Elementary Particles - Science topic

In April 2025, scientists reported a significant update: baryonic matter long thought to be “missing” in the observable universe has been located — in the form of ionized hydrogen gas stretched across the cosmic web.

While this solves a long-standing observational puzzle, it also opens deeper questions:

What if the reason we couldn’t detect this matter wasn’t just technological — but conceptual?

In our ongoing independent work under VoidPrakash, we explore the idea that time is not a universal axis but a frame- and metadata-dependent function. In this view, the "moment of observation" is constructed differently depending on motion, context, and information state — making some aspects of the universe effectively temporally occluded until certain parameters align.

Questions for fellow researchers:

📄 Our comparative draft: Trapped in Time: The Cost of a Linear Assumption 📎https://osf.io/preprints/osf/d96u7_v1

Would love to hear your perspectives — especially from those working in astrophysics, philosophy of science, or time perception.

On the basis of previous questions and an elder research proposal, see references below, we have come to a stimulating relation between the dimension of elementary particles and the global gravitational potential (GP):

ℏω/m = GP = c² = 2GM_u/R_u

GP stands for the cumulative gravitational potential originating from mainly the distant masses of the universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_radiation_of_whatever_kind_generally_accepted_as_link_to_remote_sources_of_the_universe_while_gravitational_potential_is_not?

Tetraquarks are 4 particle quark states since 3^4 = 3×3×3×3 = 81. In trying to organize the 6 known quarks, charm, truth, beauty, up, down, and strange in the weight diagram of SU(3), does the description of and the properties of the X(3872), X(4140), X(5568), X(6900) exotic Hadron tetraquarks fit into the (2,2) + (2,2) + (2,2) = 27 + 27 + 27 = 81 highest weight representation of SU(3) and the (2,2) highest weight representation of SU(3) be a basis from which one could make predictions about the existence of undiscovered tetraquarks?

See B. Hall, Lie Groups, Lie Algebras and Representations, p 151 for a description of the (2,2) highest weight diagram.

Is there any evidence in the data from Fermi Lab or CERN for 3 particle quark Baryon states or 2 particle Meson quark in the 21 dimensional 2,2 highest weight representation of SU(3) with any of the 6 known quarks charm, truth, beauty, up, down, or strange?

In quantum physics, bosons are elementary particles that can occupy the same place in space, but to not accumulate like classical particles, as having been shown in recent experiments on photons where tens of thousands of particles behave as a single quantum particle. Please see the attached link.

This result can be interpreted mathematically if we use a mathematics in which 1+1=1. And from this we obtain 1+1+1+1...=1, in other words ∞→1. For clarity, it should be mentioned here that this kind of mathematics has the form of a Boolean algebra. We can hardly use it, but as shown by the experiments on photons, bosons can.

If these are also true for Higgs boson then the state of an infinite density of matter cannot be achieved because Higgs boson is considered to be the particle that gives masses to other particles. How can  a black hole be formed?

On the other hand, fermions can be considered to follow a mathematics in which 1+1=0.

Actually, the inverse process is more interesting because it can be used to explain the wave mechanics. If tens of thousands of quantum particles can occupy the same place in space and behave as a single quantum particle, i.e., ∞→1, then there is no reason why a single quantum particle cannot make copies of itself to form a medium, i.e., 1→∞, so it can manifest as a wave.

Quantum physics is weird as long as we don't understand it. This statement seems to be obvious as 1+1=2. However, if we follow Einstein's way of thoughts, it's even weirder if we have the ability to understand it at all. 

Recently, I have been able to construct spacetime structures of quantum particles entirely in terms of geometry and topology which shows that the concept of infinite density matter seems to be irrelevant. Please refer to my work entitled  SPACETIME STURCUTURES OF QUANTUM PARTICLES and  A DERIVATION OF THE RICCI FLOW for more details.

‘How big is the proton?"[1] We can similarly ask, “How big is the electron?” “How big is the photon?” CODATA gives the answer [2], proton rms charge radius r_p=8.41 x10^-16m; classical electron radius, r_e=2.81x10^-15m [6]. However, over a century after its discovery, the proton still keeps physicists busy understanding its basic properties, its radius, mass, stability and the origin of its spin [1][4][7]. Physics still believes that there is a ‘proton-radius puzzle’ [3][4], and does not consider that the size of a photon is related to its wavelength.

Geometrically the radius of a circle is clearly defined, and if an elementary particle is regarded as a energy packet, which is unquestionably the case, whether or not it can be described by a wavefunction, can its energy have a clear boundary like a geometrical shape? Obviously the classical electron radius is not a clear boundary conceptually in the field, because its electric field energy is always extending. When physics uses the term ‘charge radius’, what does it mean when mapped to geometry? If there is really a spherical charge [8][9], how is it maintained and formed^*?

----------------------------------------

Notes:

^*“Now if we have a sphere of charge, the electrical forces are all repulsive and an electron would tend to fly apart. Because the system has unbalanced forces, we can get all kinds of errors in the laws relating energy and momentum.” [Feynman Lecture C28]

----------------------------------------

[1] Editorial. (2021). Proton puzzles. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(1), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00268-0

[2] Tiesinga, E. (2021). CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018.

[3] Carlson, C. E. (2015). The proton radius puzzle. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 82, 59-77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.002

[4] Gao, H., Liu, T., Peng, C., Ye, Z., & Zhao, Z. (2015). Proton remains puzzling. The Universe, 3(2).

[5] Karr, J.-P., Marchand, D., & Voutier, E. (2020). The proton size. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(11), 601-614. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0229-x

[6] "also called the Compton radius, by equating the electrostatic potential energy of a sphere of charge e and radius with the rest energy of the electron"; https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html

[7] Gao, H., & Vanderhaeghen, M. (2021). The proton charge radius. https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect ;

[8] What is an electric charge? Can it exist apart from electrons? Would it be an effect? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect ;

[9] Phenomena Related to Electric Charge，and Remembering Nobel Laureate T. D. Lee; https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO46Phenomena_Related_to_Electric_Chargeand_Remembering_Nobel_Laureate_T_D_Lee

Soumendra Nath Thakur

31-08-2024

Note: Matter mass Mᴍ is understood as the combined mass of normal matter (such as baryonic matter) and dark matter.

Effective dark energy, considered a by-product of negative effective mass, arises from the intricate interplay of potential, kinetic, and gravitational dynamics in the universe. This concept challenges traditional views by suggesting that dark energy is not a separate entity but rather a consequence of negative effective mass. The fundamental equation, PEᴛₒₜᴜₙᵢᵥ ∝ Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ, establishes a direct relationship between the universe's potential energy and its effective mass, highlighting their intrinsic connection.

In the early universe, effective mass played a critical role in determining the potential energy. The universal force was necessary to convert this potential energy into kinetic energy, facilitating the rapid expansion of the universe. As the effective mass decreased, acceleration increased, reflecting the dynamics of this early rapid expansion, as described by the equation Fᴜₙᵢᵥ = Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ · aᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ. This equation illustrates that the universal force is directly proportional to effective acceleration, offering key insights into the universe's expansion dynamics.

As the universe continued to evolve, its potential energy became influenced by both matter mass and effective mass, including contributions from dark energy and other effective masses. Later, the universal force was shaped by both matter and effective mass, with effective acceleration inversely related to the combined mass. The ongoing generation of dark energy and its dominance in gravitational dynamics are thus explained by the relationship between effective mass and gravitational effects, suggesting a repulsive gravitational force that significantly influences the universe's structure and evolution.

Effective dark energy can thus be seen as a by-product of negative effective mass, arising from the complex interrelations of potential, kinetic, and gravitational forces, and reflecting the apparent reduction in invariant matter mass over time.

Reference: Chernin, A. D., Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., Teerikorpi, P., Valtonen, M. J., Byrd, G. G., & Merafina, M. (2013). Dark energy and the structure of the Coma cluster of galaxies. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 553, A101. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220781

The universal force Fᴜₙᵢᵥ is defined by the product of the effective acceleration aᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ and the combined inverse contributions of two types of mass: the variable effective mass Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ and the constant matter mass Mᴍᴜₙᵢᵥ. This relationship emphasizes that the universal force depends not only on acceleration but also on the dynamic interplay between these masses. The effective mass reflects the system’s response to dynamic factors such as motion and gravitational interactions, and it can differ from the constant matter mass by varying according to system conditions.

The universal force and acceleration increase or decrease proportionally with the combined reciprocal masses, where variations in the effective mass directly influence acceleration and the resulting universal force. As the effective mass decreases, acceleration increases, and vice versa. This relationship aligns with the interpretation of "negative effective mass," where changes in the dynamic state of the universe alter gravitational interactions.

The concept of "negative effective mass" arises from this interpretation of effective mass. When extended to dark energy's influence on gravitational dynamics, it captures the idea that the effective mass may exhibit properties akin to a negative effective density, leading to repulsive gravitational effects. In this context, "negative effective mass" describes how the dynamic properties of dark energy counteract gravitational attraction, contrasting with the attractive behaviour of conventional matter.

The effective mass Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ reflects the apparent mass loss or gain relative to the constant matter mass Mᴍᴜₙᵢᵥ. When there is an apparent mass loss, the effective mass increases to maintain balance within the system’s dynamics, suggesting that under certain conditions, the effective mass could be perceived as "negative." This negative value provides a framework for understanding inverse gravitational effects observed with dark energy, where repulsive dynamics challenge traditional gravitational interactions.

Additionally, when the universal force Fᴜₙᵢᵥ increases, the effective acceleration aᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ also increases. Initially, the effective mass Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ is equivalent to the matter mass Mᴍᴜₙᵢᵥ. However, as force or acceleration continues to increase, the effective mass can exceed the matter mass, thereby potentially dominating the gravitating mass Mɢᴜₙᵢᵥ. This implies that the effective mass plays a crucial role in determining the overall gravitational behaviour, supporting the idea of "negative effective mass" in scenarios where dark energy exerts a repulsive force.

By incorporating the concept of "negative effective mass" into the extended framework of classical mechanics, we develop a more comprehensive understanding of the gravitational dynamics, allowing us to account for the repulsive effects of dark energy on the universe's expansion. This refined interpretation bridges the abstract notion of dynamic mass variations with observable cosmological phenomena, providing insight into the complex interplay between mass, force, and acceleration in the universe.

Dark energy's influence on the universe's expansion can be understood in terms of the effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ) exhibiting properties that suggest a negative effective density. When the effective mass exceeds the matter mass (Mᴍᴜₙᵢᵥ), it contributes to gravitational dynamics that may resemble those associated with a negative gravitating mass (Mɢᴜₙᵢᵥ), leading to the repulsive effects observed in the universe.

The mathematical framework establishes a relationship between potential energy, effective mass, and universal force, providing insight into the universe's expansion and the concept of "negative effective mass." The potential energy of the universe (PEᴛₒₜᴜₙᵢᵥ) is directly proportional to the effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ), indicating that the effective mass plays a crucial role in defining the universe's dynamics.

The equation Fᴜₙᵢᵥ = Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ · aᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ describes the universal force as directly proportional to effective acceleration (aᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ) and inversely proportional to effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ). An increase in acceleration leads to an increase in the universal force and a corresponding decrease in effective mass, which can lead to the formation of matter. Over time, potential energy becomes dependent on both the matter mass (Mᴍᴜₙᵢᵥ) and the present effective mass, shaping the gravitational dynamics.

