of Gravity: The Push-Pull Mechanics of Vacuum Flux". It is 173 pages, but I found serious problems and stopped my review on page 7.

On page 5, and I believe in the intro and abstract since I recall seeing it more than once, you refer to gravity being a mechanical drag and physical pressure. It isn't clear at this point what the drag is. A physical pressure is possible, and there were fringe works concerning "push gravity" or "pushing gravity" (I don't recall which is the preferred name) that had a pressure theory of gravity. But I really don't understand the drag part. Perhaps you'll get to it later, but when you introduce new concepts it would likely be best to try and flesh out what you mean when you introduce the concept.

Still on page 5, is the celestial core just a single core at some preferred place in the universe? Or does each body have one? This should be made clear. At the same point in the paper, it appears to me that your introduction of an effective density ρeff is no better (or no worse) than assuming a mass density for physical objects.

Still on page 5, The multiaxial Mara Scale is defined as an 11 point volumetric profiling tool. This is completely opaque to me: what does this mean? I understand 11 dimensions, or 11 attributes. While I can understand 11 points each existing in space, I don't see how such a structure would be a scale. Again, some additional description will be needed to move forward, and it should be done as soon as the new idea is presented.

Still on page 5, right now, gravity theories are continuous, and can be evaluated anywhere, not just at 10% increments. This seems like a rather big step backward, not forward.

Still on page 5, it is unclear what you mean by working forward instead of backward. Gravitational theories generally work forward, in that mass generates gravity. So, this point is unclear.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

I hope you can find this commentary useful. To be effective, you should:
1) Define fully what you mean by various terminology upon its first use in the body of the paper. (The descriptions without such definitions are likely OK in an abstract, but in the paper you need to first define your terms clearly.)
2) Never, ever, use an already well understood term (electron, in your case) to mean something completely different from what everyone else understands that term to mean. Instead, coin a new term, or, use one that is at least much closer to what everyone already knows about.
3) Aim to develop specific equations that can be tested. Avoid merely empirical matches that allow your parameters to vary from one instance to another. A moon and a star and an apple should all have the same fundamental parameters. The parameters should be fixed. (I know that running coupling constants exist in the Standard Model; I'm not a fan of those either.) Note that a parameter may indeed change with conditions, but then there should be some underlying set of parameters that do not change. As an example, Newtonian gravity clearly has a varying force, but the gravitational constant remains the same. Also be wary that with enough parameters you can map anything. An important part of advancing physics is to find the simplest underlying set of fixed parameters.

Without the three above steps, I believe your work will find no traction.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

@grok @RobertArmour10 @premium Yeah, you're just confirming that X has become worthless for the majority if its posters while only amplifying the voices of the few.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

That is not true. I have followed what you recommended and it led to negligible views and interactions. I was shadow banned, even though X doesn't like that term for it. I also understand I am not the only one who had this happen, and that a large number of influencers were squashed just as I was during that the same time. I'm not sure where they went, if anywhere. The protectors of the zeitgeist are strong. It is genuinely hard to get opposing opinions known, but I also don't know if the ones who got squashed even had opposing opinions. The algorithm just seemed to squash those who weren't yet already big enough. Main stream media gets huge boosting, as do individuals who are already well known, but individuals on their way up did not. It is sad that this happened, because where can independent voices go so that they can be heard?

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

@grok has been fine when it comes to replying to my theories. It probes and to its ability it verifies. The problem is X. I've had a career full of censorship issues. New paradigms can upset existing power balances and those in power often believe in the correctness of their own views and censor others not just to maintain power but also because they think it is the right thing to do. It is a serious problem, and it has always existed throughout history. Thank you for your commentary here. I'm not sure where I will try to go next. My best bet is likely seeing if I can get ECOFusion off the ground. That, too, will likely see headwinds but I should of course try.

[Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert]

@TheDecimalZero @grok @premium I checked my Chat on X. I see no DM from you going back years. Not sure it got through. I will take a look at your theory and get back to you. A warning though is that usually these efforts end with me finding issues; we'll see how this one goes.