Abstract

A comparative study between Reich’s orgone energy and other known energies of the past is presented. Generally, those energies were called by different names, even though they had the same fundamental characteristics. One of the most accepted and widespread terms, that might encompass all others, is aether. Its functions were studied in all epochs, both inside and outside scientific institutions. In 1905, Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis, the (luminiferous) aether was removed from mainstream science and no longer reintroduced. Notwithstanding that, the aether continued to be thoroughly studied by many independent researchers and scientists outside, and in some cases even inside, various academic circles. From the present investigation it emerged that orgone energy presents many similarities with most ancient and more recent conceptions of energy, and it can be identified with them. Besides, the (luminiferous) aether of the Victorian age might be considered directly related to Reich’s orgone energy. This is because they have in common some very basic physical qualities.

Introduction

Reich’s research activity was focused on the investigation of an energetic principle apparently new to the science of the time. He succeeded in addition to experimentally confirming its presence in nature, and the cosmos, and in all living organisms, to measure, quantify and manage it. He wanted to name it orgone energy or orgone. Reich found that this energetic principle had many functions and might explain physical and metaphysical phenomena and be in possession of therapeutic qualities. He found it endowed too with aspects between the living and the non-living.

However, Reich’s orgone energy was not a new energetic principle, but a very old one. Its properties were investigated and studied before Reich by many scholars and scientists, in every age. In the Scientific Revolution physical science was fully involved in the study of the aether with the aim of explaining some of its functions in basic physical phenomena such as the action-at-a-distance of bodies (gravitation), the propagation and the aberration of light, and the formation of matter. It was then called luminiferous aether. Additional functions of the luminiferous aether that were investigated included neither refracting a ray of light when passing through it nor reflecting it. It also posed extremely low or zero resistance to the motion of bodies. Indeed, Reich never claimed to have discovered something new, but he highlighted that he had discovered and made public for the first time the scientific laws that govern this energy.

“I am well aware of the fact that the human race has known about the existence of a universal energy related to life for many ages. However, the basic task of natural science consisted in making this energy usable. This is the sole difference between my work and all preceding knowledge.” (2)

“The primordial OR energy ocean (formerly called “ether”) exists and is mass-free. Inert as well as heavy mass arise from mass-free energy through certain functional processes already known to orgonomic research in some detail.” (3)

In the Victorian age scientists failed to consider and investigate the therapeutic properties of the (luminiferous) aether and its relationship with the metaphysical realm since they studied it from either a mechanistic or a mystical point of view. Therefore, exclusivity must be given to Reich for having discovered aether as a living and pulsating energy with potent therapeutic qualities. He made the knowledge available to the public on how to use it for healing purposes. In addition, the tiny orgone or aether particles that the orgone energy continuum was supposed to be made from were endowed by Reich with life-giving and syntropic qualities. These latter properties were less considered by the scientific circles of the 18th and 19th centuries, in that scientists were more apt to consider the aether as a medium fundamental to explain the action-at-a-distance of bodies. It was a medium competent to transmit transverse waves of light and electricity, and the other known radiant and electrical actions, rather than having possible functions in the biological and medical realms. The only people in our recent history that seriously considered and applied the therapeutic qualities of the aether, were the Chinese, around ten thousand years ago. This was with their Qi conception and their acupuncture methodology.

According to Reich, orgone energy is also responsible for metaphysical phenomena in that he thought the Oranur state (one of three characterizing the behaviour of the orgone energy continuum) might help to promote higher states of consciousness. (4)

Reich thought this kind of energy can be found everywhere and fills the universe and all things in nature and is the primary component of matter. Orgone energy and matter can co-exist in the same space. Orgone energy is said to be a pre-atomic energy as matter is formed by the superimposition of two or more orgone energy waves (each wave presumably associated to the movement through space of an orgone energy unit).
The above phenomenon marks the line beyond which formation of secondary physical phenomena, recognized by traditional physics as electricity, magnetism, gravity, etc, occur.
In high concentrations, such as those found inside an orgone accumulator, the energy has many beneficial effects on living organisms and might be useful in medical therapies of several diseases, including cancer.
Reich remarked that the qualities of the orgone energy continuum he discovered, possibly made of an infinite number of units or particles connected to each other and filling the whole universe, might be compared with those of the well-known (luminiferous) aether of the Scientific Revolution and of the ancient’s conception, and it can be identified with that. (5)
Table 1 reports a comparison between the (luminiferous) aether of the Scientific Revolution and Reich’s orgone energy.(6) From the table, an almost complete similarity between the two conceptions can be found.

Orgone energy and aether

The presence of the aether in Nature and its qualities has been thoroughly investigated and discussed in past centuries by a long list of philosophers, theologians, researchers and scientists.(7) They conceived of it as a medium either composed of discrete, separate parts or grains, or perhaps made of a jelly or continuous substance.
In recent times, supporters of the granular hypothesis were for example Huygens,(8) Earnshaw,(9) Reynolds,(10) and Todeschini (11). Amongst the many in the other group (supporting the continuous hypothesis) we find Lord Kelvin (12), and Lodge (13) that promoted a continuous and part-less aether like an infinite liquid. Maxwell suggested an aether made of parts or cells linked together by interlayer connections thus rendering it both a granular and continuous (jelly) substance (14).
Image on the left in figure 1 shows a scheme of the granular aether as conceived by Reynolds. The aether is made of an infinite number of spherical grains with the same size. Piling of the spherical grains, when in normal condition, is such that every grain is at the same mean distance from each of its twelve neighbours (15).
Image on the right in the same figure shows the physical model of the aether that was taken by Maxwell to be a medium for the propagation of the electromagnetic waves. The model is made up of (hexagonal) cells of aether vortices connected by idle wheels or particles. The angular velocity of the vortices corresponds to the magnetic field intensity. The spherical idle wheels between the vortices would account for the electrical current and, while flowing from one side of the conductor to the other, make the vortices rotate and induce a magnetic field. Thus, each vortex represents a rotating element of the aether carrying magnetic lines of force, while the connecting particles transfer rotation and simulate electric displacement (16).

 

Reich’s orgone energy continuum might belong to the first school of thought in that Reich made many examples from direct observations and experiments in which the orgone energy continuum was found to be made of tiny, dynamic, and sometimes visible dots or points or particles (17). Nevertheless, the model developed by Maxwell seems to fit better to Reich’s assumptions of the orgone energy continuum being made of single units connected together.

In the period of the Scientific Revolution we find many important scientists that devoted their existence to elucidating the secrets of the aether conundrum. Amongst them we find Ciolkovskij (1857-1935), Lorentz (1853-1928), Mendeleev (1834-1907), Maxwell (1831-1879), Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1824-1907), Earnshaw (1805-1888), Faraday (1791-1867), Fresnel (1788-1827), Ampere (1775-1836), Young (1773-1829), Bernoulli (Johann, 1710-1790), Euler (1707-1783), Huygens (1629-1695), and also Descartes (1596-1650).
Descartes was the first in the 17th century, to develop and to bring into science a modern concept of aether, constituted of subtle particles moving in vortexes (18). Descartes conceived the aether as a transparent fluid, an extremely subtle form of matter that thoroughly fills the vast interstellar and interplanetary spaces, imperceptible to the senses, capable of transmitting force, and exerting effects on material bodies immersed in it.
It was in this period that for the first time in the history of our scientific culture the aether was fully investigated by scientists who tried to give it an identity (19). Since direct measurements of the aether properties appeared impossible at that time authors did try to estimate an order of magnitude from indirect observations. Size of the constituting grains (particles) (20), mass (21), density (22), rigidity (elasticity) (23), and viscosity (24), were the parameters explored. At the same time, in the last 40 years of the 19th century research on the aether was so significant and advanced to make Larmor, a British physicist, to write in one of the most important cultural and intellectual reference of that time, the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), the following (25):

“… and the properties of this medium [aether], as deduced from the phenomena of light, have been found to be precisely those required to explain electromagnetic phenomena.” This description, quoted from James Clerk Maxwell’s article in the 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, represents the historical position of the subject up till about 1860, when Maxwell began those constructive speculations in electrical theory, based on the influence of the physical views of Faraday and Lord Kelvin, which have in their subsequent development largely transformed theoretical physics into the science of the aether.”

The behaviour of the aether was mathematically modelled by most of the scientists as a monoatomic, superfine ideal gas or as a perfect fluid. Most remarkable along this direction were the works of Earnshaw (26), Maxwell (in its original form) (27), and Larmor (28). From the investigations it emerged that the aether had an extremely low mass and grain’s size, an extremely low density, almost zero viscosity and a very high elasticity (29):

“The extraordinary elastic properties of the aether are due mainly to the excessively high velocity of the aetheron [……], its long free path, and small mass [pages 65-66] … The enormous velocity of the aetheron and the great length of the mean free path makes the aether unique among all physical bodies. For rapidly acting forces it vibrates and transmits waves with a velocity of 300000 kms per second, and is capable of exerting the most tremendous stresses, such as are required for holding the planets in their orbits; but for slowly acting forces yields without resistance, because its own molecular motions are so rapid. [66] … the aether not only penetrates all matter freely, but even waves in it pass through all physical bodies, with only the hindrance incident to refraction and dispersion such as we see in light. The refraction is due to the unequal resistance offered by matter to the advance of the wave front, and the dispersion to unequal resistance to various wave lengths [68] … The enormous elasticity of the aether prevents bodily rupture of the medium; and this secures continuity of the wave front … It appears that the earth also conducts the signals, so that wireless apparatus may be installed and used in deep mines, which would enormously increase the power of signalling in case of accidents interrupting communication by the shafts and tunnels [71].”