By linking these parameters, this framework explains how variations in effective mass, particularly when perceived as negative, contribute to the repulsive effects associated with dark energy, providing a comprehensive view of the complex interplay between mass, force, and acceleration in the universe.

This expression, establishes a direct relationship between the universe's potential energy and its effective mass. In the early universe, effective mass played a critical role in determining the potential energy. The universal force was necessary to convert this potential energy into kinetic energy, facilitating the rapid expansion of the universe. As the effective mass decreased, acceleration increased, reflecting the dynamics of this early rapid expansion.

The equation Fᴜₙᵢᵥ = Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ · aᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ

describes that the universal force is directly proportional to effective acceleration, and effective acceleration is inversely proportional to effective mass. This relationship suggests that in the early universe, the universal force was the product of the effective mass and the effective acceleration.

Since acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, an increase in effective acceleration leads to a corresponding increase in the universal force, which, in turn, causes a decrease in the effective mass as the acceleration increases, and so corresponding increase in matter mass through formation. As acceleration increase, the effective mass decrease, forming matter mass.

Later, the potential energy became dependent on both the matter mass (Mᴍᴜₙᵢᵥ) and the present effective mass.

The force is influenced by the interaction between the matter mass and the effective mass, where the effective acceleration (aᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ) is inversely related to the total mass, comprising both matter and effective mass, represented by the equation:

As the effective acceleration increases, the apparent matter mass decreases, corresponding increase in present effective mass, which is negative, within this combined mass. Thus, the emergence of dark energy from negative effective mass and its dominant role in gravitational dynamics can be explained by the relationship between effective mass and gravitational effects. As acceleration increased, the apparent matter mass decreased, generating effective mass.

Dark energy's influence on the universe's expansion can be understood in terms of the effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠᴜₙᵢᵥ) exhibiting properties that suggest a negative effective density. When the effective mass exceeds the matter mass (Mᴍᴜₙᵢᵥ), it contributes to gravitational dynamics that may resemble those associated with a negative gravitating mass (Mɢᴜₙᵢᵥ), leading to the repulsive effects observed in the universe. As provided under, "Negative Effective Mass: Insights from Universal Force and Acceleration Dynamics.

Paradox 1 - The Laws of Physics Invalidate Themselves, When They Enter the Singularity Controlled by Themselves.

Paradox 2 - The Collapse of Matter Caused by the Law of Gravity Will Eventually Destroy the Law of Gravity.

The laws of physics dominate the structure and behavior of matter. Different levels of material structure correspond to different laws of physics. According to reductionism, when we require the structure of matter to be reduced, the corresponding laws of physics are also reduced. Different levels of physical laws correspond to different physical equations, many of which have singularities. Higher level equations may enter singularities when forced by strong external conditions, pressure, temperature, etc., resulting in phase transitions such as lattice and magnetic properties being destroyed. Essentially the higher level physics equations have failed and entered the lower level physics equations. Obviously there should exist a lowest level physics equation which cannot be reduced further, it would be the last line of defense after all the higher level equations have failed and it is not allowed to enter the singularity. This equation is the ultimate equation. The equation corresponding to the Hawking-Penrose spacetime singularity [1] should be such an equation.

We can think of the physical equations as a description of a dynamical system because they are all direct or indirect expressions of energy-momentum quantities, and we have no evidence that it is possible to completely detach any physical parameter, macroscopic or microscopic, from the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian.

Gravitational collapse causes black holes, which have singularities [2]. What characterizes a singularity? Any finite parameter before entering a spacetime singularity becomes infinite after entering the singularity. Information becomes infinite, energy-momentum becomes infinite, but all material properties disappears completely. A dynamical equation, transitioning from finite to infinite, is impossible because there is no infinite source of dynamics, and also the Uncertainty Principle would prevent this singularity from being achieved*. Therefore, while there must be a singularity according to the Singularity Principle, this singularity must be inaccessible, or will not enter. Before entering this singularity, a sufficiently long period of time must have elapsed, waiting for the conditions that would destroy it, such as the collision of two black holes.

Most of these singularities, however, can usually be resolved by pointing out that the equations are missing some factor, or noting the physical impossibility of ever reaching the singularity point. In other words, they are probably not 'real'.” [3] We believe this statement is correct. Nature will not destroy by itself the causality it has established.

-----------------------------------------------

Notes

* According to the uncertainty principle, finite energy and momentum cannot be concentrated at a single point in space-time.

-----------------------------------------------

References

[1] Hawking, S. (1966). "Singularities and the geometry of spacetime." The European Physical Journal H 39(4): 413-503.

[2] Hawking, S. W. and R. Penrose (1970). "The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314(1519): 529-548.

[3] https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity.

==================================================

补充 2023-1-14

Russell once wrote a letter to Ludwig Wittgenstein while visiting China (1920 - 1921) in which he said "I am living in a Chinese house built around a courtyard *......" [1]. The phrase would probably mean to the West, "I live in a house built around the back of a yard." Russell was a logician, but there is clearly a logical problem with this expression, since the yard is determined by the house built, not vice versa. The same expression is reflected in a very famous poem "A Moonlit Night On The Spring River" from the Tang Dynasty (618BC - 907BC) in China. One of the lines is: "We do not know tonight for whom she sheds her ray, But hear the river say to its water adieu." The problem here is that the river exists because of the water, and without the water there would be no river. Therefore, there would be no logic of the river saying goodbye to its water. There are, I believe, many more examples of this kind, and perhaps we can reduce these problems to a structural logic pradox †.

Ignoring the above logical problems will not have any effect on literature, but it should become a serious issue in physics. The biggest obstacle in current physics is that we do not know the structure of elementary particles and black holes. Renormalization is an effective technique, but offers an alternative result that masks the internal structure and can only be considered a stopgap tool. Hawking and Penrose proved the Singularity Theorem, but no clear view has been developed on how to treat singularities. It seems to us that this scenario is the same problem as the structural logic described above. Without black holes (and perhaps elementary particles) there would be no singularities, and (virtual) singularities accompany black holes. Since there is a black hole and there is a singularity, how does a black hole not collapse today because of a singularity, will collapse tomorrow because of the same singularity? Do yards make houses disappear? Does a river make water disappear? This is the realistic explanation of the "paradox" in the subtitle of this question. The laws of physics do not destroy themselves.

-------------------------------------------------

* One of the typical architectural patterns in Beijing, China, is the "quadrangle", which is usually a square open space with houses built along the perimeter, and when the houses are built, a courtyard is formed in the center. Thus, before the houses were built, it was the field, not the courtyard. The yard must have been formed after the house was built, even though that center open space did not substantially change before or after the building, but the concept changed.

† I hope some logician or philosopher will point out the impropriety.

-------------------------------------------------

[1] Monk, R. (1990). Ludwig Wittgenstein: the duty of genius. London: J. Cape. Morgan, G. (Chinese version @2011)

The concept of mass explained by the Higgs mechanism is able to include all concepts of mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass, mechanical mass, electromagnetic mass [1], kinematic mass, static mass, longitudinal mass, transverse mass [2], bare mass ...... ? Is it the Higgs field that leads to the mass-energy equation? How are coupling relationships established? Do the Couplings Transfer Energy-Momentum?

Although there are many different sub-concepts of mass, a distinguishing feature is that the mass of an object is not reflected, recognisable, or measurable when it is not interacting. We can think of all mass as a property of resistance that only presents itself when an object's state of motion changes^§. The so-called "rest mass" can only be regarded as a representation of the amount of static energy, and not vice versa.

Thus, it is clear that masses are essentially the same, differing only in size and form^*. This also implies that no matter how many differences there are in the occasions of interaction, as long as the required dimension is the same, they are the same mass. In this way, the Equivalence Principle in GR need not be regarded as a specific condition.

However, mass is not constant, and the magnitude of an object's mass in SR changes according to the Lorentz transformation. This predicts that the mass of an object is related to the increase or decrease in the energy of the object and is bounded by the speed of light.

Higgs physics suggests [3] that the mass of bosons is given by the Higgs mechanism [4]; that the mass of fermions is also given by the Higgs field [10], although this is still an open question [5]; and that Higgs particles themselves give their own mass [3], although this is not a clear-cut conclusion either [6].The Higgs field is a scalar field that pervades space, and is the same as the other elementary particle fields, electron fields, quark fields, etc., co-existing in the vacuum^**. They all appear to have the same status, except for the Higgs mechanism.

However, the current Higgs mechanism has some obvious explanation missing.

1) Why does the Higgs field selectively couple to bosons? I.e., how does the Higgs field recognise the bosons W^±, Z and γ, g, all of which have energy and perform the same function, and to which the Higgs field selectively assigns mass, or not.

2) The magnitude of the coupling coefficient of the Higgs field determines the mass size of the fermions [10]. Then, the mass hierarchy of the three generations of fermions is determined by the Higgs field^¶.Why should the particles all have different couplings coefficients g_j to the Higgs field? and where do these values come from[7][8]? Before there is mass, fermions have exactly the same quantum number and they are indistinguishable [9]^†. How does the Higgs field recognise these particles? The obvious requirement is that they must have additional parameters, or other physical quantities that do not present . At the same time, The action of the Higgs field on the positive and negative particles (e+,e-; q+,q-; ) is identical. And how does it ignore this difference?

3) If the Higgs field is not coupled to fermions, can fermions really travel at the speed of light like photons without stopping? According to the mass-energy equation E=mc², are all particles energy before there is mass（or none）? So the coupling of the Higgs field is to energy, do they have to exchange energy between them? What is the energy transfer relation here, E=mc²? If m=0 now, is E fully converted to the raw energy of the particle?

4) If the significance of the existence of inertial mass for fermions, W^± can be explained, what is the significance of the Higgs Boson possessing inertial mass itself?Does it really implies the existence of a 'fifth force', mediated by the exchange of Higgs bosons [8]?

5) The shape of the Higgs potential V(Ø) expresses the relationship between the potential and the field strength , V(Ø) ~ Ø [10] ^‡ . Ø is hidden in the vacuum ††. How do different Ø present themselves at a given spatial location? Do they interact with other particles in one way?

6) How does the mathematical explanation of the Higgs mechanism map reasonably to physical reality? Must the Higgs potential be an external field? ^‡‡ Wouldn't it be better if it were the field of the particle itself? [12] Is the Higgs mechanism for mass completely excludes the relation between mass and spin ?[15]

7) Not all mass is caused by Higgs [10], and potential energy (binding energy) gives mass as well. In this case, is mass still consistent? Doesn't mass become a variable?

------------------------------------------

Supplement: Can mass have multiple origins? （2024.9.26）

“The Higgs does seem to be the source of the mass of elementary particles, e.g., the electron; but it is responsible for < 2% of the mass of more complex things, like the proton. The mass of the vast bulk of visible material in the Universe has a different source.”[1] “the Higgs boson is almost irrelevant to the origin of the proton mass. ”[2]

Mass is an important particle property. If mass has surprisingly multiple origins, how do we explain their relationship? Do they produce the same results by similar mechanisms, or completely different ones? Do they all rely on external fields? Is the mass-energy equation, m=E/c^2, a clue to determining the uniform origin of mass? Can a mechanism that does not provide energy provide mass?

