[Note to reader: I think that many people are daunted trying to understand Miles Mathis’ theories on physics because his work is prolific, spanning well over 6,000 pages and hundreds of papers. I think it’s high time someone tried to synthesize and present this work in a condensed and more accessible fashion. The post below represents a start, but it is woefully incomplete. It was initially part of a paper that tried to use Miles’ theories to unlock the mysteries of “free energy.” Here is a link to that original paper.  I am asking for people who are familiar with his theories to help expand, improve, correct and generally upgrade the text. If you have any suggestions of things to add or change please add a comment below. Or if you want to take a more active, hands-on role in this crowdsourcing effort, I have created a google document of this post for people to work on collectively. If you want editing privileges, just send me an e-mail and I’ll send you a link. If I don’t know you then please also introduce yourself and a few words about why you feel you will be able to help. And please be patient waiting for a reply — I’m a busy guy!]

Goethe 2

This document is intended as a primer on the scientific theories of Miles Mathis, an independent, self-taught polymath who has rebuilt physics from the ground up. Miles is unique in that he started from scratch and questioned everything from first principles, going back to Euclid. He has dug into the equations and original writings of Newton, Farraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, etc., emerging with improvements and deep new insights. Before standing on the shoulders of giants to try to see farther than them, he first peered over their shoulders and checked their work. As astonishing as it sounds, he has found fundamental errors and leaps of logic in all of their work and corrected it, delivering a truly mechanical theory of physics (without abandoning relativity). It might be said that he has created a new physics by fixing the old one. His writing style is lucid, straightforward, accessible and almost always polemical.

He has applied his theory to a wide range of phenomena, including offering elegant and compelling solutions to the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the Proton Radius Puzzle, the Vacuum Catastrophe, the Pioneer anomaly and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant and a bunch of others), what causes gravity, why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a proton, what is the origin of permittivity, where magnetism comes from and how it works mechanically, where mass comes from, and on and on.

Miles argues that the Copenhagen interpretation was wrong and that the theories that emerged from it (Quantum mechanics, QED, QCD) are on the wrong track. In so doing, he has also done away with the theories underlying quantum mechanics, electrodynamics & chromodynamics (and hence the bulk of 20th century theoretical physics) in one fell swoop, without dismissing most of their experimental results. I have christened his theoretical perspective, ‘Mathisian physics,’ because I believe it is every bit as revolutionary and comprehensive as Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. For anyone steeped in years or decades of mainstream physics, giving this document a fair reading will require a deep breath and a truly open mind.

Above all, please do not judge his theory or work based on my rudimentary and overly simplistic summary. I also may have misunderstood certain aspects of his theory, so my account likely contains errors. You need to read and assess his papers for yourself, many of which I link to below. Now, with those caveats out of the way, let’s proceed


Miles insists on a mechanical theory of physics involving material objects in the real world and believes that math should be used as a tool to help us explain the actual physical movement and interaction of those things. In other words, he has set out to construct a truly mechanical theory wherein interactions are based on the movement and contact of particles that have mass and physical extension (size). He shows that the history of physics is littered with examples where, because physicists couldn’t explain why things worked the way they did, they simply used math to describe it, then mistook their mathematical descriptions for actual physical theories. Think of magnetic charge and the magnetic field. What are they? How do they work? We don’t really know. We have Maxwell’s field equations that can describe them, but we don’t understand how they work, and we’ve made up more and more abstract, non-mechanical notions to explain it (like so-called messenger photons). Instead of using math as a tool to describe how the physical world works, we’ve mistaken the math for the physics, and the problem has just snowballed into an avalanche that tends to blind and suffocate anyone trying to climb the mountain of truth. Establishment physics has managed to muddle through by inventing ever-fancier math to describe and accomodate, without really explaining, experimental results that would seem to contradict their theories.