These properties made the aether a unique fluid that transcended the properties of any other known terrestrial substance and were extremely exceptional when compared to them. To give an idea of what the aether quantitatively might be, Wood compared its properties with those of known substances (30):

“We conclude then, that a medium whose density is such that a volume of it equal to about twenty volumes of the earth would weigh one pound, and whose tension is such that the pressure on a square mile would be about one pound, and whose specific heat is such that it would require as much heat to raise the temperature of one pound of it 1 °F as it would to raise about 2,300,000,000 tons of water the same amount, will satisfy the requirements of nature in being able to transmit a wave of light or heat 186,300 miles per second, and transmit 133 foot-pounds of heat-energy from the sun to the earth each second per square foot of surface normally exposed, and also be everywhere practically non-resisting and sensibly uniform in temperature, density, and elasticity. This medium we call the Luminiferous Aether.”

Graph in figure 2 shows the trend between density and elasticity of the (luminiferous) aether according to some of the authors who endeavoured to study it (31). From the graph it can be seen that all the scientists considered the aether as having an extremely small density.

From the graph it can also be seen that density can be clustered, according to its values, in two different groups: one group including values higher than 1.11·10^-18 kg/m³ (red dotted ellipse), and the other values lower than 2·10^-23 kg/m³ (blue dotted ellipse).

The situation regarding Newton and his link with the aether is controversial and needs to be explored further. When developing his theory on the gravitation and the mutual action of bodies, he tried to solve the problem by resorting to an aethereal ubiquitous medium since he did not believe in the direct action of bodies at a distance in a vacuum. In a letter to Bentley, a classical scholar and theologian, he wrote (32):

“It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other Matter without mutual Contact, as it must be, if Gravitation in the Sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one Reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate Gravity to me. That Gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to Matter, so that one Body can act upon another at a Distance, thro’ a Vacuum, without the Mediation of anything else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity, that I believe no Man, who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain Laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my Readers.”

Newton believed that an aethereal substance could fill the whole universe at different densities, and also that it was responsible for the origination of all things.

“And first, I suppose, that there is diffused through all places an aethereal substance, capable of contraction and dilation, strongly elastic, and, in a word, much like air in all respects, but far more subtle.

…..

It is about the cause of gravity. For this end I will suppose aether to consist of parts differing from one another in subtility by indefinite degrees: …” (33)

“Thus perhaps may all things be originated from aether.” (34)

It is explicit and unequivocal that Newton tried to explain the mechanism of gravitation by resorting to the properties of a posited subtle, universal aethereal medium. Apparently, he failed in that and never introduced it in his final dissertation (to explain gravity and the interaction of bodies). He left his theories and equations floating in a void universe, and the explanation of the cause of gravity as a problem for the generations to come: (35)

“It appears, from his letters to Boyle, that this was his opinion early, and if he did not publish it sooner it proceeded from hence only, that he found he was not able, from experiment and observation, to give a satisfactory account of this medium and the manner of its operation in producing the chief phenomena of nature.”

However, his pupils and most of the great mathematical astronomers of the 18th century did not follow the path paved by Newton, and investigations on the properties of the aether started slowly till it become one of the cornerstones of research activities in the Victorian age.

Going further back in time, there is a period of relatively scarce evidence of interest in the aether where the only enquiries were advanced by theologians and philosophers. They mentioned it mainly in their work on astronomy by calling it caelum aethereum (the aethereal heaven). This rarefied aetheric substance was a physical continuum characterizing the upper celestial regions and the starry heaven for its purity in contrast with the sublunary corruptible worlds (lower atmosphere of air of the celestial spheres). Besides, it was considered that the planets moved freely through it and that it filled everywhere the space between celestial bodies. Amongst the most representative of this period we find Kepler (1571-1630), (36) Fracastoro (1476 ca – 1553), (37) Aquinas (1225 ca – 1274 ca), (38) and de Sacrobosco (of Holywood) (1195 ca – 1256 ca) (39). Interesting too is the work on cosmology and the conception of the substance the Universe is made of put forward by Fracastoro who fully considers Aristotle’s, and completed Empedocle’s conception of aether. Fracastoro thinks the sublunary regions, those close to the celestial bodies, were composed of the basic four elements (earth, water, air, and fire). Meanwhile, the superlunary region, those above the element fire, supposedly the lightest of the four elements, was composed of the caelum aethereum, an incorruptible, eternal, perfectly regular and transparent substance. According to Fracastoro the caelum aethereum was a dynamic, physical fluid medium in which the celestial spheres move.

Further back in time we find the work of the theologians and philosophers of the medieval Islamic East tradition. They were called the atomists. Prominent atomists were al-Juwayni (1028-1085), al-Ghazali (1058–1111), al-Sharastani (c. 1075-1153), and al-Razi (1149-1210).
The atomists of the medieval Islamic East tradition maintained that the atom (kalam) is a physically and conceptually minimal unit of magnitude. When a finite number of these atoms are combined or aggregated together to form a body, they continue to exist within that body as discrete articulated units (masfil). The kalam is physically indivisible and has a minimal or non-zero amount of spatial (three dimensions) magnitude that exists in and moves through space, and thus it is distinct from the space it occupies. (40)

Before the Islamic tradition we find the philosophical schools of the Ancients. Amongst the many we may consider the work of Lucretius (1st century BCE), Epicurus (about 3rd century BCE), and Empedocles (middle of the 5th century BCE). The latter, possibly a student of Pythagoras, stands out for his clear conception regarding the qualities of the fundamental roots permeating the whole cosmos. He claimed that everything in the physical world is composed of four eternal roots or elements: fire, air, water and earth that are moved by two opposing forces, love and strife. Each root differentiates from each other, being characterized by specific qualities such as weight. Earth is supposed to be the heaviest and fire the lightest. The four roots come together (attract) and blend under the agency of love; then, they are driven apart (disrupted and collapsed) by strife. The physical world is then characterized by a continuous and permanent combination and disaggregation of the enduring and immortal roots, according to determined proportions that differ from the type of material body, under the influence of the enduring forces:

“A twofold tale I shall tell: at one time it grew to be one from many, and at another again it divided to be many from one. There is a double birth of what is mortal, and a double passing away; for the uniting of all things brings one generation into being and destroys it, and the other is reared and scattered as they are again being divided. And these things never cease their continual exchange of position, at one time all coming together into one through love, at another again being borne away from each other by strife’s repulsion.

…….

And what would increase this whole, and from where would it come? How would it be completely destroyed, since nothing is without them? No, these are the only real things. But as they run through each other they become different objects at different times, yet they are throughout forever the same.” (41)

………

“Here is another point: of all mortal things no one has birth, or any end in pernicious death, but there is only mixing, and separating of what has been mixed, and to these men give the name birth.” (42)

To Empedocles, formation of matter occurs according to a vortical movement of the immortal and unmixed roots which by converging towards the center of the whirl give rise to the formation of a variety of mortal forms: (43)

“… when Strife has reached the lowest depth of the whirl and Love comes into the center of the eddy, in her then all these things unite to be one only; not immediately, but coming together from different directions at will … Immediately what were formerly accustomed to be immortal became mortal, and formerly unmixed things were in a mixed state, owing to the exchanging of their ways. And, as they were being mixed, countless types of mortal things poured forth, fitted with all kinds of forms, a wonder to see.”

Leucippus and Democritus, the founders of the atomist school in the 5th century BCE, strongly sustained the granular hypothesis of a ubiquitous and all-pervading substance. They conceived an aether characterized by a continuous granular structure and called its basic constituents atomos or atomom (indivisible or indestructible), or ideai (shapes or forms). (44)
These basic components were thought to be made of different shapes and sizes and to be eternal. The conception of Democritus regarding the formation of the visible objects of the world of appearance was very similar to that of Empedocles’. He argued material objects to be brought about by clusters of these atomos that were dynamic and characterized by entangling movements.
(45)

“A brief quotation for Aristotle’s On Democritus will set out their [i.e., the atomists’] view.
‘Democritus thinks that the nature of the eternal things consists of small substances infinite in number; these he places in space, separate from them and infinite in extent. He calls space by the following names: ‘the void,’ ‘nothing,’ and ‘the infinite,’ and each of the substances he calls ‘things,’ ‘the solid,’ and ‘what is.’ He thinks that the substances are so small as to escape our senses. They have all kinds of forms and all kinds of shapes and differences of sizes. Now from these as elements he generates the visible and perceptible bodies. He says that they conflict with one another and travel about in the void because of their unlikeness and the other differences which have been mentioned, and as they travel about they collide and entangle with one another, and that entanglement makes them touch and be near one another, but does not really generate any single nature from them; for it would be quite absurd for two or more things ever to become one. He explains the fact that the substances remain together for some time by the dovetailing and interlocking of the bodies; for some of them are uneven, some hook-shaped, some concave, some convex, the rest with innumerable differences. He thinks that they hang on to one another and remain together until some stronger necessity, approaching from the surroundings, shakes the complex apart and disperses it.’
He says that coming to be and its opposite, separation, occur not only in the case of animals but also in plants and worlds and in general all sensible bodies. Now if coming to be is joining together of atoms, and passing away is separation, according to Democritus too coming to be would be alteration.”