Does mass obey the superposition principle? Is it a scalar superposition or a vector superposition? Is it a linear or nonlinear superposition? Let us consider a process in which u, d quarks combine to form a proton p. In the early stages of the evolution of the universe, nothing else in particular existed. u and d automatically combine to form p in such a scenario, like a pair of lovers meeting to form a family. The family is a more stable structure, and the ‘quality’ of life of the family (In Chinese, quality and mass are one word, 质量) has increased. The increased ‘quality’ does not come from outside, but from the union itself.

------------------------------------------

§ Mass is usually thought of as resisting a change in the "state" of matter, but what is the "state"? Why does it resist change? Why can it resist change? My personal reference answer is here [12]: Mass originates from damping the superluminal intent of a spinning light ring and as a result is the fundamental property that distinguishes fermions from bosons.

* Mass is somewhat similar to energy in that it exists in various forms, but the two are fundamentally different.

** Physics doesn't know what parameters to use to describe these fields and doesn't seem to be interested.

‡ “One of the most important open questions in Higgs physics is whether the potential written in that equation is the one chosen by nature. ”[8]

‡‡ "Central to all of Higgs physics is the Higgs potential."[8] C. N. Yang[13]: "Symmetry breaking with the introduction of a field will not be the last theory, although for the time being it is a good theory, like Fermi's theory of beta decay." Expresses his scepticism about the Higgs mechanism.

† With no Higgs field, the electron and electron neutrino would be identical particles, and the W and Z particles, and in fact all standard model fermions, would be massless. [9]

†† The vacuum seems to be the all-powerful vacuum, and physics assigns many functions to the vacuum [14].

¶ The hierarchies among fermion masses and mixing angles, however, remain unexplained.[11]

------------------------------------------

[1] Thomson, J. J. (1881). XXXIII. On the electric and magnetic effects produced by the motion of electrified bodies. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 11(68), 229-249.

[2] Abraham, M. (1902). Principles of the Dynamics of the Electron (Translated by D. H. Delphenich). Physikalische Zeitschrift 4(1b), 57-62.

[3] Ellis, J. (2013). Higgs physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5672.

[4] Higgs, P. W. (1964). Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons. Physical Review Letters, 13(16), 508-509. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

[5] Ghosh, D., Gupta, R. S., & Perez, G. (2016). Is the Higgs mechanism of fermion mass generation a fact? A Yukawa-less first-two-generation model. Physics Letters B, 755, 504-508.

[6] Consoli, M., & Cosmai, L. (2020). The mass scales of the Higgs field. International Journal of Modern Physics A, 35(20), 2050103.

[7] Melia, F. (2021). The origin of rest-mass energy. The European Physical Journal C, 81(8), 707. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09506-w

[8] Salam, G. P., Wang, L.-T., & Zanderighi, G. (2022). The Higgs boson turns ten. Nature, 607(7917), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04899-4

[9] Lancaster, T., & Blundell, S. J. (2014). Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur. OUP Oxford.

[10] Schmitz, W. (2019). Particles, Fields and Forces. Springer.

[11] Bauer, M., Carena, M., & Gemmler, K. (2016). Creating the fermion mass hierarchies with multiple Higgs bosons. Physical Review D, 94(11), 115030.

[12]

[13] C.N.Yang. (2014). 六十八年心路（1945-2012）. 三联书店.

[14] https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO34How_the_View_of_Space-Time_is_Unified_6-Are_Vacuum_and_Space_Two_Separate_Things?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSIsInBvc2l0aW9uIjoicGFnZUNvbnRlbnQifX0

[15] C. N. Yang emphasised: in the context of gauge theory, the conjecture of why we need a theory of gravity with spin electrons. Today I remain believing that this is a key to the future conquest of quantum general relativity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If gravity is caused by spacetime, then negative gravity should also be caused by spacetime. If general relativity is correct, then it should be able to describe all spacetime types and describe both positive and negative gravity.

In electromagnetic interactions there are two opposite forces, attractive and repulsive. The direction of the electric force depends on the identity of the "electric charge"; the direction of the magnetic force depends on the polarity of the "magnetic charge"^*. However, in gravitational phenomena we only find attractive forces at the macroscopic level. This seems to be a flaw, somewhat similar to our inability to see antimatter (the gravitational force produced by antimatter is still positive). The concepts of "negative mass" and "negative energy" have been proposed and assumed to give rise to negative gravity [1][2][3]. This seems a somewhat absurd idea.

According to the interpretation of general relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the "curvature" of spacetime. So, if positive curvature of space-time produces "positive gravity", does negative curvature of space-time produce "negative gravity"? Under what conditions and in what places should such a situation leading to negative gravity occur?

Schwarzschild spacetime is a spherically symmetric solution of GR, can spherical symmetry be extended across the "event horizon" to r=0?

The best way to describe it is that we take the "event horizon" (r=2GM) as the dividing line, whose inner and outer spacetimes are symmetric. The external is gravitational force (pointing to the centre of the sphere), which tends to zero at r→∞，and is the macroscopic case; the internal is negative gravitational force (leaving the centre of the sphere), which tends to zero at r→0, and is the microscopic case(This looks like a very good match for elementary particles). However, physics suggests that the interior of a black hole is much more complex [4].

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^* We don't think there's a magnetic monopole； Fan, C. (2023). If Magnetic Monopoles Would Annihilate Like Positive and Negative Electrons, Would Magnetism Still Exist? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO23If_Magnetic_Monopoles_Would_Annihilate_Like_Positive_and_Negative_Electrons_Would_Magnetism_Still_Exist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Bondi, H. (1957). Negative mass in general relativity. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 423.

[2] Tiwari, R. N., Rao, J. R., & Ray, S. (1991). Gravitational sources of purely electromagnetic origin. Astrophysics and Space Science, 178(1), 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00647119

[3] Parikh, M. K., & Wilczek, F. (2000). Hawking radiation as tunneling. Physical Review Letters, 85(24), 5042.

[4] Carroll, S. M. (1999). Lecture Notes on General Relativity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2354635_Lecture_Notes_on_General_Relativity

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Reply to this discussion

Vacuum

Multiverse

Entanglement

Big Bang

Motion

Following

Share

All replies (18)

📷

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

April 17

Fred-Rick Schermer "He (Einstein) used the term Spacetime to help declare aspects about the gravitational effects of matter, in specifics the anomalies as for instance seen with the perihelion of Mercury."

Spacetime is a term in relativity theory which only indicates that the structure of space and time is related.

"Once a person accepts that matter came about in the Big Bang model, then one cannot declare at the same time that unification is real as well."

The big bang model is bullshit.

The only relevant model is about an eternal universe. Instead of a big bang only cyclic bangs happen, which affect about 10% of the mass of the universe. The restricted cyclic bangs release astronomic signs, which we misinterprete as traces of a big bang.

The cyclic bangs resolve all black holes, once every 20 billion years, and retransform their matter to new star fuel.

All arguments against that model of the eternal cyclic universe can be disproven in a factual way.

Recommend

Share

📷

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

April 17

The thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1.

Dear Fred-Rick

- in that

“…Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute."

I fully agree here but only if I understand you correctly. It is matter that is the source for spacetime; space and time are actually not part of the discussion. Rather, all words apply to the behavior of matter and nothing of these words applies to space or time. though the words are implying they are...”

- you understand what is in the SS posts above correctly, however only in certain sense, though.

To understand more it is necessary to read at least first few pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, where it is explained what are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”; and their concrete actualizations in every concrete informational pattern/system - concrete spaces and time

[ while in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

- it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter is nothing else that some the Set’s element.

At that the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

I.e. the “Logos” set elements “make something to be an information”, and any/every concrete pattern/system, including Matter, is made absolutely obligatorily by some concrete “composition of the “Logos” elements actualizations”.

“Space” and “Time” are just the “Logos” set [besides any informational pattern/system “is made” also, first of all, by “Logos” elements “Energy”, “Change”, “Logical Rules”] and their actualizations in concrete cases are concrete space, that can have any number of concrete “space dimensions” [the number is equal to number of degreases of freedom at change of state of a pattern/system], and the unique in the Set “time dimension”.

Any concrete pattern/system can exist and change, in a system its elements interact, etc., only in its concrete space and time.

So, including any “behavior of matter” is possible only in some space, Matter is rather simple logical system that is based on binary reversible logics, and so Matter’s utmost universal space has 4 dimensions – X,Y,Z are necessary – “allow” to make binary operations, cτ- dimension allows reverse binary operation.

Correspodingly the space and time intervals between elements, motion of elements in space and time dimensions, etc., are absolutely necessary for existence of everything in Matter –

- and at description and analysis of what exists and happens in Matter. If you don’t know these data, you by no means can describe and analyze “behavior of matter”.

Besides, really it is fundamentally senseless to ask “what appeared earlier – Matter or its spacetime”, Matter could appeared only in its spacetime, which – as logical possibility to create, and to exist of, Matter – existed as a part of the Set’s spacetime, which contains all spaces of all Its elements – and one time dimension;

- while the Set exists absolutely “eternally”, having no Beginning and no End, since absolutely fundamentally - logically - cannot be non-existent.

Cheers

Recommend

Share

📷

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

April 18

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you, Wolfgang, I understand better now where you are coming from.

The model you embrace is not the model I embrace, and this helps us understand what each of us is saying.

I do not support the cyclic universe; it was a one-time event in which the prior state broke at a fundamental level. Hence my saying that, once we have an omelet, we know that the egg was broken. There is no return to the original state available.

An eternal universe requires that we have evidence for that eternal aspect. We do not have that evidence. I will not stand in non-scientific grounds. I will only stand with my feet on the ground (even when that is on a planet floating through space) and I will not stand with my feet on space.

It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions.

Matter returning to an immaterial state is not supported by scientific evidence. At best, it can be read in models, but then we need to discuss the value of these models. I am not convinced that black holes are actually real, but that is a different discussion.

I am standing with the scientific evidence, Wolfgang. I do not extrapolate it into additional dimensions. I may not be the best scientist, but I will not stand outside the scientific realm.

Thank you again for explaining where you are standing.

Recommend

Share

📷

Cosmin Visan added a reply

20 hours ago

Spacetime doesn't exist. "Spacetime" is just an idea in consciousness.

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

15 hours ago

Fred-Rick Schermer "It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions."

We do not have the faintest valid explanation about a possible creation of electrons and protons without the simultaneous creation of positrons and antiprotons.

This fact and the unlimited lifetime of electrons and most atomic nuclei leaves us with the only possible conclusion that matter must be and must have been eternal.

Recommend

Share

📷

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

13 hours ago

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you for that answer, Wolfgang. We are not thinking fully along the same lines. That is very clarifying; after all, communication is difficult enough.

Let me find out if this is about language or if we really say something else.

I can say that the unlimited lifetime of electrons points to a potentially eternal nature of Energy. This is what you may want to say, but you placed eternal with Matter, which is in my model not possible.

If the transformation of Energy into Matter occurred some 13.8 billion years ago, then the term eternal cannot be applied to Matter. A (fundamental) transformation undermines being able to use the word eternal.