To start with, Miles shows that there are really only two fundamental forces, gravity and charge, (where charge underlies electro-magnetism; he argues that the strong and weak nuclear forces do not exist as such but are derived from charge). He has unwound Newton’s equation describing the law of gravitation (F = GMm/r2) and shown that it is actually an equation that unites two fields: gravity and the charge field. (See this paper for a long treatment of this issue: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html; see this paper for a brief gloss: http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html; this one on how it relates to understanding the moon’s gravity http://milesmathis.com/moon.html; and here is one that explains G, the gravitational constant http://milesmathis.com/g.html and another on unifying or relating constants G, k and alpha: http://milesmathis.com/k.pdf).

I should note here that the preface for Miles’s first book was written by Tahir Yaqoob, PhD, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA, who also was the one who encouraged Miles to publish his work in book format. He wrote: “as far as I know, Miles is the first person to propose and begin to investigate the idea that Newton’s fundamental gravitational equation already has electromagnetism embedded within it, and that what is needed is decomposition, not unification. Such a possibility has profound implications.” On the back cover he writes: “I am absolutely flabbergasted – my gut reaction is that the idea that G is a scaling constant between two fields in Newton’s equation is an absolutely brilliant insight.” (Also, for more on his support from mainstream scientists, here is an exchange Miles had with someone working on nuclear magnetic resonance: http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf.)

Now, since electro-magnetism exerts a force, as we know, what is the cause of this force? And related, what causes charge?


Through rigorous logic and elegant equations, Miles has deduced the existence of tiny, sphere-shaped particles, which he has dubbed b-photons, which cause charge (and for that reason, I prefer to call them ‘charge particles’ and will use that term interchangeably with b-photons). Note that in his theory, photons have mass and size; they are not mass-less infinitesimal points that are nevertheless somehow able to exert force (as in current theory), because in a mechanical explanation there is no force without mass (F=ma). Or in other words, he argues that photons have mass, not just mass-equivalence, and he has pointed to many mainstream studies that support his view—for example here.

These b-photon particles constitute what Miles calls the “charge field,” and he has calculated they have a radius of 2.74 x 10-24 m and that space is filled with about 56 million of these b-photons per cubic meter, on average, though not with uniform density: http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf

(In a sense, the charge field could be likened to an aether, but whereas the aether is a mysterious or non-physical medium through which particles or energy moves, the charge field is actually composed of these tiny particles. And by the way, his calculations show that this field of b-photons accounts for the cosmic mass deficit, in other words, the charge field is so-called “dark matter/energy”: http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html)


In the broadest sense, heat is primarily a function of the local density of the charge field. As the b-photons that make up the charge field bang up against each other and other particles, they generate heat. More particles per volume means more heat (http://milesmathis.com/heat.html). And of course, entropy tells us that these particles will tend to flow from areas of higher charge field density to lower density areas.

From heat.html: “You can already see that heat is determined by the charge field. It can be transmitted either by the charge photons directly, by collision with a photon; or by collision between larger particles. In either case, the heat is caused at the primary level by the charge field. The charge field is either recycled, or it is internalized, creating more motion inside the atom or molecule.”


Charge is produced by the force of these tiny charge particles, which Miles calls “bombardment photons” or b-photons. (In fact charge can be defined as the sum of the force exerted by these photons, so we can say that charge is the summed mass of the photons.) But if these photons can only exert force by striking other objects — in other words, they only repel — how can charge cause attraction? Here is a deep insight: the ‘attraction’ we observe is actually just a relatively weaker repulsion. Think of the charge field like a wind. This wind acts on objects differently depending on their surface area. Because protons have a larger radius, and hence surface area, compared to electrons, they have more force applied to them from the charge particles of the wind (more particles are striking them), and hence they will be repelled further relative to the smaller electrons. This differential will give the appearance of attraction and repulsion, but this is only apparent. (See these papers for a clearer and more thorough exposition: http://milesmathis.com/charge.html and http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html. And here is a paper explaining magnetism: http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html.)