The work of the atomists was erroneously considered the basis of modern science. In fact, the term atomos of Leucippus and Democritus, first introduced by Gassendi in the first half of the 17th century, was adopted by Dalton to develop the fundamentals of chemistry. The atom was considered to be the smallest part making up matter. However, this was not the case, and subsequent experiments revealed the atom to be made of many smaller and different particles. Clearly, the atom of traditional physics has nothing in common with that conceived by Leucippus and Democritus. Unfortunately, the atomists are still considered the forerunners of one of the best-known building blocks, the atom, of which matter today is thought to consist. Making a comparison like the above can be argued to be a naive exercise, as pointed out by Mendeleev: (46)

The atoms and molecules which are dealt with in all provinces of modern mechanics and physics cannot be other than the atoms and molecules defined by chemistry, for this is required by the unity of science. And therefore the metaphysicians of the present day should, for the advancement of knowledge, regard atoms in the same sense as that in which they are understood by natural science and not after the manner of the ancient metaphysicians of the Chinese or Greek schools.

Before the atomists an aether with similar characteristics was discussed by Anaximander (that he called apeiron) (47), and Aristotle (48) in the 4th century BCE, and then by Moschus of Sidon, in the 13th-14th century BCE. Many authors identified Moschus (or Mochus) of Sidon or the lawgiver with Moses the Hebrew, the well-known figure of the Pentateuch (49). Maglione found that Moses the Hebrew was very well acquainted in the Science of the aether: (50)

“….. we must admit that Moses and his associates were very well acquainted with the laws regulating the behavior of an ether present everywhere in nature and in the cosmos. An ether that can also be called orgone energy, or vital energy, or fluid space (according to Todeschini), or whatever other name they may have given it. It is a body of knowledge that we are only recently starting to know and study, thanks to the enormous work done in the past century by a few knowledgeable and open-minded scientists, above all Reich and Todeschini.
……….
It can be inferred from the above that Moses was either well-acquainted with only a small part of this science, the one he applied to the Ark of the Covenant with the aim of creating an Oranur field, that he took or learned somewhere; or that he was a true and skilled scientist, with a broad knowledge, as suggested by De Grazia and many others; but he was involved in a venture focused on a very limited section of this science, whose task was to create and manage only a gigantic Oranur field in the desert for some particular purposes. It is difficult to say, even though I would be more inclined to support the second hypothesis.”

Possibly, the properties of this aether were already known to the ancient Egyptians, as proposed by Maglione (51), and even further back in time to the Chinese (Qi), (52) the Indians (Prana), (53) and the Polynesian (Mana) (54) of the 5-10 millennia BCE who were of the few to endow it with therapeutic qualities.
Many authors found numerous similarities between Traditional Chinese Medicine (Qi) and Reich’s Medicine (orgone energy) (55). A recently developed orgone technique, the orgone-puncture, is combining TCM and its energy meridian (channel) system, with the use of orgone devices. First conceived by Senf in Germany (1976), (56) was then developed and applied by Inza (2002), (57) Southgate (2002), (58) and more recently by d’Ingiullo. (59)

Orgone energy and aether in the 21st century

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, Lorentz, Hilbert, Poincaré, Minkowski, Ricci Cubastro and other scientists elaborated some physical and mathematical theories that paved the way for Einstein to develop his theory of relativity. At the same time, the Michelson and Morley experiment apparently failed to detect the Earth’s motion through the aether thus leading most of the scientific circles to the conclusion that it might not exist. (60) In 1905, Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis, the aether was officially removed from science, as the theory developed by Einstein, Special Relativity, did not expect the presence of the aether, it now being considered unnecessary. Clearly, the mathematician Einstein was not interested in considering the suggestions put forward by Newton and preferred to follow his own path, even though this would have made the great scientist turn in his grave. However, it is noteworthy that originally Einstein was interested in the aether and planned lab research to study the relationship between electric and magnetic fields and aether density variation. (61) Notwithstanding this, a few years later he completely changed his mind.
Despite being banned from science it was some time before the aether was completely forgotten and never mentioned again. In 1909, Thomson, a British physicist and President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in an address openly spoke as the aether as a fundamental part of future research in theoretical physics: (62)

“The matter of which I have been speaking so far is the material which builds up the earth, the sun and the stars, the matter studied by the chemist, and which he can represent by a formula; this matter occupies, however, but an insignificant fraction of the universe, it forms but minute islands in the great ocean of the ether, the substance with which the whole universe is filled.
The ether is not a fantastic creation of the speculative philosopher; it is as essential to us as the air we breathe.
…..
The study of this all-pervading substance is perhaps the most fascinating and important duty of the physicist.”

Or as See, an American astronomer, put it: (63)

“Notwithstanding the very secure foundation for a valid theory of the aether erected by the labors of the most eminent geometers and natural philosophers since the age of Newton, a strange tendency has arisen within recent years, for abandoning the aether as an unnecessary hypothesis. Whether this reactionary tendency is based upon adequate grasp of the geometrical and physical considerations involved may be doubted by the more experienced natural philosophers of today.

…….

… an even more bewildering doctrine has been put forth by Einstein and quite widely adopted in England, though it generally is rejected in America.”

Besides, at the end of the 19th century notwithstanding the rejection of the aether, scientific circles started evaluating the possibility that aether might be also instrumental in explaining the functions of life and mind, as Maxwell put it: (64)

“Whether this vast homogeneous expanse of isotropic matter is fitted not only to be a medium of physical interaction between distant bodies, and to fulfil other physical functions of which, perhaps, we have as yet no conception, but also, as the authors [Balfour and Tait] of the Unseen Universe seem to suggest, to constitute the material organism of beings exercising functions of life and mind as high or higher than ours are at present, is a question far transcending the limits of physical speculation.”

Notwithstanding a large part of the scientific circles was against Einstein’s theory, the theory gained acceptance and spread like wildfire in a very dry environment. Within a few years the aether was put aside and never considered again by traditional science. Cosmos and nature were considered empty, or devoid of any type of subtle, invisible, and ubiquitous fluid or energy.

Mainstream Science underwent a shift from a conception of space-energy continuum, whose presence of the aether was a fundamental quality, to a conception of space-time, devoid of any type of fluid whose aether-derived properties were replaced by scalar and vectorial fields. (65) In doing so, mainstream science began to consider reality as made of inanimate objects, and all the chances to discover the basic processes of things as animated by a living and dynamic medium, such as pulsation, lumination, irritability, heat formation, and condensation into matter (see table 1), were lost.
Many scientists criticized the acceptance of Einstein’s theories by mainstream Science. They posed his arguments as being pseudo-scientific and devoid of any physical basis. See commented as follows: (66)

“In fact as Einstein even proposed to do away with the aether, he has no mechanism for conveying action across space … Accordingly, it is recognized that Einstein’s reasoning is totally devoid of physical basis. He treats his problem as if it related to pure mathematics, and as if his reasoning were not required to conform to recognized physical conditions. And since he even introduces the curvature of space, to explain a mere phenomenon of refraction, which Newton would not have sanctioned, we perceive that the doctrines of Einstein are chiefly remarkable for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which they display … Accordingly, Einstein’s theory of relativity is as superfluous as it is misleading. In all his speculations there is not one truth corresponding to the actual phenomena in nature.”

Tesla, a Serbian-American engineer and inventor, commented on Einstein’s relativity, put forward and accepted by the mainstream, as something abstruse and incomprehensible: (67)

“He [Tesla] has measured cosmic ray velocities from Antarus … which he found to be fifty times greater than the speed of light, thus demolishing, he contended, one of the basic pillars of the structure of relativity, according to which there can be no speed greater than that of light.

………..

The theory of relativity he described as, ‘a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.’

The theory, he said, ‘wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved’.”

Todeschini, an Italian engineer and physicist, thought the acceptance of the theories of a void universe developed by Einstein and by mainstream physics, would have led science along a wrong direction with no exit: (68)

“Anzi, pensando che in tal modo [Einstein] ha deviato il pensiero umano dal raggiungere le nuove acquisizioni scientifiche conseguenti dal considerare i fenomeni oltre che dal lato fisico, anche da quello biologico e psichico, si deve concludere che ha ritardato di mezzo secolo il processo scientifico. ……

Lei allora non condivide l’ammirazione generale per Einstein?

• Io l’ammiro più di ogni altro, ma per una sola ragione e ben diversa: perché con una teoria errata, che non vale nulla, ha saputo farsi glorificare da tutto il mondo come un idolo.”

“Actually, thinking that in such a way he [Einstein] diverted the human thought from reaching new scientific achievements as a result of considering the phenomena from both the physical, and the biological and psychical sides, one must conclude that he stopped for half a century the scientific progress. …..

Then, do you welcome the general admiration for Einstein?

• I admire him more than any other, but for only one well different reason: because with a wrong theory, that has no value, he succeeded in being glorified by all the world like an idol.”

Oppenheimer, an American physicist and inventor of the atomic bomb, during the 25th Congress of the American Physical Society, held in New York in 1956, openly criticized the physics of his time and pointed out the need for a change of the theoretical basis of modern physics: (69)

“1°) – Accertata l’impossibilità di spiegare il comportamento dell’anti-protone e dei fenomeni sub-atomici, e che perciò siamo ritornati al punto in cui si trovava la fisica 50 anni fa, prima che venissero Einstein con la sua teoria della relatività e Planck e Bohr con le loro teorie quantistiche: si riconosce l’urgente necessità di abbandonare queste dottrine che alla luce dei fatti si sono rivelate del tutto inattendibili e di adottare nuovi principi unificatori.

2°) – E’ indispensabile che la nuova scienza unitaria consideri le relazioni che legano i fenomeni della fisica atomica a quelli contemplati dalle altre branche del sapere per stabilire l’unità culturale del nostro mondo.”