It is not known how old Energy is, so I cannot make the claim that Energy is, or is not eternal. We just don't know. Yet Matter is a result. We know therefore that it cannot be eternal; it was produced at one point in time, something new got produced from something old(er).

--

In my model, I do not need to start with the same amount of matter as antimatter because the starting point for matter begins under extreme circumstances. It is not an ordinary circumstance. Antimatter will occur, but it is a circumstantial byproduct.

We can discuss this further if you want, but the special circumstance is more interesting now.

There was a special circumstance in which the prior normal conditions of whatever or however energy existed before caused itself to move toward that special circumstance. This could have been done in a happenstance manner, or in a directed manner. But it was a step that led to a fundamental undermining, with either option we pick.

As a consequence, (some) original energy got deformed during these special conditions, and a quark soup got created (to keep the storyline simple). Then, the special conditions were reversed, everything back to normal, yet the deformed quarks were not able to return to their original state. They were and are deformed packages of original energy.

The reversal of the special conditions occurred at the CMBR, when conditions were normal again. Here the quarks aligned themselves immediately into neutrons and protons.

That is the point Zeus overthrew Cronus, if you allow me to throw in some Greek mythology as support that I am not thinking up something structurally never considered before. Where immaterial Energy was first the only circumstance for energy, with the transformation of some energy into quarks, they actually took the lead.

Matter became the center of energy (quarks in nuclei of atoms). Everything else remaining in the original energized state then falling in place, aligning themselves with the quarks in the center.

Yes, electrons then also part of the original immaterial energy, but then pulled into the deformed reality of the energized quarks, causing the tip of that iceberg to become material.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Cosmin Visan added a reply:::

Wolfgang Konle Matter doesn't exist. "Matter" is just an idea in consciousness.

Cosmin Visan added a reply:::

Fred-Rick Schermer You really do have a communication problem. Have you tried a psychotherapist ?

All the elementary particles are quantum states of photon and photon will have all these 900 quantum states in this nature.

If I am right , what is your comment on it?

If anybody feel that this result is meaning less. straight away please write that but with a reason. That comment will be useful for me to control my thinking.

At present I can not provide you any proof. Please do not insist me on reasoning also.

I am preparing a paper on it.

Is HUP just a way the physicists found to correct the unnatural concept and mathematical formalism of dimensionless-point elementary particles?

Making these points more fuzzy and therefore giving them a physical finite size and shape. Now with HUP the elementary point particles have finite size limits (i.e. minimum bounds on their position and momentum are applied). So, is HUP really just an artificial epistemic mechanism to make the elementary particles in the standard particle model theory more physical and less mathematical dimensionless operators.

You can imagine it, as the elementary bare particle being a dimensionless point in the center and HUP is actually defining an outer finite size shell for this particle.

In a nutshell, the bare elementary particle in the Standard Model is this dimensionless-point in space and when applying HUP for this particle we get the "dressed" version of the particle with its virtual particle noise mantle surrounding it.

Is the above physical description correct of what HUP really is?

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.

To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

--

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).

--

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Anomalies in the behavior of matter, such as seen with the precession of Mercury, led researchers to look for the ether as the additional aspect that would explain the anomalies. Or, in the case of Albert Einstein, this led to appointing a curvature to Spacetime to explain the anomalies. This paper explains the anomalies based on an additional behavior of matter instead. The additional behavior of matter is known by all, but for some reason did not get incorporated into the prevailing scientific models.

When Albert Einstein published his General Relativity theory, he did not yet know about the materialization process, now commonly known as the Big Bang theory. That means that the behavior of matter based on the materialization process itself did not get incorporated in his framework. While Einstein will have reviewed this new Big Bang information for his General Relativity theory, he did not look for a mechanical explanation that would explain the anomalies.

What Einstein produced was a mathematical model to explain the anomalies (including predicting some outcomes that were not yet known). As such, the mathematical information is correct and is therefore not the subject matter of this paper. Instead, it is the explanation underneath the celestial outcomes that is distinct from Einstein’s gravitational model. A far more normal overall mechanism is proposed to be the reason for all behaviors of matter moving through space and that means that Spacetime can be discarded (though not the mathematical calculations).

The reason the mathematical information is correct, but the explanation of General Relativity is not, is based on the First Motion of matter. The Big Bang event produced a ‘sent-off’ action for matter. This means that all matter in the entire universe is on the move. There exists no matter that is at a standstill, and as such the lack of matter at a standstill should be understood as matter being a result, and how the materialization process itself produced that First Motion for all matter.

The amount of gravity in a galaxy that is required for a pure GR model is insufficient, and either the ether or dark matter are proposed to fill that gap. In the First Motion model, however, the currently known amount of gravity is exactly all the gravity there should be. There is no gap; there isn’t anything missing.

The specific point why Einstein’s mathematical framework is correct, but not the underlying reality, is that this First Motion action occurs in a ‘straight’ line through space. There is no gravity involved in this linear direction. Gravity is discovered only with the subsequent motions of matter.

· Second Motion: Circular motion of matter in a galaxy.

· Third Motion: Revolution of planets around their star.

· Fourth Motion: Spinning action of planets (moons in tow).

Therefore, the mathematical framework predicts the specific motions of matter, yet it does not explain why. While this may appear a minor aspect, it is a major aspect as this paper will show.

· Einstein’s GR uses gravity to fully explain the anomaly of Mercury’s precession.

· First Motion uses First Motion + Gravity to explain the anomaly.

--

To explain what is going on for a galaxy, and why less gravity is in play than required in GR, an analogy may help make this plain and obvious quickly. The analogy is that of 200 ice skaters. They are all skating in a group on a frozen canal. All are going at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment, at the same time.

Very clearly, one can see group activities, such as racing, pushing, hanging on to the strongest skater, playing, etcetera. Yet the vital aspect to understand is that the group is not skating as a group. In fact, the group is not skating as a group at all.

When an individual decides to stop skating, then the remainder of the group moves on. This shows that each skater is skating on his or her own power. There is no collective power for this group; the individuals are all doing the skating, and not the group.

For each of the 100 billion masses in the Milky Way, there is no option to stop ‘skating’. The First Motion that was put in place 13.8 billion years ago is on-going. There is no escape from this motion unless something specific interferes with the First Motion of a mass.

· All masses in a galaxy are moving in the same direction through space, at the same speed, at the same time, in the same environment.

That means that while there are collective behaviors noticeable and that gravity does play a role internally, the individual masses are not controlled by just gravity. The prime mover for each mass is applied to each mass and is not associated with the group.

There is no need to look for the ether or for dark matter, because the First Motion declares that there is just the amount of gravity required that has already been mapped fully. The group is a group because the prime mover of each of the individual masses is doing the exact same thing at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment.

--

This setup also indicates that the anomaly of Mercury’s precession can be explained by the specific aspects of First Motion in combination with the other motions. Note how this is a complexity and may take time to understand.

First an example of Sun, planet Earth and the Moon to warm up the mind.

These celestial bodies are like a truck, a car and a motorcycle, all speeding on the freeway in one and the same direction. The truck drives in a near-perfect straight line, whereas the car and the motorcycle going at the same speed also circle the truck (while the motorcycle circles the car as well). Their overall speeds are the same. They are on the same road, each driving the roadway by themselves.

· Important to note is that the Sun is not involved in the revolving actions that the planets are involved in.

The following is essential to understand: the Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the Solar System swirl and is not involved in revolving. Therefore, the planets show extra behaviors (revolving and spinning) that the Sun is not involved in.

Mercury is the planet closest to the central position of the Solar System’s swirl, while revolving and spinning. Not gravity, but the position in the swirling action of the Solar System is key. Keep in mind that all celestial bodies are moving at their fastest speed in the same direction.

To make the specific situation more understandable, one more analogy, this time about the Eye of the Hurricane. The closer to the Wall of the Eye of the Storm, the more an item will be swept up by the wind force. Meanwhile, in the Eye itself, there is no wind force. Where the center has a minimum expression of wind force, the location right next to it presents a maximum expression of wind force. There is no gradual change between this minimum and maximum, other than the gradual change in wind force when being further removed from the Eye of the Storm, from the maximum then to the minimum found much further out. The force is zero in the center, one right next to it, and then gradually diminishing toward zero again, at the edge of the entire storm.

The Sun is found in the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. The Sun is therefore not affecting the precession anomaly of Mercury. It is Mercury’s specific location in the swirl that causes the anomaly to occur. It is closer to the Eye; Mercury is closer to the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. It is affected disproportionately in its precession due to this closeness to the center (though not located in the center itself).

This visual from an article published in Nature (“Curved space-time on a chip”) is used to show Einstein’s GR with the gravitationally heaviest entity, the Sun, located in the center. The reason being is that the Sun does the curving that is then affecting the entity (be it either Mercury or for that article, photons) also shown in the image.

The same image can be used to show how First Motion + Gravity functions.

The Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the swirling motion of the Solar System. A requirement is then that the Sun is mostly made up of light-weighted materials, otherwise it would have been thrown out of this position a long time ago.

Indeed, while the Sun has amassed enormous amounts of material, hydrogen and helium make up most of the Sun. Despite heavier materials being present and despite the enormous amounts of materials being present, the Sun can be declared a light-weighted mass. It ‘sits’ in this central location because the light-weighted materials cannot get thrown out of that position.

One more analogy to make this easier to envision. The Sun is then like a very large but light-weighted ball ending up in a maelstrom in front of the Norwegian coast. This large ball cannot get pulled under due to its size and light-weighted essence, and it cannot go anywhere else because the maelstrom captured it. The Sun is physically stuck in place in the center of the Solar System swirl (Third Motion), while the entirety of the Solar System is on the move (in First and Second Motions).

Then, Mercury’s position should become obvious as well. Mercury is involved in Third and Fourth Motions (as well as First and Second Motions). The maelstrom is affecting the precession of Mercury; it becomes distinct compared to the other planets revolving around the Sun because the effects of the maelstrom play a role on Mercury whereas the maelstrom does not directly affect the specific behaviors of the other planets revolving around it. All other planets are located at a greater distance from the center of the Solar System swirl.

As visual aid, one can envision the behavior of a plane, its flight path mapped out on a flat screen or shown with the planet as backdrop. In one case, the straight line appears curved. In the other case, the line is straight instead. The interesting part is that the anomalies are not expressed like a flight path on the curved surface of a planet, but rather on the curved edge of the Wall of the Eye of the Storm.

Mercury’s anomaly is real, but in GR the reason is the Sun, whereas in FM+G the reason is found with the edge of the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl.

In both cases, GR or First Motion, the line is bent toward the viewer, and the effects therefore the same. Yet the GR model makes it all out to be as gravity based, and therefore ends up missing a large amount of gravity to explain how a galaxy is held together. In First Motion, there is no missing gravity.

--

A point to reiterate is how the model is complex and yet the various parts need to be understood as one model.

First Motion: Straight line of action (involving all matter). Not based on gravity.

Second Motion: Trajectory for Sun and Solar System. Gravity involved.

Third Motion: Trajectory just for planets in Solar System. Gravity involved.

Fourth motion: Planets spinning, moons in tow. Gravity involved.

· Each spinning, swirling reality will produce that Wall of the Eye, and this leaves a discussion about gravity wide open. That discussion is not part of this article.