Note that this explanation does not tell us how the charge field ‘wind’ is created. In other words, if charge as a force is generated by the collective movement of a mass of b-photons in the same direction, what creates this “wind”? I’ll get to that in a bit, but first we need to understand Miles’s approach to sub-atomic particles.


Miles has theorized that in fact all subatomic particles (photons, electrons, mesons, baryons) are actually just these b-photons in various states of spin. Let me try to explain (this paper is helpful: http://milesmathis.com/super.html).

Imagine that the b-photon is this tiny sphere that is moving along at c (aka the speed of light) and spinning around on its own axis – as it happens, with a tangential velocity that is also equal to c. (See http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html and http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf).

Now imagine that b-photon smacks into another one indirectly (i.e. tangentially, as in not a direct hit). That will impart angular momentum. But (for reasons I won’t go into here but which do have an explanation) it is already at the limit of its angular momentum around its own axis, which we’ll call axis-a, so the particle starts spinning, say, end-over-end along the same axis that it is moving linearly, which we’ll call axis-x. This dual or ‘stacked’ spin would cause the sphere to move in a wave motion as seen from the side. Here is a visualization: https://youtu.be/lG1sCHVr4BU (This brilliant insight solves wave-particle “duality”; see the super.html paper I linked to above, and this paper: http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf.)

Now, you’ll notice that because the sphere is spinning end over end, the wavelength of the wave it traces through space is 2r (twice its radius). In fact it has to be 2r, because once the sphere is spinning about its own axis, additional spin along any other axis must be outside the gyroscopic influence of the first spin, which is a distance of 2r. (This also solves the mystery of why photons are quantized—see the photon2.html paper linked to above).

This process of ‘stacking’ spins can be continued, but with each additional stack, the effective radius has to be twice the ‘effective’ radius of the previous spin (I say effective because the particle stays the same size—but its effective radius is the larger radius of the spherical space it is spinning around in). So if we add another orthogonal spin, say along axis-y, it will have twice the radius of the x-axis spin, or in other words 4r, where r is the radius of the sphere (b-photon). And another spin, along the z-axis, would have a radius of 8r. The energy of this particle, in the form of angular momentum, increases with each additional level of spin (see http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html).

Now remember, this particle spinning about in all these directions is surrounded by other charge particles (b-photons) that are only spinning around their own axes and moving linearly. With 4 stacked spins (a, x, y and z), the b-photon has an energy and wavelength equivalent to an infrared photon. With 8 stacked spins, it has the energy equivalent to an ultraviolet photon (http://milesmathis.com/photon.html), and so on (see also http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html).

Here is a visualization of stacked spins (from http://milesmathis.com/neon.pdf):



But as the b-photon begins to stack even more spins, its effective energy and radius will increase, and it will start to ‘suck’ some of the surrounding b-photons into its sphere of influence. The photon will become an electron. How does this happen? Here I will quote from http://milesmathis.com/photon.html:

“Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gathers spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin [b-photons] cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.”

OK, so now we’re coming back to the question of charge from earlier about how directionality is imparted to the “wind” of the charge field. And the answer has to do with the way that charge particles (b-photons) are ‘sucked up’ into and ejected from these particles with all this stacked spin. I will refer to this as a pumping action.

And it’s not just electrons that pump charge through them, mesons and baryons do as well, and with more force. Protons and neutrons are just electrons with 4 additional stacks of spin. Every sub-atomic particle, then, has what I’ll call a specific spin state that determines its specific characteristics. (See http://milesmathis.com/quark.html where he uses stacked spin to replace quarks in QCD.)

Now let’s take a moment to consider this. We’ve got electrons and protons pumping charge in and out (neutrons do, too, but that charge is mostly re-“absorbed” or recycled by the neutron, see the quark paper above and this paper:  http://milesmathis.com/neutron.pdf). The pumping is not random or directionless. For example, a proton will tend to pump charge particles in through each end and out through the sides (not of the particle itself, but relative to the orbital orientation of the highest spin level). The pumping-in creates a negative pressure gradient or potential, which not only sucks in b-photons (which will be pumped in relentlessly) but also electrons and, if the pumping action is very strong, potentially even ‘larger’ particles, like neutrons or protons (by slowly draining them of charge).