 

“1°) – Verified the impossibility to explain the behaviour of the anti-proton and of the sub-atomic phenomena, and that therefore we are back to the point physics was 50 years ago, before the arrival of Einstein with his theory of relativity and Planck and Bohr with their quantum theories: it is recognised the urgent need to abandon these principles that in light of the facts showed themselves totally inadequate and to consider new unifier principles.

2°) – It is required that the new united science considers the relations that link the phenomena of the atomic physics to those contemplated by the other branches of knowledge in order to establish the cultural unity of our world.”

Reich met Einstein in 1941 with the purpose of demonstrating and discussing some of his discoveries. Einstein first accepted this with enthusiasm but then dismissed them as of no value. Reich described the behaviour of the American physicist as the last barrier to the break-down of the old western culture society: (70)

“Einstein succeeded in fascinating the first half of the twentieth century just because he had emptied space. Emptying space, reducing the whole universe to a static nothing, was the only theory that could satisfy the desert-like character structure of man of this age. Empty, immobile space and a desert character structure fit well together. It was the last attempt on the part of armored men to withstand and withhold knowledge of a universe full of life energy, pulsating in many rhythms, always in a state of development and change; in one word, functional and not mechanistic, mystical or relativistic. It was the last barrier, in scientific terms, to the final break-down of the human armoring.”

However, even though the aether was banned from mainstream science many scientists applied themselves to study it. We find, in addition to the work of Reich’s, the research of Tesla (1856-1943), See (1866-1962), Todeschini (1899-1988), Okhatrin (1925-2002), and Khaidarov (1952), to name only a few.

Tesla, according to what is disseminated in his publications, never tried a characterization of the aether even though some information on its qualities can be found. He considered the aether an incompressible gaseous substance, filling all space, and of an inconceivable tenuity. It was made of particles immeasurably smaller than those of the air and with density incomparably smaller than that of any body known, even hydrogen. Static electricity could be considered effects of aether under strain. Dynamic electricity and electro-magnetism effects of aether in motion. Tesla posited that the boundless amount of aether available in the universe was the recipient and transmitter of infinite energy, and, if properly harnessed, might produce light and power. (71)
See developed a very accurate mathematical modeling of the aether’s behaviour that was strongly cosmological. (72) He proposed a granularly, continuous and physical aether filling all space, where gravitation arises from pressure, stress, or circulation in the aether. Matter moves through and interacts with this medium, and stellar systems, nebulae, and cosmological structure evolve through aether-mediated forces.
Todeschini did a very accurate study of the aether he called Spazio Fluido (Fluid Space) whose behaviour he modeled by resorting to the equations of fluid dynamics. The aether continuum was considered everywhere homogeneous with a constant density and to be made of granular units. By the flow equations he developed he could explain all the physical phenomena, and scientifically identify the mistakes made by Einstein in rejecting the Galilean relativity. Together with the work of Larmor and Reynolds, Todeschini’s work is the most complete mathematical modeling of the behaviour of the aether today available. (73)
Okhatrin, a Russian physicist, developed a conception of an aether made of ultralight particles that fill all environment, living systems, and virtually all media. He called these particles microleptons or axions and hypothesized they carry information about the composition and structure of bodies. (74) He developed and patented a bioenergy generator for healing based on microleptons. This latter point makes him one of the very few that considered the aether endowed with therapeutic properties. (75)
More recently, Khaidarov, a Kazakh physicist, developed a granular theory of the aether he considered a quasi-isotropic and elastic protomatter that fills all space. The aether is made up of indivisible and uncompressible particles called amers. Such units are characterized by two different states thus determining two different kinds of aether. He calls one state phase aether and the other corpuscular aether. Phase aether, whose behaviour can be assimilated to a pseudo-gas, is made up of separate, excited individual amers, while the corpuscular aether, assimilated to a pseudo-solid body, consists of stable and non-excited amers that generally group together to form large domains. Fundamental particles of matter, such as protons and electrons, are domains of corpuscular aether. Khaidarov uses the phenomena of evaporation and condensation to describe aether changing back and forth between the two states. (76)
In the last few decades a considerable amount of experimental evidence has been put forward that supports the assumptions that aether flows into all sides of the Earth. Further, that the Earth encounters aether on its orbital path. These assumptions are drawn from the results of tests generally carried out with the purpose of determining whether aether exists. Scientists who endeavored in such research were, amongst the following: Allais, Munera, Cahill, DeMeo, Galaev, and Vessot et al. (77)

The scheme in figure 3 summarizes how an aether (orgone energy) based knowledge was known and disseminated in every period of our recent civilization, from the ancient Chinese and Indian till our most recent times, passing through the Victorian Age. (78) Such knowledge is based on the conception of a space-energy continuum, or of a bio-energy that fills all the Cosmos and is responsible of all the material things and the physical phenomena. To the best of the author’s knowledge, there has never been a conception in our civilization as to a void, atom-based or space-time universe before 1905. This year was characterized by Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis and set the tone for the last century’s mainstream scientific development. This latter endeavour might seem an accidental spin-off from the primary and perennial flow of an aether-based conception since it has no equals in other periods of our civilization. Clearly, these two conceptions run parallel with no point in common as the fundamentals are totally different.

Conclusion

Over the centuries the conception of an all-pervading and ubiquitous super-fluid, named differently according to places and scholars, was available. Most of the scholars contrived it as made of unconceivably small or ultralight units or particles linked together to make a continuous texture. This medium and its qualities might be identified with the general term, aether. A large body of knowledge on the properties of this medium is today available, both from the past, through the fragments of philosophers’ and theologians’ texts, and, in greater quantity, from more recent studies and research carried out by various scientists. In these ranks are included Descartes and Newton, on through the Victorian age till the first years of the 21st century, and then on to various independent scholars. Very few endowed this energy continuum with living and therapeutic qualities. The only ones who did so were the ancient Chinese with the introduction of the acupuncture culture.
Mainstream physics and science, based on the space-time conception, might be considered an offshoot of an aether– or a space-energy-based science. The space-time concept itself was never observed before its official introduction in 1905 in the scientific culture of our recent civilization.
Reich’s orgone energy continuum can be qualitatively identified with the conception of the aether spanning all periods of our scientific culture. A granular-like structure, like that conceived in the Victorian age by Maxwell, seems the most appropriate framework to explain its behaviour. Besides, Reich was the only one in our recent scientific history who endowed it with living, pulsating and therapeutic qualities and provided evidence of it. Reich’s orgone energy continuum might be considered the most complete conception of the aether today available encompassing all the branches of science, from psychiatry and medicine to physics and chemistry, even metaphysics.
Drawing from the immense reservoir of material available on the aether might benefit the advancement of knowledge regarding orgone energy, its behaviour and applications in the various branches of science. Besides, the mathematical modelling work developed by Earnshaw, Maxwell, Larmor, Reynolds, See and Todeschini, based on theoretical considerations and laboratory physical experiments might be an extraordinary complement to Reich’s work.

 

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Leon Southgate for his suggestions in writing the paper.

References

(1) The present paper is an extended version of the first part of the communication What is Orgone Energy and its Relation to Other Forms of Energy the author presented at the Wilhelm Reich and Orgone Energy in Action Conference held in Granada Hills, California, Usa, May 24-25, 2025. Specifically, the paper is focused on the relationship between orgone energy and the energies of the past up to the 20^th century.

(2) Reich W, Letter to Sheldon N Kowadle, February 27, 1956, in Reich W, Where’s the Truth. Letters and Journals, 1948-1957, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2012, page 211. The recipient of the letter, Mr Kowadle, was a person enthusiastic about Reich’s work but who thought Reich had overlooked extensive material dealing with “Prana” and the “Aura.”

(3) Reich W, The Oranur Experiment. First Report (1947-1951), Orgone Institute Press, Rangeley, Usa, 1951, page 332.

(4) See the discussion on the effects of the Oranur experiment and the connection between physics and metaphysics in Reich W, The Oranur Experiment. First Report (1947-1951), The Wilhelm Reich Foundation, Rangeley, Maine, Usa, 1951, at pages 326-334; see also Ollendorf I, Wilhelm Reich. A Personal Biography, Avon Books, New York, October 1969, pages 195-196; and Wyvell L, Orgone and You, Offshoots of Orgonomy, N° 12, page 8.

(5) Reich W, Ether, God and Devil. Cosmic Superimposition, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1973, pages 139-161 (first edition of Cosmic Superimposition was published in 1951).

(6) Reich W, Ibid, 1973, pages 159-161.

(7) Whittaker E, A History of the Theories of Aether & Electricity, Dover Publications, 2017; see also Maglione R,
What is Orgone Energy and Its Relation to Other Forms of Energy, Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy, December 01, 2025; and Maglione R, Piergentili L, Temperature and Electric Measurements on an Organism to a Concentrated Orgone Energy Field, Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy, May 02, 2022.

(8) Huygens C, Treatise on Light, Macmillan & Co, London, 1912 (originally published in French in 1690).

(9) Earnshaw S, On the Nature of the Molecular Forces Which Regulate the Constitution of the Luminiferous Ether, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 7, pages 97-112, 1842.

(10) Reynolds O, The Sub-mechanics of the Universe, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1903; and Reynolds O, On an Inversion of Ideas as to the Structure of the Universe (The Rede Lecture, June 10, 1902), Cambridge University Press, 1903; and Mackenzie J, The Structure of the Universe Being a Presentation of Professor Osborne Reynolds’ Theory of Gravitation, Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science, Vol 4, No 3, pages 385-403, 1910.