Each swirling reality will produce a net-zero position in the center. Earth has its own spinning reality, stuck in the center of that swirling reality. The Solar System has the Sun stuck in the net-zero position. A galaxy’s center is more complex even still (but left unaddressed in this article as well).

The trajectory for planets is based on their own action in the larger Solar System setting with the Third Motion. Most planets are not pulled toward the center action of the First and Second Motions; they are far more involved in their own actions. Mercury, however, is placed in the position closest to where the First and Second Motion have their greatest influence. This becomes visible in the precession anomaly of Mercury.

--

A mechanical model explains all behaviors of matter moving through space.

Where Einstein envisioned two or three motions, he did not incorporate the most important motion, the First Motion. He left it out, even after becoming aware of it.

When models are not based on all motions, then researchers can claim that the ether is real or that Spacetime is a reality for matter.

--

Note once more how this does not involve any changes to the mathematical model. If the mathematical model is like a dog, then the issue discussed in this paper is about whether a dog wags its tail or whether the tail wags the dog. The dog itself is not the issue. The mathematical framework is not the issue.

Einstein’s GR is wagging the dog.

Ether is wagging the dog.

Dark matter is wagging the dog.

First Motion has the dog wag its tail.

--

First Motion is part of the Big Whisper model, which is a twin Big Bang model, yet it explains fully the behavior of matter through space and does so in a mechanical manner.

Fred-Rick Schermer

What is a phenomenon called "false vacuum collapse"?

as you know :

Mean field energy and bubble formation. The cloud is initially prepared in FV with all atoms in |↑⟩ (A). Although the single spin mode |↓⟩ is lower in energy in the center of the cloud (E↓E↑), the opposite is true in the low-density tails. The interface (domain wall) between ferromagnetic regions with opposite magnetism has positive (kinetic) energy, which is added to the minimum double energy resulting from ferromagnetic interaction. Macroscopic tunneling can occur resonantly in the bubble mode (B), which has a |↓⟩ bubble in the center. The increase in core energy compensates for the cost of domain-wall energy. Crossing the barrier can be caused by quantum fluctuations at zero temperature (full arrow) or by thermal fluctuations at finite temperature (empty arrow). After the tunneling process, the bubble size increases in the presence of dissipation to reach the true vacuum (TV) state (C), without returning to (A). Credit: Nature Physics (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41567-023-02345-4

An experiment carried out in Italy with theoretical support from the University of Newcastle provided the first experimental evidence of vacuum decay.

In quantum field theory, when a not-so-stable state becomes a true stable state, it is called a "pseudovacuum collapse." This happens through the creation of small local bubbles. While existing theoretical work can predict how often this bubble formation occurs, there is not much empirical evidence.

The Pitaevskii Center for Supercold Atoms Laboratory for the Bose-Einstein Condensation in Trento reports for the first time observations of phenomena related to the stability of our universe. The results are the result of a collaboration between the University of Newcastle, the National Institute of Optics CNR, the Department of Physics at the University of Trento and TIFFA-INFEN and are published in Nature Physics.

The results are supported by theoretical simulations and numerical models, confirming the origin of the decay quantum field and its thermal activation, and opening the way to simulate out-of-equilibrium quantum field phenomena in atomic systems.

This experiment uses a supercooled gas at a temperature less than one microkelvin from absolute zero. At this temperature, the bubbles appear as the vacuum collapses, and Newcastle University's Professor Ian Moss and Dr Tom Billam were able to conclusively show that the bubbles are the result of heat-activated vacuum collapse.

Ian Moss, Professor of Theoretical Cosmology at Newcastle University's School of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, said: "Vacuum collapse is thought to play a central role in the creation of space, time and matter in the Big Bang, but so far it has not. In particle physics, the decay of the Higgs boson vacuum changes the laws of physics and creates what has been described as the 'ultimate ecological catastrophe'."

Dr Tom Bilam, Senior Lecturer in Applied/Quantum Mathematics, added: "Using the power of ultracold atom experiments to simulate analogues of quantum physics in other systems – in this case the early universe itself – is a very exciting area of research. the moment."

This research opens new avenues in understanding the early universe as well as ferromagnetic quantum phase transitions.

This groundbreaking experiment is only the first step in the discovery of vacuum decay. The ultimate goal is to find vacuum decay at absolute zero temperature, where the process is driven solely by quantum vacuum fluctuations. An experiment in Cambridge, supported by Newcastle as part of the national QSimFP collaboration, is doing just that.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

Just what the name says: There are many physical systems, whose potential energy, in the absence of fluctuations, possesses more than one minima. If these minima are not degenerate, it can occur that one is the absolute minimum, however, due to the choice of initial conditions, the system is found in another minimum. In the absence of fluctuations, it will stay in the potential well of that minimum.

In the presence of fluctuations, it can occur that the relative minimum is no longer a minimum: In that case the system won't stay there forever and it is possible to compute the rate at which it will evolve to another state.

While the presence of fluctuations is a necessary condition, it isn't sufficient for transitions to be possible.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

“What is a phenomenon called "false vacuum collapse"?”

- the answer to this question is: the question really is absurdity, since really there cannot be fundamentally any “false vacuum”, i.e. that really is an fundamental absurdity, and so its “collapse” is absurdity as well.

Though yeah, in mainstream physics really rather numerous fantastic/mystic “true/false vacuums” really exist, and corresponding publications, where corresponding fantastic/mystic properties and effects of/in the vacuums are “discovered”, are well popular and numerous.

That exists in the mainstream completely logically inevitably from the fact that in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all on this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., including “vacuum”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to something that is really fundamental, the results completely inevitably are only some the fantasies.

More see recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_super_vacuum_Is_the_earth_in_a_vacuum_And_what_is_dark_energy , and links in the post; reDzennn comment, 9/8 [because of too active moderator] passages, to a Nature Physics (2024) paper in

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.html) directly relates to the thread question.

Zoltan Vilagosh added a reply:

Not that complicated really. False vacuum example = because you cannot see over the hill, you think are at the lowest level possible. This makes you think you have no potential energy left. But a surprise awaits if you make it to the top of the hill...you tumble lower onto the vast endless plain on the other side.

__/\O/\

\

\__O

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

“…Not that complicated really. False vacuum example = because you cannot see over the hill, you think are at the lowest level possible. This makes you think you have no potential energy left. But a surprise awaits if you make it to the top of the hill...you tumble lower onto the vast endless plain on the other side. …..”

- that above looks as tooo not complicated passage really, though, again, on such level the authors of the paper in a top physical Nature Physics (2024) journal also thought,

- which “discovered” “false vacuum bubbles decays” in some Bose-Einstein Cond sate of Na-23 atoms, more see reDzennn comment, 8 passages, in https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.html, the strangely removed by moderator passage is in the end of whole comments series.

Though yeah, the really full stop “false vacuum” theories are rather popular in mainstream physics, including rather popular is the theory that Matter was created soon 14 billion years ago at some “bubble in spacetime decay”. Thank heavens till now no any even small bubbles didn’t decay near Earth, and nowhere in Space at all, in last 10 billion of years Milky Way existence.

However, again, this full stop – and so quite easily composed - fantasies are so rather popular, and in this case so some people don’t like the comment, correspondingly it is heavily “down voted”.

Juan Weisz added a reply

Perhaps vacuum does not collapse,

but you know the saying, nature abhors vacuum.

Harri Shore added a reply

False vacuum collapse is a theoretical concept in particle physics and cosmology. It suggests that our universe might currently exist in a metastable vacuum state, also known as a false vacuum. If this false vacuum were to collapse to a lower energy state, it could trigger catastrophic consequences, such as the destruction of all matter and the laws of physics as we know them. This hypothetical scenario is based on certain models in quantum field theory and the structure of the universe. However, there is currently no empirical evidence to support the occurrence of false vacuum collapse.

Harri Shore added a reply:

The "false vacuum collapse" refers to a hypothetical cosmic event that could have catastrophic implications for the universe as we know it. In theoretical physics, a vacuum state is considered to be the lowest possible energy state in which a quantum field can exist. A "true vacuum" is the absolute lowest energy state, while a "false vacuum" is a local minimum that is not the absolute lowest. The concept of a false vacuum collapse is based on the idea that if our universe currently exists in a false vacuum state, it is not truly stable but only metastable. This means there's a possibility, however minute, that a transition could occur, causing the universe to "fall" into the true vacuum state. Such a transition would propagate through space at the speed of light and fundamentally alter the laws of physics, potentially obliterating all structures in the universe as it goes.This transition could be triggered spontaneously due to quantum fluctuations or by a high-energy event. Once started, it would create a bubble of true vacuum that expands in all directions, converting the false vacuum into the true vacuum.Despite its dramatic implications, it's important to note that this is a highly speculative hypothesis and currently there is no experimental evidence to suggest that our universe is in a false vacuum state. Additionally, even if it were true, the odds of such an event happening within our lifetimes—or within the lifespan of the universe as it has existed so far—are exceedingly low.

The solution to the “Quantum Experiment Breaks Reality . . .” problem may lie with Special Relativity. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity - Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510) Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light".

Now relate the previous paragraph to this quote - “While an observer stationary with respect to an electric charge will see it as a source of electric field only, a second observer moving relative to the first will see the same charge as a source of both electric and magnetic fields in a way dictated by special relativity.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rd edition, 2006 - ‘electromagnetism’, p. 443) In this way, two worlds may seem to exist simultaneously but that predicament only exists in the frame of reference used “… by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". Let’s look at the cosmos from the frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the universe (where observers and objective reality are united/entangled). The weirdness of quantum physics vanishes and no particle can exist in two places, or realities, at once since the unification of everything in space and time - possibly achieved with Quantum Gravity - means only one place or event can ever exist in the universal, co-moving frame of reference).

Let’s add a final note to the universal frame of reference. A hologram’s appearance differs depending on which direction it’s viewed from. If the universe is holographic as proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, and AdS/CFT correspondence - if the 3rd dimension is the result of information in the 2nd dimension - a hologram’s property of looking different depending on the direction it’s viewed from might account for two versions of reality seeming to exist at the same time.

The term Holographic Principle is used most often in physics in relation to the way the information contained in black holes can be directly related to a two-dimensional (2D) surface that surrounds the outside perimeter of the black hole. This has no direct connection with the universe being a computer simulation. This article says the 2D surface doesn’t only surround the black hole but is the Mobius strip which composes everything in the universe according to the following details - the real + imaginary numbers of Wick rotation represent the 4th dimension of time and are built into the 2D Mobius strips which are constructed from the 1D binary digits of 1 and 0 (the digits are identified as Hidden Variables compatible with quantum entanglement). Two strips join to create a figure-8 Klein bottle and trillions of strips and bottles respectively form the photon/graviton (the Klein bottles are immersed in the 3rd dimension). Photons and gravitons then interact to create a pressure which can be interpreted as a subatomic particle. This interaction refers back to a paper published by the great physicist Albert Einstein which asks if gravitation plays a role in formation of elementary particles of matter. (A. Einstein, Spielen Gravitationfelder im Aufbau der Elementarteilchen eine Wesentliche Rolle? [Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?], Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, [Math. Phys.], 349-356, [1919]) His paper doesn’t only include gravitation’s quantum units of gravitons. It speaks of electromagnetism’s photons as involved in particle creation, too. The Mobius strips help form the entire cosmos and they result from electronics’ BITS (BInary digiTS) of 1 and 0 which draw, program, or encode them. Consequently, the universe would be a simulation.