So that pumping action explains why electrons are drawn to protons. But the electrons and protons don’t collide with each other (something contemporary physics can’t really explain; see http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html). The reason for this is that the electron itself is pumping charge particles in and out, so it is also ejecting charge particles, which will push the proton away, (along with other electrons, which is why they repel each other). The placement of an electron with respect to the ‘intake’ of the proton affects the strength of the flow of charge particles. With an electron acting as a plug, so to speak, the flow of charge particles is lower (there’s something physically blocking them). Without the electron, the flow of charge is higher.

Now, the charge-pumping strength of electrons is much weaker than protons (which have both much more energy in the form of angular momentum and can contain/pump a larger volume of b-photons due to their much larger effective radius). And atomic nuclei, as a structured cluster of protons and neutrons, are even stronger charge pumps.

I am not going to go into too much detail on the formation and structure of atomic nuclei. I will say this: the reason that the protons and neutrons “stick together” in the nucleus is not due to the strong force (which doesn’t exist). It is due to the fact that protons and neutrons come together in configurations that align charge flow through the protons and neutrons and also expel charge particles away from the nucleus and the other nucleons, either in the form of b-photons or light (b-photons with additional spin levels). In other words, the charge is being pumped either through or away from the other nucleons, outside the nucleus, so the nucleons do not push each other away.

Miles has a lot more to say about the structure of the nucleus and the elements and other compounds. Here are a some key papers:

















And for a neat paper that shows compelling mainstream evidence supporting his theory of nuclear structure, see this paper: http://milesmathis.com/orbiton2.pdf

Also see these papers on the size of the nucleus, the Bohr radius, the strength of gravity at the quantum level, the fine structure constant, the strong force, the weak force, mesons, neutrons, neutrinos, evanescent waves and quantum tunneling:















I will quote from the stack.html paper to see how nuclear structure relates to LENR:

“The nucleus is not a formless conglomeration, like a bag of marbles, it is a well-defined stack, with many rules of stacking. [Ed: Note he is not referring here to spin stacking.] Beyond that, the nucleus can no longer be considered a simple ion, seeking electrons. It must now be considered a very complex engine. Why is it an engine, you may ask? Well, notice that the stack of protons [in the structure of the nucleus] still has a hole top and bottom. It has charge minima at both ends of the stack. These holes act as intake valves, through which the nucleus can capture other quanta. We may imagine that it can capture anything from photons up to electrons, and possibly even larger quanta. What does it do with these captured particles? It “burns” them, recycling them into a new charge field that it can re-emit. Just as I have already shown how other quanta are engines in this way, the nucleus is just a bigger engine. A single proton, for instance, is already an engine, since it can re-process the charge field through these charge holes, feeding off the charge field and quantum field and then excreting the charge field by flinging it off via its rotation. This explains where the charge field comes from: we do not need to theorize that it is created from nothing by the proton, we simply allow that it is infinitely recycled. The same thing applies to the nucleus. The nucleus can also capture its own charge field through these charge minima and then re-emit it.

“If this is true, then the various quantum beasts, including the periodic zoo of nuclei, are not only engines, they might almost be called alive, since they eat and excrete the charge field. Not only that, but they eat and excrete one another. The protons and nuclei aren’t just passive valves through which pass the photons of the charge field. No, it appears that the protons and nuclei can eat electrons as well, digesting them by stripping off outer spins, and turning them into charge photons. Yes, a certain number of lucky electrons get caught in the whirlpool, and achieve a limited stability in the shells. But any electrons too high or too low for the whirlpool get sucked into the charge minima at the ends of the nucleus, and are turned into photons.”



[1] As quoted by Miles Mathis in http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html. For a provocative theory of what causes rainbows and why they bend down, see: http://milesmathis.com/rainbow2.pdf.