(11) Todeschini M, La Teoria delle Apparenze (Spazio-Dinamica e Psico-bio-fisica), Movimento Psicobiofisico Internazionale S. Marco, Bergamo, Italy, 1949; Todeschini M, Einstein o Todeschini?, Movimento Psicobiofisico Internazionale S. Marco, Bergamo, Italy, 1956; Todeschini M, Decisive Experiments in Moderne Physics, Bergamo, Italy, 1966; and Todeschini M, Psicobiofisica, Centro Internazionale di Psicobiofisica, Bergamo, 1977.

(12) Thomson W (Lord Kelvin), On Ether and Gravitational Matter Through Infinite Space, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Vol 2, No 8, August 1901.

(13) Lodge O, The Ether and its Functions. Part I, Nature, Vol 27, pages 304-306, January 25, 1883; Lodge O, The Ether and its Functions. Part II, Nature, Vol 27, pages 328-330, February 01, 1883; and Lodge O, Modern Views of the Ether, Nature, Vol 75, pages 519-522, March 28, 1907.

(14) Maxwell JC, On Physical Lines of Force. Part I-IV, Philosophical Magazine, Series 4; Part I: Vol. 21 (March 1861), pages 161–175; Part II: Vol. 21 (April 1861), pages 281–291; Part III: Vol. 23 (October 1862), pages 12–24; and Part IV: Vol. 23 (November 1862), pages 85–95.

(15) Reynolds O, On an Inversion of Ideas as to the Structure of the Universe (The Rede Lecture, June 10, 1902), Cambridge University Press, 1903, page 10.

(16) Maxwell JC, On Physical Lines of Force. Part I. The Theory of Molecular Vortices Applied to Magnetic Phenomena; Part II. The Theory of Molecular Vortices Applied to Electric Currents, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Vol. XXI, Fourth Series, January-June 1861, Pages 161–175 (Part I); 281–291 (Part II); and 338–348 (Part II).

(17) See for example Reich W, The Cancer Biopathy. Volume II of the Discovery of the Orgone, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1973, pages 105-106, and pages 112-113; Reich W, Ether, God and Devil. Cosmic Superimposition, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1973, page 146 and page 152; Reich W, The Oranur Experiment. First Report (1947-1951), The Wilhelm Reich Foundation, Orgone Institute, Maine, 1951, page 270; and Reich W, Contact with Space, Oranur Second report, 1951-1956. OROP Desert Ea 1954-1955, Core Pilot Press, New York, 1957, pages 37-42, and page 218.

(18) Whittaker E, A History of the Theories of Aether & Electricity, Dover Publications, 2017.

(19) This view is not shared even by some orgonomists who think that the research and studies on the aether were totally discontinued after Newton (around 1720s) to start again only in the 1950s (see DeMeo J, Isaac Newton’s Letter to Robert Boyle, on the Cosmic Ether of Space, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab report, December 2009, available at www.orgonelab.org).

(20) Dimensions of the aether’s constituting grains or particles were investigated mainly by those supporting its granular nature. Huygens inferred that (Huygens C, Treatise on Light, McMillan & Co, London, 1912, pages 21 and 14, English translation of Traitè de la Lumiere, Leyde, 1690):

“… [they] are of an inconceivable smallness; … being on the contrary quite credible that it is this infinite series of different sizes of corpuscles, having different degrees of velocity, of which Nature makes use to produce so many marvellous effects.”

Newton found aether may contain particles that (Newton I, Opticks, Fourth Edition, London, 1718, Query 21):

“… are exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light: … and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastick than Air, …”

Being the (kinetic) diameter of the gas constituting the air around 0.3-0.35 nanometer (see for example Kunze S, Groll R, Besser B, Thoming J, Molecular Diameters of Rarefied Gases, Nature, Scientific Reports, (2022) 12:2057) it is reasonable to think that to Newton the size of the aether particles was much less than 0.3 nanometer. According to Reynolds the grains constituting the aether were of spherical shape and all characterized by the same diameter that he estimated to be 5.534∙10^-18 cm (The Sub-Mechanics of the Universe, Cambridge University Press, 1903, pages 1 and 237). The scientist, See, conceived the aether made up of spherical particles with the same size of 3.346∙10^-12 m. He called this fundamental particle aetheron (See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920, pages 50-86).

The following table summarizes the above data by author and year.

Author (year)	Grain size [original data]	Grain size [10−9 m]	Notes
Huygens (1690)	–	–	Inconceivably small, different sizes and velocities
Newton (1718)	–	< 0.3	Exceedingly smaller than air molecules
Reynolds (1903)	5.534×10−18 cm	5.534×10−11	Spherical, same size
See (1920)	3.346×10−12 m	3.346×10−3	Spherical, same size (particle called aetheron)

(21) Very little is available for the mass of an aether particle. According to Wood the mass is 1/(22∙10⁴⁰) lb (Wood, DV, The Luminiferous Aether, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal Science, November 1885, page 405). In the same paper he reported the value determined by Thomson (Lord Kelvin) that was very similar (1/13)∙10^-40 lb. Mendeleev considered the aether, called by him element X, the lightest of the elements (gas) both in density and atomic weight, the most mobile, the least prone to enter into combination with other atoms (inert gas), and as an all-permeating and penetrating substance. He found its atomic weight, when referred to that of hydrogen, could vary between 9.6∙10^-6 and 5.3∙10^-11 (Mendeleev D, An Attempts Towards the Chemical Conception of the Aether, Longmans, Green, and Co, London, 1904, page 42). The scientist, See, found the atomic weight of a particle of aether (called aetheron) to be 15.56∙10^-12 times the atomic weight of a molecule of hydrogen (See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920, pages 50-86). In more recent years, Okhatrin considered the aether as a gas with different densities composed of super-lightweight particles, that he called microleptons or axions. Particle’s mass was found to be 1.3 ± 0.6∙10^-40 kg (Okhatrin A.F. Macroclusters and Ultralight Particles (in Russian), Reports of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol 304, N° 4, 1989, pages 866-869).

The following table summarizes the above data by author and year.

Author (year)	Mass [original data]	Mass [kg]	Notes
Thomson (lord Kelvin) (1855)	(1/13)·10-40 lb	3.49·10-42	Same for all particles and throughout space. Aether as ideal gas
Wood (1885)	1/(22·1040) lb	2.06·10-42
Mendeleev (1904)	<0.96·10-4 (H=1)	<1.60·10-33	Aether considered as the lightest most mobile ideal gas, less prone to combine and form stable definite compounds, and all-permeating substance
Mendeleev (1904)	>5.3·10-11 (H=1)	>8.85·10-38	Aether considered as the lightest most mobile ideal gas, less prone to combine and form stable definite compounds, and all-permeating substance
See (1920)	15.56·10-12 (H=1)	2.604·10-38	Same for all particles and throughout space. Aether as ideal gas
Okhatrin (1989)	1.3 ± 0.6·10-40	1.3 ± 0.6·10-40	Aether considered as a gas with different density

(22) The density of the aether has been one of the most investigated parameters. The first to study it was Newton who believed the aether was not homogeneous but changed its density in function of the place. Yet, the sizes of the parts the aether consisted of, were infinitely various in subtilty. He correlated density directly to the elasticity as follows (Newton I, Philosophical Writings, Queries to the Opticks, Royal Society, 1718, pages 171-172):

“Sounds move about 1140 English feet in a second Minute of Time, and in seven or eight minutes of Time they move about one hundred English Miles. Light moves from the Sun to us in about seven or eight Minutes of Time, which distance is about 70,000,000 English Miles, …. And therefore the elastick force of this Medium, in proportion to its density, must be above 700000 × 700000 (that is, above 490,000,000,000) times greater than the elastick force of the Air is in proportion to its density. For the Velocities of the Pulses of elastick Mediums are in a subduplicate Ratio of the Elasticities and the Rarities of the Mediums taken together.”