We are not in a position to scientifically accept five fundamental forces.

According to relativity, gravity is not considered a force. Nevertheless, scientists, including those who advocate for relativity, persist in asserting that there are four fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Simply put, physicists who celebrate the triumph of relativity decisively undermine its credibility or completeness.

This raises the question: Why haven't physicists reduced the fundamental forces to three?

"What is an elementary particle?" This seemingly simple question has no clear answer; this seemingly unimportant question may be very important.

Weinberg says [1], "Giving this answer always makes me nervous. i would have to admit that no one really knows." in textbooks, the history of the discovery of particles is recounted. From atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, up to neutrinos and quarks in the Standard Model, however, the definition of elementary particles is usually not given, and various particles are discussed directly, as in the literature [2][3], ignoring the concept of Elementary.

To answer this question, it is necessary to answer what is meant by "particle" and what is meant by "elementary".

"A particle is simply a physical system that has no continuous degrees of freedom except for its total momentum. "[1]. But obviously, whether this definition holds depends on the depth of the researcher's perspective. If we study only dust, then dust is a particle, even though it has a rich internal structure; if we study blackbody radiation, then a photon is a particle, even though we don't know if it has a structure ....... So the concept of "particle" depends only on our perspective and ability to focus.

"what is meant by elementary ?" Elementary is used in many contexts, not only as "elementary particle", but also as elementary fields, elementary electric charge, etc. Whatever the object of description, our understanding of elementary is that as long as the object it qualifies is irreducible, then that object is elementary. Does irreducible mean "nothing could be pulled or knocked out of it"? This is not a reliable answer, because we don't know at what energy level a composite particle would terminate its decomposition. If there are "Kerr black holes as elementary particles" [4], how do we break it up? And it has been found that different particles produce each other in collisions, so which is a composite of which [1]? even different things produce the same output, so "The difference between elementary and composite particles has thus basically disappeared. and that is no doubt the most important experimental discovery of the last fifty years." [Heisenberg 1975]. When we get to the QFT stage, "particles are not fundamental entities" [5], "There are no particles, there are only fields " [6]. "From the perspective of quantum field theory, the basic ingredients of Nature are not particles but fields; particles such as the electron and photon are bundles of energy of the electron and the electromagnetic fields."[1].

Although photons and electrons come from imagined different elementary fields*, they can nevertheless be converted into each other by the annihilation process e+e- → γ γ' and the pair creation process γ γ' → e+e- [7], with the consequent creation or disappearance of the properties of electrons (charge, spin, mass). Physics suggests that this process is not direct, but rather that photons γ γ' produced by electromagnetic fields excite electron fields, from which e+e- is produced. If we remove this intermediate process, the photon has a spacetime symmetry, which corresponds to the Lorentz invariance of SR in "flat spacetime", and the electron has a gauge-invariant Internal spacetime symmetry, which corresponds to the general covariance of GR in "curved spacetime"; the photon is a boson, the electron is a fermion; according to the supersymmetry theory [8], there is a symmetry relationship between bosons and fermions. Since it is a symmetry relation, they must be convertible to each other, that is, different states of one thing. So, shouldn't annihilation and pair production be a kind of supersymmetric transition relationship? Why don't we consider "annihilation" and "pair production" as verification experiments of supersymmetric relations? Do we have another theory and experiment to determine this symmetry relation? If we further define that particles that can be produced by photons through "pair production" are elementary particles, wouldn't that answer all the questions?

Weinberg said. "We will not be able to give a final answer to the question of which particles are elementary until we have a final theory of force and matter. " What does that really mean?

----------------------------------

Notes

* Space-time is filled with dozens of different fields, it is impossible to imagine their rationality and necessity.

----------------------------------

References

[1] Weinberg, S. (1996). "What is an elementary particle." See http://www. slac. stanford. edu/pubs/beamline/27/1/27-1-weinberg. pdf.

[2] Griffiths, D. J. (2017). Introduction to Elementary Particles, WILEY.

[3] Group, P. D. (2016). "Review of particle physics." Chinese Physics C 40(10): 100001.

[4] Arkani-Hamed, N., Y.-t. Huang and D. O’Connell (2020). "Kerr black holes as elementary particles." Journal of High Energy Physics 2020(1): 1-12.

[5] Fraser, D. (2021). Particles in quantum field theory. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics, Routledge: 323-336.

[6] Hobson, A. (2013). "There are no particles, there are only fields." American journal of physics 81(3): 211-223.

[7] https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO8_Are_annihilation_and_pair_production_mutually_inverse_processes

[8] Wess, J. (2000). From symmetry to supersymmetry. The supersymmetric world: the beginnings of the theory, World Scientific: 67-86.

If the total mass is interdependent, then does the total mass contain both matter and antimatter masses like this:

Mass = Matter × Antimatter.

E.g. (hypothetical),

The Proton's mass == Antimatter(59×31×31×3×3) × Matter(59×31) × 1.005303472855531 eV/c^2?

The Down Quark’s mass == Matter(59×31×31×3×3×3) × Antimatter(3) × 1.023381212332223 eV/c^2?

The Up Quark’s mass == Antimatter(59×31×31×3×3×2) × Matter(2) × 1.077816383200958 eV/c^2?

The Electron’s mass == Matter(59×31×31×3×3) × Antimatter(1) × 1.001387338009097 eV/c^2?

Proton’s Charge = 2×(An(59×31×31×3×3×2)×M(2)) - M(59×31×31×3×3×3)×An(3) = An(59×31×31×3×3×1)×M(1)

But electrons don’t need extra matter or antimatter to be balanced. Therefore, only protons could have a Charge.

The Muon’s mass == Matter(59×59×31×31×31) × Antimatter(1) × 1.01886073187205 eV/c^2?

The Tau’s mass == Matter(59×59×59×31×31×3×3) × Antimatter(1) × 1.000302326214752 eV/c^2?

The Strange Quark’s mass == Matter(59×59×31×31×3×3) × Antimatter(3) × 1.051798216785732 eV/c^2?

The Bottom Quark’s mass == Matter(59×59×59×31×31×(3 + 4)) × Antimatter(3) × 1.008503859194067 eV/c^2?

The Charm Quark’s mass == Antimatter(59×59×31×31×31×3×2) × Matter(2) × 1.024565750222095 eV/c^2?

The Top Quark’s mass == Antimatter(59×59×59×31×31×31×2×(3 + 4)) × Matter(2) × 1.008426030527669 eV/c^2?

If 1 eV/c^2 contains a structure with smaller units, then it would be like this:

1 eV/c^2 = Matter(59×31×31×3×3) × Antimatter(59×31) × asymmetry? It has masses like this 1/933322239 eV/c^2.

Hypothetical extraordinary correlation #1:

The particular mass of Down Quark and Up Quark could emerge while the structure of the Gluon field becomes geometrically symmetric when it decays into a Proton, making the strongly stable Proton.

Proton's hypothetical structure == 3481 × 31^2 × 31 × 9 × 1.005303472855531 eV/c^2.

Down Quark's hypothetical structure == 59 × 31^2 × 9 × 9 × 1.023381212332223 eV/c^2.

Hypothetical extraordinary correlation #2:

The mass of the Helium nucleus == 59×59×31×31×31×3×3×4×1.005996337712896 == 3755675017.36 eV/c^2

The asymmetry in the Helium nucleus = 1.005996337712896 - 1 == 0.0059963377128957

The mass of the final atomic symmetry == 1/0.0059963377128957 == 166.7684589961309 == Nearly, 167 amu.

Atom-65 Terbium's mass == 158.9254 amu, Melting point == 1629 K, Boiling point == 3396 K

Atom-66 Dysprosium's mass == 162.50 amu, Melting point == 1680 K, Boiling point == 2840 K

Atom-67 Holmium's mass == 164.9304 amu, Melting point == 1734 K, Boiling point == 2873 K

Atom-68 Erbium's mass == 167.26 amu, Melting point == 1802 K, Boiling point == 3141 K (It is stable at 167 amu)

Atom-69 Thulium's mass == 168.9342 amu, Melting point == 1818 K, Boiling point == 2223 K

Atom-70 Ytterbium's mass == 173.04 amu, Melting point == 1097 K, Boiling point == 1469 K

Probaby, most masses of quantum objects (standard elementary particles) have a relationship to each other because their masses have a strong relationship to a very few similar numbers. E.g., 59, 31, 3.

The W Boson’s mass == 59×59×31×31×31×31×(3 + 2)×(3 + 2)×1.000094376386809 == 80377000000 eV/c^2.

The Z Boson’s mass == 59×59×31×31×31×31×(3 + 1)×(3 + 4)×1.013040843642746 == 91187600000 eV/c^2.

The Neutron's mass == 59×59×31×31×31×3×3×1.00668920257026 == 939565420.52 eV/c^2.

The Proton's mass == 59×59×31×31×31×3×3×1.005303472855531 == 938272088.16 eV/c^2.

The mass of gluons without the fluctuations like quarks = 59×59×31×31×31×3×3×1 = 933322239 eV/c^2.?

Photons have many different masses, including very low-energy masses. The mass of a photon == 31×a/b eV/c^2.?

The Higgs Boson's mass == 59×59×59×31×31×3×3×3×(3+2)×(3+14)×1.000404952049279 == 125100000000

eV/c^2 or 59×31×31×31×31×3×3×3×(3+1)×(3+7) == 58846758120 eV/c^2 (The hypothetical mass of a matter or antimatter Higgs super-fermion that has an undetectable -1-x Charge or +1+x Charge while x>0.) or 59×59×59×31×31×3×3×2.34754606458332×30 == 125100000000 eV/c^2.?

Perhaps, the Higgs Boson decays into matter and antimatter Higgs super-fermions and a photon, before it decays into fermions. Presumably, more groups of elementary particles exist with relatively undetectable Charges.

Likely, there is a fundamental building block with 31 points of existence. Perhaps, they emerged from 32 or 33 fundamental structures like 31 points of existence with a lost point or lost points of existence due to a delayed breaking point (like Bhavanga Upaccheda) and interactions. Most likely, a structure with connected 31 or 32 points of existence can connect with another similar structure by sharing their points of existence with each other like this:

((32 or 31) + (-32 or -31) == 29+((1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1) or (1-1)+(1-1))-29 == 29+(x+y+z or y+z)-29. If x+y+z=3a or y+z=2a, and a=0, then 29+(3a or 2a)-29 == 29+(3x0 or 2x0)-29 == 59 points of existence with 3 or 2 potential gaps == 59×(built-in 3-3 or 2-2 symbolic gap) == 59(3/3 or 2/2 potentiality).

Arguably, 31 planes of existence could emerge if they depend on 31 types of possible connections between two connected fundamental streams of existence. If the three neutral gaps ((1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)) between the connected two streams of existence became a reason to originate a plane of existence like the third plane of existence, then two neutral gaps between two connected streams of existence (61(built-in 2-2 symbolic gap)) could create the second plane of existence. Similarly, four neutral gaps between two connected streams of existence (57(built-in 4-4 symbolic gap)) could create the fourth plane of existence, and so on.