According to what Newton reported above, it can be deduced elasticity and density of the aether are linked by the following relationship: C² = (E/ρ)aether > 4.9·10¹¹·(E/ρ)air. Being at 20 °C (E/ρ)air = 1.176·10⁵ m²/s², we have C² = (E/ρ)aether > 5.7624·10¹⁶ m²/s². He thought aether had different density according to where it was located. Euler found a value that he estimated to be at least more than 10⁸ times less than the density of the atmosphere, or less than 10^-8·ρair (Euler L, Opuscola. Varii Argumenti, Ambr. Haude & Jo. Carol. Speneri, 1746, page 196; see also Bistafa SR, On the Formation and Propagation of Pulses in Aether, October 2021). Efforts to more accurately evaluate the density of the aether were done only more than a century later by Thomson W (Lord Kelvin). He was one of the first to calculate the density of the aether with a certain degree of accuracy. He found it to be not less than 1/(1560·10¹⁷) lb/ft³ (Thomson W, Note on the Possible Density of the Luminiferous Medium and on the Mechanical Value of a Cubic Mile of Sunlight, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1854, Volume 21, page 60). In a further paper Thomson (W) reported a higher value to be not less than 516·10^-20 g/cm³. He considered the aether as an imponderable medium, where no part could be subjected to gravitation thus setting the medium outside the law of universal gravitation (Thomson (Lord Kelvin). On Ether and Gravitational Matter through Infinite Space, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 6, Vol. 2, No. 8, August 1901, pages 161-177). Maxwell estimated it to be 9.36·10^-19 g/cm³ and constant everywhere. He supposed to be in some cases heterogeneous due to its motion (Maxwell JC, Ether, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, Volume VIII, 1878, page 570). Wood found a value of 2/(35·10²⁴) lb/ft³ that he supposed to be constant throughout space. He considered the aether as an ideal gas (Wood, DV, The Luminiferous Aether, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal Science, November 1885, page 395). In the same paper Wood mentioned the work of Belli (1859) who found a value of (1/2)·10^-13 lb/ft³, and that of Herwitz (undated) with a value of 10^-18 lb/ft³. Mendeleev considered the aether, called by him element X, the lightest of the elements (gas) both in density and atomic weight, the most mobile, the least prone to enter into combination with other atoms (inert gas), and as an all-permeating and penetrating substance. He found its atomic weight, when referred to that of hydrogen, could vary between 9.6·10^-6 and 5.3·10^-11 (Mendeleev D, An Attempts Towards the Chemical Conception of the Aether, Longmans, Green, and Co, London, 1904, page 42). Lodge by studying the magnetic whirl formed around an electron moving through the aether, conceived the aether as a continuous, incompressible and inextensible medium without molecular or discrete structure. He found its density to be around 10¹² g/cm³. He hypothesized also that the density of the aether flowing along lines of magnetic induction be around 180 times that of water, namely 1.80·10² g/cm³ (Lodge O, Modern Views of the Ether, Nature, Vol. 75, No. 1952, March 28, 1907, page 520). Thomson (JJ) considered the aether as an ideal gas whose properties might change according to the pressure thus conceiving it as a compressible fluid. At atmospheric pressure (10⁵ Pa) he determined a value of 8·10^-16 g/cm³, while at much higher pressures, typical of rotating electrons, a value of 5·10¹⁰ g/cm³ was found (Thomson JJ, Address of the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, Vol. 30, No. 765, Aug. 27, 1909, pages 257-279). Larmor considered the aether a continuous uniform medium, comparable to a perfect (frictionless) fluid. He found the density to be higher than 10^-18 g/cm³ (Larmor J, Ether, Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Volume I, 1911, page 292-297). See considered the aether as a perfect monoatomic gas whose density differed from place to pace in the interplanetary regions. He found a value at the earth’s surface of 438·10^-18 g/cm³, and at the sun’s surface of 2·10^-18 g/cm³ (See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920, pages 50-86). Tesla conceived the aether as a gaseous substance composed of particles immeasurably smaller than those of air. Density was found to be so light that a volume equal to that of the earth would weigh only about one-twentieth of a pound (AAVV, Nikola Tesla Tells of New Radio Theories, New York Herald Tribune, September 22, 1929). Todeschini considered the aether a homogeneous and uncompressible substance. He modeled it as a liquid and found that the density might have a value 9·10²⁰ times less that the density of water or 1.11·10^-18 kg/m³ (Todeschini M, Psicobiofisica. Scienza Unitaria del Creato, Centro Internazionale di Biofisica, Bergamo, Italy, 1977). Very recently, Maglione found a value of 2.51·10^-25 kg/m³ typical of the substance in interstellar conditions. He considered the aether as an ideal, compressible and nearly frictionless gas, whose density can vary both naturally and artificially (Maglione R, Experimental Evidence of the Existence of the Fluid Space, unpublished manuscript, 2025).

The following table summarizes the above data by author and year.

Author (year)	Density [original data]	Density [kg/m3]	Notes
Newton (1718)	< (1/4.9·1011)Eaether/Eair	> 1.73·10-7 Eaether
Euler (1746)	< 10-8·ρair	< 1.293·10-8
Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1854)	>1/(1560·1017) lb/ft3	> 1.03·10-19
Belli (1859)	(1/2)·10-13 lb/ft3	8.00·10-13
Maxwell (1878)	9.36·10-19 g/cm3	9.36·10-16	Homogeneous and continuous medium, constant everywhere, but heterogeneous in some cases (due to its motion)
Herwitz (no date)	10-18 lb/ft3	1.60·10-17
Wood (1885)	2/(35·1024) lb/ft3	9.15·10-25	Constant throughout space. Aether as ideal gas
Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1901)	516·10-20 g/cm3	> 5.16·10-15	Constant throughout space. Imponderable medium, not subjected to the law of gravity
Mendeleev (1904)	<0.96·10-6 (H=1)	<4.31·10-9	Aether considered as the lightest most mobile ideal gas, less prone to combine and form stable definite compounds, and all permeating substance
Mendeleev (1904)	>5.3·10-11 (H=1)	>2.38·10-13	Aether considered as the lightest most mobile ideal gas, less prone to combine and form stable definite compounds, and all permeating substance
Thomson (JJ) (1909)	8.00·10-16 g/cm3	8.00·10-13	At atmospheric pressure (p=105 Pa). Aether as ideal gas, compressible
Larmor (1911)	>1.00·10-18 g/cm3	>1.00·10-15	Aether as a uniform and perfect (frictionless) fluid
See (1920)	438·10-18 g/cm3	4.38·10-13	At earth’s surface. Aether as a perfect monoatomic gas. Heterogeneous, it varies across planetary spaces
Tesla (1929)	–	2.00·10-23	Aether considered as a gaseous substance
Todeschini (1977)	1/(9·1020) g/cm3	1.11·10-18	Homogeneous aether, constant everywhere, uncompressible. Modeled as a liquid substance
Maglione (2025)	2.51·10-25 kg/m3	2.51·10-25	Aether as an ideal and compressible gas. Density can vary both naturally and artificially
Aether density in conditions different than those of earth’s surface
Lodge (1907)	≈ 1012 g/cm3	≈ 1.00·1015	At electron condition (high pressure). Aether as immobile, continuous, incompressible, and inextensible medium. Density of the aether flow along lines of magnetic induction about 180 g/cm3
Thomson (JJ) (1909)	5.00·1010 g/cm3	5.00·1013	At electron condition (high pressure). Aether as ideal gas, compressible
See (1921)	2.00·10-18 g/cm3	2.00·10-15	At sun’s surface. Aether as a perfect monoatomic gas. Heterogeneous, it varies across planetary spaces

(23) Elasticity or rigidity of aether was another parameter that was accurately investigated by the Victorian age scientists. In most of the cases aether was compared to ideal gases. That led to consider elasticity and rigidity the same physical concept, i.e. resistance to compression. Newton was the first to investigate aether’s elasticity. He correlated it to the density of the aether. Aether elasticity and density were linked by the following relationship: C² = (E/ρ)aether > 4.9·10¹¹·(E/ρ)air. Being at 20 °C (E/ρ)air = 1.176·10⁵ m²/s², we have C² = (E/ρ)aether > 5.76·10¹⁶ m²/s². From the previous equation we find E > 5.76·10¹⁶·ρaether Pa (Newton I, Philosophical Writings, Queries to the Opticks, Royal Society, 1718, pages 171-172). More than a century later Maxwell found a coefficient of rigidity be 842.28 dynes/cm². As comparison he provided the value of the coefficient of steel and glass to be 80 GPa and 24 GPa, respectively (Maxwell JC, Ether, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, Volume VIII, 1875, page 570). Wood reported a value of (4/10⁸) lb/ft² that he considered constant throughout space (Wood DV, The Luminiferous Aether, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal Science, November 1885, page 395). Thomson (Lord Kelvin) reported a value of the rigidity to be not less than 4500 dynes/cm² (Thomson (Lord Kelvin), On Ether and Gravitational Matter through Infinite Space, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 6, Vol. 2, No. 8, August 1901, pages 161-177). Lodge by studying the magnetic whirl formed around an electron moving through the aether, conceived it as a continuous, incompressible and inextensible medium without molecular or discrete structure. He found the elasticity to be 10³³ dynes per square centimeter (Lodge O, Modern Views of the Ether, Nature, Vol. 75, No. 1952, March 28, 1907, page 520). Larmor considered the aether a continuous uniform medium, comparable to a perfect (frictionless) fluid. He found elasticity be higher than 10³ dynes/cm² (Larmor J, Ether, Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Volume I, 1911, page 292-297). See considered rigidity not fixed but variable according to the interplanetary place in which the aether was located. At the earth’s surface he found to be 394200 barye (dyne/cm²), while at sun’s surface it was 1800 barye. Being the aether a superfine gas, See considered the rigidity (elasticity) might be equaled and coincide to its viscosity (See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920, pages 50-86).
The following table summarizes the above data by author and year.

Author (year)	Elasticity / Rigidity [original data]	Notes
Newton (1718)	C2 = (E/ρ)aether > 4.9·1011·(E/ρ)air; E > 5.76·1016·ρaether Pa
Maxwell (1875)	842.28 dynes/cm2; steel 80 GPa; glass 24 GPa
Wood (1885)	(4/108) lb/ft2	Constant throughout space
Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1901)	not less than 4500 dynes/cm2
Lodge (1907)	1033 dynes per square centimeter	Continuous, incompressible and inextensible medium without molecular or discrete structure
Larmor (1911)	higher than 103 dynes/cm2	Continuous uniform medium, comparable to a perfect (frictionless) fluid
See (1920)	394200 barye (dyne/cm2) at the earth’s surface; 1800 barye at sun’s surface	Aether rigidity (elasticity) might be equaled and coincide to its viscosity

(24) The first to investigate the viscosity of aether was Newton who wrote (Newton I, Optiks, Fourth Edition, London, 1718, page 171):

“If this Aether (for so I will call it) should be supposed ….. its resistance would be above 600,000,000 times less than that of Water.”

If we consider the viscosity of water μwater = 1 cps (or 10^-3 Pa·s) we have that aether’s viscosity according to Newton be higher than (1/600,000,000)=(1/6·10^-8)=1,667·10^-9 cps or 1,667·10^-12 Pa·s. More than a century later, Helmholtz thought the aether as a homogeneous, incompressible, and devoid of internal friction (viscosity) substance comparable to a perfect fluid (Helmholtz H, On Integrals of the Hydrodynamical Equations, Which Express Vortex-motion, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. Supplement to Vol. XXXIII. Fourth Series, January-June 1867). Thomson (Lord Kelvin) embraced Helmholtz theory hypothesizing an aether as a perfect homogeneous liquid whose vortex atoms were the basis of all bodies (Thomson W, on Vortex Atom, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. 6, 1867, Pages 94-104). Maxwell conceived the aether like an elastic solid that exerts no drag or resistance to moving bodies, and with no internal energy dissipation (friction), hence devoid of any kind of viscosity (Maxwell JC, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Oxford University Press, 1998, pages 438-441. Third edition originally published in 1891). Larmor considered the aether a continuous uniform medium, comparable to a perfect and frictionless (zero viscosity) fluid (Larmor J, Ether, Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Volume I, 1911, page 2921-297). Okhatrin considered the aether as a gas with different densities composed of super-lightweight particles that he called microleptons or axions. Viscosity of the super fluid was found to be 1.2 ± 0.8·10^-16 Pa·s (Okhatrin A.F. Macroclusters and Ultralight Particles (in Russian), Reports of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol 304, N° 4, 1989, pages 866-869). Maglione found, by considering the aether as an ideal gas a value of the viscosity of 5.33·10^-19 Pa·s (Maglione R, Experimental Evidence of the Existence of the Fluid Space, unpublished manuscript, 2025).

The following table summarizes the above data by author and year.

Author (year)	Viscosity [original data]	Viscosity [Pa·s]	Notes
Newton (1718)	> μwater/(6·108)	> 1.667·10-12
Helmholtz (1867)	0	0	Aether as homogeneous, uncompressible, perfect fluid (no internal friction)
Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1867)	0	0	Aether as a perfect homogeneous, liquid
Maxwell (1873)	0	0	Aether as elastic solid
Larmor (1911)	0	0	Aether as a uniform and perfect fluid
Okhatrin (1989)	1.2 ± 0.8·10-16	1.2 ± 0.8·10-16	Aether considered as a gas with different density
Maglione (2025)	5.33·10-19	5.33·10-19	Aether as an ideal and compressible gas. Density can vary both naturally and artificially

(25) Larmor J, Ether, Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Volume I, 1911, pages 292-297.

(26) Earnshaw S, On the Nature of the Molecular Forces Which Regulate the Constitution of the Luminiferous Ether, Trans Camb Phil Soc Vol. 7, pages 97-112, 1842. Earnshaw’s work might be extraordinarily useful in modelling the behaviour of Reich’s orgone energy continuum, both in dynamic and Oranur conditions. Earnshaw developed equations which might be used to simulate the movement of orgone energy in dynamic, unimpeded conditions, according to the law of the orgonomic potentials, and also during the excited phase due to external exciting agents.

(27) Maxwell JC, On Physical Lines of Force. Part I-IV, Philosophical Magazine, Series 4; Part I: Vol. 21 (March 1861), pages 161–175; Part II: Vol. 21 (April 1861), pages 281–291; Part III: Vol. 23 (October 1862), pages 12-24; and Part IV: Vol. 23 (November 1862), pages 85–95; and Maxwell JC, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 155 (1865), pages. 459-512.

(28) Larmor J, Aether and Matter, Cambridge University Press, 1900.

(29) See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920, pages 65-71.

(30) Wood DE, The Luminiferous Aether, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, 20(126), November 1885, page 417.

(31) Aether’s elasticity for Belli, Thomson, Todeschini, Tesla, and Maglione was determined by applying Newton relationship, being a value for these authors not available.

(32) Newton I, Letter III, Cambridge, February 25, 1692-3, Four Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Doctor Bentley, London, 1756, quoted in Maxwell JC, Attraction, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, Volume III, 1878, pages 63-65.

(33) Newton I, Letter to Robert Boyle, Cambridge, February 28, 1678-9, in Birch T, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, Volume I, London, 1744 pages 70-73.

(34) Newton I, Letter to Robert Boyle, Cambridge, January 25, 1675-6, in Birch T, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, Volume I, London, 1744, page 74.

(35) Maclaurin C, Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries, 2nd Edition, London, 1750, quoted in Maxwell JC, Attraction, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, Volume III, 1878, page 64.

(36) Kepler J, Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae: Libris VII, Lentiis ad Danubium: Excudebat Johannes Plancus, 1618.

(37) Fracastoro G, Homocentricorum Sive de Stellis Liber, Venice: Giunta, 1538. See also Peruzzi E, La Nave di Ermete: La Cosmologia di Girolamo Fracastoro, Leo S. Olschki, Firenze, 1995; and Omodeo PD, Heavenly Animation as the Foundation for Fracastoro’s Homocentrism: Aristotelian-Platonic Eclecticism beyond the School of Padua, The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, Volume 11, Number 2, 2021.

(38) Aquinas T, Summa Theologiae (Summa Theologica), Johann Amerbach, Basel (Switzerland), 1472 (first printed edition).

(39) de Sacrobosco J (of Holywood J), Tractatum de Spera. Venice: Florentinus de Argentina, 1472 (first printed edition); see also Valleriani M (Editor), De sphaera of Johannes de Sacrobosco in the Early Modern Period, Springer Open, 2020.

(40) For more information see Wolfson HA, The Philosophy of the Kalam, Harvard University Press, 1976; Baffioni C, Atomismo e Antiatomismo nel Pensiero Islamico, Series Minor, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples, Seminario di Studi Asiatici, 16, Rome 1982; Dhanani A, The Physical Theory of Kalam, Atoms, Space, and Void in Basrian Mu’tazili Cosmology, EJ Brill, Leiden, 1994; van Ess J, 60 Years After: Shlomo Pines’s Beitrage and Half a Century of Research on Atomism in Islamic Theology, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 8.2, 2002; and Sabra AI, Kalam Atomism as an Alternative Philosophy to Hellenizing Falsafa, in Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy, From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M Frank, Edited by Montgomery EJ, Peeters, Leuven, 2006.

(41) Wright MR, Empedocles: The Extant Fragments, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1981, fragment 8(17), pages 166-167; see also Laertius D, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers (transl. Mensch P), Oxford University Press, 2020, pages 303-310; and Kingsley KS, Parry R, Empedocles, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 2024.

(42) Wright MR, Empedocles: The Extant Fragments, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1981, fragment 12(8), pages 174-175.

(43) Wright MR, Empedocles: The Extant Fragments, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1981, fragment 47(35), pages 205-206.

(44) Taylor CCW, The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary, University of Toronto Press, 1999; Berryman S, Leucippus, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016; and Berryman S, Democritus, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016.

(45) Simplicius Commentary on De Coelo 264.33-295.36 in Taylor CCW, The Atomists Leucippus and Democritus. Fragments, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1999, pages 70-71.

(46) Mendeleev D, An Attempt Towards the Chemical Conception of the Aether, Longmans, Green, and Co, London, 1904, page 6.

(47) Maglione R, L’Apeiron di Anassimandro. Un Antesignano dell’Energia Orgonica? In Glielmi N, Maglione R, Wilhelm Reich, Gedi Gruppo Editoriale, Milan, Italy, 2009; see also Rovelli C, The First Scientist. Anaximander and His Legacy, Westholme Publishing, 2011.

(48) Aristotle, De Caelo (Edited by Stocks JL and Joachim HH), Oxford University Press, New York, 1922 (originally published in ca 350 BCE).

(49) Maclaurin C, Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries, 2nd Edition, London, 1750, page 26; Sailor DB, Moses and Atomism, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 25, No 1, Jan-Mar 1964; and McGuire JE, Rattansi PM, Newton and the “Pipes of Pan”, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol 21, No 2, December 1966; see also Maglione R, The Legendary Shamir, Gedi Gruppo Editoriale, Milan, 2017.

(50) Maglione R, The Legendary Shamir, Gedi Gruppo Editoriale, Milan, 2017, pages 370-371.

(51) Maglione R, Ibid, 2017, pages 281-322.

(52) Mann F, Acupunture, Heinemann, London, 1962.

(53) Eliade M, Yoga, Immortality and Freedom, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2009.

(54) Long MF, The Secret Science at Work, DeVorss Publications, Marina del Rey, CA, 1953.

(55) Mann E, Orgone, Reich and Eros. Wilhelm Reich’s Theory of Life Energy, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1973; DeMeo J (Editor), Pulse of the Planet #5, Natural Energy Works, Ashland, USA, 1989; and Southgate L, Chinese Medicine and Wilhelm Reich. An Analysis of Chinese Medical and Reichian Theories of Life Force and Experimental Orgone-Acupuncture Study, Lambert Academy Publishing, Mauritius, 2009.

(56) Senf B, Wilhelm Reich: Discoverer of Acupuncture Energy?, Pulse of the Planet, Volume 1, Number 2, Fall 1989, OBRL, Ashaland, Oregon, Usa.

(57) Inza C, http://www.acupuntura-orgon.com.ar/articles1.htm.

(58) Southgate L, Chinese Medicine and Wilhelm Reich. An Analysis of Chinese Medical and Reichian Theories of Life Force and Experimental Orgone-Acupuncture Study, Lambert Academy Publishing, Mauritius, 2009.