Research:

When God built the world, he needed an absolute ruler to measure space, an absolute clock to measure time. This is light. Then the light was kneaded together in space-time and became matter. Space-time is not a container for matter, not a stage for matter, but "you are in me and I am in you", becoming part of matter. Light is their dominator. Therefore, when we say that virtual particles are transmitting interactions [1], they are actually interactions mediated by light and space-time, and virtual particles are only a kind of "pronoun".

We should be aware of the special nature of light. Many physicists believe that photons have no special characteristics compared to other elementary particles [2]. Why do we choose to ignore the basic facts?

1) The speed of light is independent of the inertial system in which the observer is located, and becomes the basis of Special Relativity‡, the limiting criterion of motion. This alone is sufficient to declare that the photon is not in the same position as any other particle.

2) The speed of light is independent of the inertial system in which the light source is located*, and the speed of light seen by the observer remains the same no matter at what speed (and in what direction) the light source is moving. This one determines the absoluteness of light's own background spacetime, and provides a reference standard for relative spacetime. The speed of motion of any other particle is closely related to the reference frame.

3) Photons have an infinite variety of continuity (ν→∞), while any other particle in the Standard Model [1] has only one. Or group them together, in symmetrical terms, a finite number of generations. A more symmetrical statement would be that a continuous infinite number of photons corresponds to a discrete infinite number of matter particles. But there are only a few kinds of matter particles that can exist stably. If we haven't missed it, the distribution of discrete matter particles, from lowest to highest, should be, x → neutrinos (three generations) → x → electrons (three generations) → x → quarks (three generations) → x → ....... Where x represents particles that are undiscoverable in their very short lifetimes, or their energies are too high to have been discovered yet. We believe that black holes line up in this series[4].

4) Photons express energy-momentum from infinitely small to infinitely large without limit. The energy of any elementary particle in the Standard Model is determined.

5) Light is in eternal motion and cannot be accelerated, which determines that photons are particles without mass. This is the essence that distinguishes photons from other particles [3].

6) A free photon has no gravitational field**, or its gravitational field potential is 0. Any other particle has a gravitational field.

7) The polarization of a photon is different from the spin of a particle.

8) Light is the only particle that does not interact with its own kind, they only interfere superpositionally, and any interference disappears as soon as it does not interact with other matter (e.g. the screen). Any other particle interacts with its own kind.

9) Any two photons of the same frequency are absolutely identical in absolute space. However, any two electrons cannot overlap, and the difference in spatial location causes them not to be absolutely identical†.

10) The speed of light is constant in any spacetime context and in any medium¶. This point determines that the spacetime of GR, the spacetime of SR, and the spacetime of QM must be the same spacetime[5]. And any other particle will change its velocity not only when interacting, but also in a gravitational field.

Please feel free to add to this and welcome different points of view.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The process of photon emission: from a light source in a particular inertial system to a photon in absolute space, where the interface can only be light itself.

† I am not sure how this differs from the all-homogeneity that determines statistical properties, Bose statistics, Fermi statistics.

‡ Any "relativity", relative space-time, relative energy-momentum, arises because of interactions and the need for conservation of energy-momentum during the interactions.

¶ The change in the velocity of light in a medium is only the result of an external observer's observation; it is the result of a change in space-time within the medium. Nowhere does light appear to change its velocity.

** If a photon is in a gravitational field, its energy owns the gravitational field as it matches it. This is compatible with GR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Schmitz, W. (2019). Particles, Fields and Forces, Springer.

[2] Weinberg, S. (2020). Dreams of a Final Theory, Hunan Science and Technology Press.

[3] The only possibility for a photon to manifest mass is from the non-axial action of matter particles on it. That is, any action that exists at an angle to the direction of propagation of light, z, is capable of experiencing the mass of the photon. Note that our criterion for determining mass is the presence or absence of "damping" in its own motion. The structure and motion of the photon have a definite directionality, and other particles do not have to distinguish between the directionality of their structure and the directionality of their motion (or we don't know that yet), and their structure can be considered isotropic. So using E=mc^2 applied to photons is not correct, because when there is no interaction, the photon must not have mass. When there is an interaction, the mass of the photon is simply the mass felt by the other. The photon does not hold. Whereas any other particle will hold a changed mass after the interaction. For example, when an electron is accelerated, his mass changes according to the Lorentz transformation.

[4] Similar point of view, “The assumption is made that black holes should be subject to the same rules of quantum mechanics as ordinary elementary particles or composite systems. ”‘t Hooft, G. (1985). "On the quantum structure of a black hole." Nuclear Physics B 256: 727-745.

[5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373717939_Convergent_and_Disperse_Cyclic_Multiverse_Model;

I am trying to learn modern physics and frequently encounter the phrase "gauge theory". I look up the definition and find that it is a theory in which a Lagrangian is invariant under a certain class of transformations. That sounds to me like we are using Noether's theorem to find constants of motion. I learned enough math to know several ways of finding constants of motion. One way is Noether's theorem. Another way is to find operators that commute with a Hamiltonian. A third way is to derive implications directly from the given governing equations. Which, if any of these methods, are called "gauge theory"? And why?

The above question came up on October 15, 2021, within a disussion https://www.researchgate.net/post/Field_energy_density_is_missing_in_General_Relativity_such_a_big_issue_is_preventing_a_unification_of_the_interactions/9 initiated by Stefano Quattrini on April 9, 2021, who answered:

I answered as follows:

The question might be interesting in view of a recent discussion at Wikipedia under "Mach's Principle", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle, see Talk Section under "Experimental Verification", about the possible significance of an experiment proposed by James C. Keith in 1963 and related experimental results.

Many theoretical physicists mention the cosmic wave function, but the issue is that according to the laws of quantum mechanics, who is the observer of this wave function to collapse it into a universal special state? This type of view is close to the view that exists regarding the interaction of human consciousness with the world and what it sees. Is the mechanism of human consciousness, in its most fundamental form, based on the laws of fundamental particles that can interact with the world around it? Are there more hidden structures than what theoretical physicists see, causing human consciousness to interact with the world around them? Could these hidden structures be the same hidden world as predicted in the holographic theory of the world?

Fermions have four properties: charge, spin moment, mass and gravitational field.

1) Why don't we consider the spin moment as an effect of "magnetic charge", so that we don't need to look for magnetic monopoles [1][2][3].

2) If this is correct, we can divide the four properties into two pairs, charge e, magnetic charge g [4]; mass m and gravitational field G.

3) We will find that e and g are inseparable (except, it seems, for neutrinos) and m and G are definitively inseparable. e satisfies Gauss's theorem for the electric field and g can likewise satisfy Gauss's law for the magnetic field, as long as it appears in bipolar form.

4) So, why four properties instead of one or more? In what way and in what relationship would these four properties be set in one?

[1] Dirac, P. A. M. (1931). "Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 133(821): 60-72.

[2] Acharya, B., J. Alexandre, P. Benes, K. S. Babu and etl. (2021). "First Search for Dyons with the Full MoEDAL Trapping Detector in 13 TeV p p Collisions." Physical Review Letters 126(7): 071801.

[3] Preskill, J. (1984). "Magnetic monopoles." Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 34(1): 461-530.

[4] Dirac, P. A. M. (1948). "The theory of magnetic poles." Physical Review 74(7): 817.

Keywords: Fermion, Charge, Monopole, magnetic charge, Spin moment, Gauss's law, Maxwell equation, MoEDAL, Standard Model.

While checking whether the elementary particle reaction is possible, we multiply parity of each particle on left hand side and right hand side and check whether they are equal or not whereas we add energy on left hand side and right hand side and check whether they are equal or not. What determines whether we have to add or multiply ?

(This also answers the criticism that the natural and the artificial shouldn't be mixed. The discussion takes the view that “natural” and “artificial/technological” are the same thing – and explains HOW they are the same thing) –

Let's begin with a statement I read recently, “Special relativity is the most fundamental, and thoroughly proven, theory in all physics.” I won’t question that but I will suggest that we consider quantum gravity (QG). There’s no theory of quantum gravity at present but modern physics seems to have little doubt that we will have a successful theory one day. Despite the enormous success of general relativity, that theory will require adjustments to fit in with QG. Quantum mechanics will also need modifications to fit in, as Einstein realized when he called it incomplete. In all history, there has never been a single theory that could be called 100% perfect in the sense that it explained every detail forever, and never needed refinements – and there will never be such a theory. Our period of history is no different and that other product of Einstein’s brain (special relativity) has brought great advances but must inevitably endure the same fate of being refined.

May I suggest possible modifications to the above theories – not to attempt to compete with quantum mechanics or the relativity theories but merely to demonstrate that refinements of them are conceivable.

First, quantum mechanics –

Reliance on bodily senses – extended to our technology – tells us things and events are distinct and separate. Acknowledging the correctness of this frame of reference means there are countless particles forming the cosmos. Recognizing the truth of a different point of view means these particles are unified by the action of advanced and retarded waves into one particle* - whether it be classified as a boson or fermion (or both). The interpretation of particles being in two or more places at once can be reinterpreted as being in one position i.e. unipositional, from the Latin ūnus meaning one. This unipositioned particle interferes with itself since it’s composed of self-intersecting Mobius strips which, because mass is united with spacetime, account for spacetime’s curvature. Unipositional quantum mechanics also means every particle is entangled with every other.

* "When we solve (19th-century Scottish physicist James Clerk) Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time. Engineers have simply dismissed the advanced wave as a mathematical curiosity since the retarded waves so accurately predicted the behavior of radio, microwaves, TV, radar, and X-rays. But for physicists, the advanced wave has been a nagging problem for the past century."

("Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku, 2009, Penguin Books, p. 276)

Second, addressing the subjects “non-causal” and “at once” –

All mass is composed of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, according to vector-tensor-scalar (VTS) geometry inspired by the title of Einstein's 1919 paper "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?" Both types of waves possess retarded and advanced components which cancel each other and entangle all masses. Wick rotation (time) is built into the Mobius strips and figure-8 Klein bottles composing (respectively) electromagnetism's photons and gravitation's gravitons. Therefore, all time (the entire past and present and future) is united into one thing just as all space and all mass are united into one thing. If time only passed rectilinearly - from past to present to future - the idea of waves travelling back in time would make no sense at all. But if time is curvilinear - with past, present, and future interconnected - time must be able to move from future to present to past.

Third, proposing faster-than-light travel (a feature of special relativity is light-speed as the universal speed limit).

The Riemann hypothesis, proposed in 1859 by the German mathematician Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, is fascinating. It seems to fit these ideas on various subjects in physics very well. The Riemann hypothesis doesn’t just apply to the distribution of prime numbers but can also apply to the fundamental structure of the mathematical universe’s space-time. Cosmic maths incorporates

1) topology (the two-dimensional Mobius strip and figure-8 Klein bottle which is immersed [not embedded] in three dimensions),

2) BITS aka electronics’ BInary digiTS, or base 2 maths, which encode the topology,

3) the real and imaginary numbers of Wick rotation (time),

4) vector-tensor-scalar geometry, describing interaction between photons and gravitons, and

5) the Mobius Matrix, combining the topological Mobius and mathematics' Matrix to explain higher dimensions.