(59) D’Ingiullo F, 87-year-Old Woman with Cardiac Arrhythmia and Hypertension Treated with Orgone Irradiation, Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy, April 11, 2024; and D’Ingiullo F, Case of Possible Riedel’s Wooden Thyroiditis Treated and Healed with Orgone Irradiation in TCM Channels, Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy, June 13, 2025.

(60) In an interview at Chicago on December 19,1919, Michelson openly rejected Einstein’s theory because it did away with the idea of light traveling by means of vibrations in the aether which was supposed to fill all space. Michelson remarked that “Einstein thinks there is no such thing as aether. He does not attempt to account for the transmission of light, but holds that the aether should be thrown overboard.” (See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920, page 50).

(61) Mehra J, The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics, World Scientific Publishing, 2001, pages 1-18.

(62) Thomson JJ, Address of the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, Vol. XXX, No. 765, August 27, 1909, page 267.

(63) See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920, page 50.

(64) Maxwell JC, Ether, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, Volume VIII, 1878, page 572.

(65) Atkin RH, A Space-Energy Continuum, Orgone Energy Bulletin, Volume IV, Number 4, October 1952; see also Todeschini M, Psicobiofisica. Scienza Unitaria del Creato, MEB, Torino, 1978.

(66) See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether. Part I. The Wave-theory of the Chemical, Explosive, and Vital Forces, Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 215, Nr. 5140, December 10, 1921, page 113.

(67) AAVV, Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force, New York Times, July 11, 1935.

(68) AAVV, Einstein o Todeschini? Qual è la Chiave dell’Universo? Movimento Psicobiofisico Internazionale S. Marco, 1956, Bergamo, pages 22-23.

(69) Beaufils F, Una Lunga Notte ed un’Alba Radiosa, in AAVV, Einstein o Todeschini? Qual è la Chiave dell’Universo? Movimento Psicobiofisico Internazionale S. Marco, 1956, Bergamo, pages 4-5.

(70) Reich W, The Einstein Affair. Biographical Material. History of the Discovery of the Life Energy. The American Period (1939-1952). Documentary Volume (A-XI-E), Orgone Institute Press, Rangeley, Usa, 1953, document E-36. Note reporting Reich’s comments on Einstein was typed from shorthand notes taken by Wyvell on December 22, 1952; and Mannion M, Two Worldviews Collide, Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy, June 30, 2025.

(71) See for example Tesla N, Experiments with Alternating Currents of Very High Frequency, and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination, delivered before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Columbia College, NY, May 20, 1891; On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena, delivered before the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, February 1893; The Problem of Increasing Human Energy, Century Magazine, June 1900; The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires, Scientific American Supplement, N° 1483, June 04, 1904; Nikola Tesla Tells of New Radio Theories, New York Herald Tribune, September 22, 1929; Man’s Greatest Achievement, New York American, July 6, 1930; Our Future Motive Power, Everyday Science & Mechanics, December 1931; Tesla ‘Harnesses’ Cosmic Energy, Philadelphia Public Ledger, November 02, 1933.

(72) See TJJ, New Theory of the Aether (first paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr. 5044, January 14, 1920; New Theory of the Aether (second paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 211, Nr 5048, February 19, 1920; New Theory of the Aether (third paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 212, Nr. 5079, August 18, 1920; New Theory of the Aether (fourth paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 121, Nr. 5085, September 06, 1920; New Theory of the Aether (fifth paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 214, Nr. 5130, July 04, 1921; New Theory of the Aether (sixth paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 215, Nr. 5140, December 10, 1921; New Theory of the Aether (seventh paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 217, Sondernummer, May 08, 1922; and New Theory of the Aether (eighth paper), Astronomische Nachrichten, Band 226, Sondernummer, June 25, 1925.

(73) Todeschini M, La Teoria delle Apparenze, Centro Internazionale di Psicobiofisica, Bergamo, Italy, 1949; La Psicobiofisica, Centro Internazionale di Psicobiofisica, Bergamo, Italy, 1949; Einstein o Todeschini. Qual è la Chiave dell’Universo?, Centro Internazionale di Psicobiofisica, Bergamo, Italy, 1955; L’Unificazione Qualitativa della Materia e dei Suoi Campi di Forze Continui ed Alterni, Tipografia Editrice Secomandi, Bergamo, Italy, 1957; Scienza Universale, Centro Internazionale di Psicobiofisica, Bergamo, 1961; and Decisive Experiments in Modern Physics, Centro Internazionale di Psicobiofisica, Bergamo, Italy, 1966.

(74) Okhatrin AF, Macroclusters and Ultralight Particles (in Russian), Reports of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1989, Vol. 304, No. 4, pp. 866-868; Okhatrin AF, Tatur VY, Microleptonic Concept (in Russian), Abstracts of the Conference Non-periodic Fast-moving Phenomena in the Environment, Tomsk, April 18-24, 1988.

(75) Denisov SG, Ataev DO, Neiman VG, Okhatrin AF, Device for Treating an Organism with Energy, European Patent EP0 838 208B1, April 07, 2004.

(76) Khaidarov KA, Gravitating Ether, September 01, 2003; Aethereal Breathing, November 01, 2003; Aethereal Mechanics, December 31, 2004, all papers available at www.geocities.ws. See also Shaw DW, Flowing Aether: A Concept, Physics Essays 26, 44(2013).

(77) Munera HA (Editor), Should the Law of Gravitation Be Reconsidered? The Scientific Legacy of Maurice Allais, C. Roy Keys, Inc., Apeiron, Montreal, 2011; Galaev YU, Etheral Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowaves Propagation, Spacetime and Substance, Vol. N° 5 (10), 2001; Galaev YU, The Measuring of Ether-drift Velocity and Kinematic Ether Viscosity Within Optical Waves Band, Spacetime and Substance, Vol. 3, N° 5(15), 2002; and Vessot RFC, Levine MW, Mattison EM, Blomberg EL, Hoffman TE, Nystrom GU, Farrel BI, Decher D, Eby PB, Baugher CR, Watts JW, Teuber DL, and Wills FD, Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser, Physical Review Letters, 45, 1980.

(78) Dates refer either to the period in which the conception was developed or when an author’s book mentioning it was published.

Quantifying the amount of orgone energy inside an orgonotic system is of paramount importance for scientific and application purposes. Besides, development of standards for measurement instruments, systems and procedures is mandatory for a better understanding of the orgone energy behavior and concentrations, and for comparison purposes.

The presentation makes an historical overview of the instruments and procedures to measure orgone energy concentrations and fields in simple and complex, open and closed orgonotic systems. Measurement systems and procedures were developed by Reich in the 1940s, and subsequently by Stark, a Swiss physicist, in the 1970s. Nowadays, the only instrument specifically available for the measurement of orgone energy is the Heliognosis LM4 device and its modified scanning version. The LM4 instrument has been developed according to the same principles of the Reich’s Orgone Energy Field Meter. It measures the intensity of the orgone field radiated by living and non-living organisms.
Many are the practical applications of the measures obtained by the LM4:

a) monitoring the general health state of an individual
b) testing water and other liquid samples
c) analyzing food products by determining their energy content
d) studying plants and planning nutrients requirements
e) comparing liquid solutions for health benefits
f) scientific research into life processes
g) testing of alternate energy devices for unconventional energy fields
h) experimenting with accumulators and blankets.

Examples of measurements on vegetable substances and living organisms (taken from the literature) and on fluid substances (data from author’s lab measures) have been discussed in the presentation.

References

1. Reich ,W. (1972) Character Analysis (3rd ed.) Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.355
2. Reich , W. (1967) Reich Speaks of Freud. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.15
3. Reich , W. (1973) Cancer Biopathy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.11
4. Reich , W. (1973) The Function of Orgasm. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 278
5. Ibid. p.288-289
6. Ibid. p.292
7. Ibid. p.293
8. Ibid. p.6
9. Ibid. p.101
10. Ibid. p. 175-179
11. Simonian, S. (2015, May 2013). Dr. Herskowitz’s speech in IOS 2015 Spring Conference. The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy.
    Dr. Herskowitz’s Speech in IOS 2015 Spring Conference | The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy (psychorgone.com)
12. Ibid. Herskowitz, M. Excerpts from Lecture in Germany. March,7,2010 Excerpts from Dr. Herskowitz™ Lecture in Germany, December 1993 | The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy (psychorgone.com)
13. Reich, W. (1973). Ether, God, and Devil. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.120
14. Reich ,W. (1973). The Function of Orgasm. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.294
15. Reich, W. (1973) The Cancer Biopathy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.151
16. Ibid, p.170
17. Vecchietti, A. (2021, Feb. 28). Reich Test for early cancer diagnosis. Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy. REICH TEST FOR EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS | The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy (psychorgone.com)
18. Ibid, July 22.2022. A Pictorial Essay of Photographic Evidence of Healthy and Cancer Cells. A Pictorial Essay of Photographic Evidence of Healthy and Cancer (Phase I) Cells, and RBCs After the Reich Biological Blood Tests | The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy (psychorgone.com)
19. Reich, W. (1970) The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. xi
20. Reich, W. (1973) The Function of Orgasm. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.299-303
21. Ibid. p.309
22. Simonian,S. May,13,2010. Annotation on Dr.Reich’s Case, Orgasm Reflex. The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy,
    Annotation on Dr. Reich’s case: The Orgasm Reflex | The Journal of Psychiatric Orgone Therapy (psychorgone.com)
23. Reich , W. (1983) Children of the Future. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
24. Reich,W. (1967) Reich Speaks of Freud. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p.31.