How does the Riemann Hypothesis support Faster-Than-Light travel? Answer – Using the axiom that there indeed are infinitely many nontrivial zeros on the critical line (calculations have confirmed the hypothesis to be true to over 13 trillion places), the critical line is identified as the y-axis of Wick rotation (stated above to be the time component of space-time). This suggests the y-axis is literally infinite and that infinity equals zero. In this case, it is zero distance in time and space. Travelling zero distance is done instantly and is therefore faster-than-light travel.

I want to know if there are experiments showing that the second term of the Lorentz force formula is measured slightly differently from the conventional qv×B for some fundamental particles.

I've read several articles lately claiming trees are being destroyed by forest fires but, if every part of a tree is made from indestructible fundamental particles, is anything 'destroyed' or is everything 'changed'. At a sub-atomic level: if the tree is destroyed, what is 'destroyed' and how. At an sub-atomic level: if the tree is changed, what is 'changed' and how.

I am seeking clarification as to what happens at a sub-atomic level to the fundamental particles making up physical material that is burned.

I'm interested to know if the so called non-physical 'bare' model especially for massive elementary particles, which treats the particles as mathematical dimensionless points without any volume and attributing to these physical intrinsic properties like mass, spin, charge is the main source of the infinities appearing in the calculations and therefore needing these to be neglected by using renormalization?

What kind of infinities appear if any due this adopted model?

And why is this model still used today in quantum theories? I can see that historically this model has served its purpose since for example we cannot measure any finite physical size for the electron but wondering as if this model is not causing in modern physics more problems than the merits it offers?

What prevents us to adopt today a more physical "dressed" model for elementary particles having for example a finite charge radius at rest? Would that not address the infinities problem appearing in the calculations and eliminate the need to apply re-normalization techniques which are accused by many as not being accurately describing the actual physical process and being a mathematical trick?

The bare model implications addressed by Dirac in his lecture:

(watch from the above time stamp and on)

The density of space (medium) can change the speed of light. E.g., “A low density at the edge of a spherical universe would stretch the space (causing energy to be dense again.!).” But we can try to find an initial constant, which we can use to connect the ratios of the universe with the standard constants. E.g., A universal ratio in dimensional structures (fine-structure constant) and a Planck Constant.

The Fine-structure constant (α) = 1/137 or 0.007297351. The reduced Planck constant (ħ) =h/2π. h/ħ = 6.283185311. So, the 6.283185311 makes α = 0.007297351 × 6.283185311 = 1/22. Is it a particle? or 1:22:1==24?). Is it a unitless fundamental constant that bases on a fundamental structure of particles?

The Standard Model has 9 unique and fundamental particles (Higgs particle, 4 Fermions, 4 Bosons). But “experiments show 19 extra parameters that need to be applied for the theory by hand (E.g., adding masses, charges, etc.) *(19)”. Likely, there are around 19 particles hidden between the 9 elementary particles. E.g., 9+19=28. And that seems like the 28 or 24(+4) material forms mentioned in Buddhism.

What is fundamental? (Strings or Dimensions?) What was the beginning of everything? Isn't zero (0) fundamental?

I did research about zero (0Theory) to find the origin of the universe. According to my calculations, my conclusion is that zero (0) is the start of the theory of everything: (A Mathematical Research About The Origin Of The Universe)

I discovered a calculation that helped me to find a few mathematical interactions like elementary particles, quantum foam, etc. And Using that calculation, I have tried to explain the fundamental nature of the Planck constant, wave functions, Big Bang/symmetry breaking, Black Holes, Dark Matter/many worlds, force moments, quantum gravity, etc.

What is your answer (best theory)? or what is your reaction to the 0(Zero)Theory?

Mass density within the expanding Universe may be assumed to stay essentially constant due to steady formation of elementary particles by spontaneous or induced creation of vortices at an elementary scale, see attached references. No Big Bang nor Dark Matter are required under the above assumptions.

Among the many forms of Mathematics, which forms are particularly useful in the study of baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy?

For example, the nabla and partial derivatives are an important part of

Chuck Keeton, How can mathematics reveal dark matter?

Lattice theory is used in

Craig McNeile , Meson and Baryon Spectroscopy on a Lattice

Homology is used in

Gregory S. Novak, Patrik Jonsson, Joel R. Primack, Thomas J. Cox, and Avishai Dekel, On Galaxies and Homology

Hello, I just wanted to ask why can we not split and electron. I understand that an electron is a fundamental particle, but if it has a nonzero mass why cant you split it in half to get two different masses.

p.s. Im a completely novice in physics struggling to finish my chemistry degree!

As the Quantummechanics overtake 1960 the Baryon Decuplet of Gell-Mann, the possibility to get a total System of the Matter points got lost, only the 17 Fundamental points of the Standard brick box existed with the Lagrangian method. But as all 61 points of a System are fix, no time is necessary and therefore also no Quantum Mechanic. This means open way for a System-construction by revision of the strangeness and defining the second entangled particle by Pauli as 4 times 3points lay on a circle line. In this way all particles could be put with high precision to the right place.

Gell-Mann showed in his in picture that the Baryon ++ gives the charge to the matter particles. That means, that the first point would be -1 and not zero with the Higgs-particle. Therefore the +1/2 Spin

with the Positron would be earlier than the -1/2 Spin with the Electron. Why is the Positron only as "AntiElectron" listed?

It is unlikely that I will get a specific answer to this question, so I propose to start a discussion on the geometry of the standard model.

The standard approach to this question is that, in addition to space-time, the space of internal symmetries of the Lagrangian is postulated, which determines the equation of motion of an elementary particle. In other words, in the standard approach, the invariance of the group action on the equation of motion is used as an additional internal space.

It would be interesting to know what kind of geometry is hidden behind the standard model of elementary particles. In this regard, let me share my thoughts on the geometric foundation of the Standard Model in this discussion.

The author's interpretation is as follows. Matter moves along the surface of a seven-dimensional sphere. At the same time, the vacuum form of matter is a Clifford torus S³xS³ with three-dimensional spheres moving in the process of evolution in circles so that the radius of one sphere increases and the radius of the corresponding circle decreases, and vice versa, the radius of the second sphere decreases, and the radius of the corresponding circle increases. As a result, the shape of the vacuum is the product of the Clifford torus and the time torus S¹xS¹. In this case, the Minkowski space-time (with the signature +1,-3) is wound on the product of a three-dimensional sphere of a large radius and a circle of a time torus of a small radius, and the additional (dual) Minkowski space (with the signature +3,-1) is wound on the product of a three-dimensional sphere of a small radius and a circle of a time torus of a large radius. Thus, a doublet of Minkowski spaces, which is an 8-dimensional space with a neutral metric is wound on the product of the Clifford torus and the time torus.

Within the framework of this model, elementary particles are associated with the minimum length closed lines of the product of the Clifford torus and the time torus, and the mass of elementary particles is associated with the pseudo-Euclidean length of the corresponding curve in 8-dimensional space with a neutral metric. Thus, massless particles lie on a compactified isotropic cone. And the most interesting thing in this geometric model is that the group U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) naturally arises as the symmetry group of the compactified isotropic cone of the doublet of Minkowski spaces.

With a mean life time of E-25s for the W an Z bosons and E-22s (predicted) for the Higgs boson nobody has directly observed these particles why these particles are not categorized as virtual particles?

Also with such a short lifetime there is no way to find out if their mass is inertial and even measure their linear speed.

For example the Z boson is the only neutral elementary particle (except the Higgs) boson of spin 1 without charge resembling strongly the photon and and the gluon which have also spin 1 and charge 0, but strangely opposite to the photon and gluon, has mass? Why?

What is this mass for the Z boson literature is referring to? Is is a E=mc^2 equivalent mass assigned to it to characterize its energy or is real inertial mass?

Do experiments exist which actually measured the linear speed of the Z boson? I can not find any in the literature. If it is found to travel with the speed of light that would mean that it has no inertial mass but only energy momentum like the photon.

It is hard for me to believe that an elementary particle with spin 1 and zero charge could ever have real mass (inertial).

I believe that we have to stop to attribute spin and charge to virtual particles like these which are not stable in nature.

According to the Standard Model, protons are stable because baryon number is conserved (chiral anomaly for exception). Therefore, protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are the lightest baryon. It has long been considered to be a stable particle, but recent developments of grand unification models have suggested that it might decay with a half-life of about 10^30 - 10^35 years. Currently the most precise results come from the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan: a 2015 analysis placed a lower bound on the proton's half-life of 1.67×10^34 years.

Is it empirically proven that there is an actual and not only apparent increase in mass at relative velocity? If that were the case and the moving object was as big as a spacecraft, which of its particles would increase its mass? If the elementary particles that make up the body increase their mass, why does this happen? Especially they are contained in larger groups, in other words they are at rest or their movement and speed does not change with respect to the body that contains them. Quarks, for example, do not change their movement relative to the hadron that contains them. Relative velocity will relate to the body as a whole, not its constituent particles.

And how the mass increases despite the absence of a universal frame of reference, that is, the observer in the moving object can suppose itself as at rest and the other is moving.

The same question and discussion above can be mentioned on the change in length.

I know are not the same the terms: "Fermi Energy" and "Fermi Level"

How can we understand the difference between one concept and the other ?

Or. Does is just the level of the scale the main difference ? i.e. Fermi Energy could apply for elementary particles and quasiparticles, i.e. the Fermi Energy of an Electron, hole, etc.

and when we refer to the concept of Fermi Level, this has to be associated with a system of many particles , as a solid or a crystall ?

Thank you for answers

I appreciate it

:)

This time we may have an answer.

Real time observation of a stationary magneton publication:

Probing the, Quantum Magnet, field (QFM) of ferromagnets with the quantum magnetic optic Ferrolens with minimum Quantum Decoherence (QDE) and macroscopically projecting the field and flux geometry of a stationary magneton. Decoherence mechanism explained responsible for transforming the Quantum Magnet to its Classical macroscopic magnetic dipole field imprint. Magneton observed as a confined dipole energy vortex. With other words, the Ferrolens preserves and shows the Quantum Magnet field image of a macroscopic magnet which resembles the intrinsic magnetic dipole field of the electron thus a stationary magneton. Our experimental research shows the electron geometry to be a dipole vortex energy flow of virtual photons.

It is a well - known facet of quantum field theory that everything can be described in quantum mechanical terms . The complex interactions between a physical system and its surroundings ( environment ) , disrupt the quantum mechanical nature of a system and render it classical under ordinary observation . This process is known as decoherence.

Enrich Joos from Erich Joos and H. D. Zeh version of quantum decoherence (QDE) theory, states that "decoherence can not explain the measurement problem".

The premise of the research here presented is by probing the Quantum Magnet field of a macroscopic ferromanget where electrons have minimum linear relativistic motion and by circumventing the problem of decoherence (QDE), by using an observation quantum device with minimum QDE but which can display non-decohered quantum information at the macroscale, thus the ferrolens, we can obtain and observe a non-relativistic model for the stationary magneton.

With other words, the Ferrolens preserves and shows the Quantum Magnet Field (i.e. outline shaped as an 8 figure) holographic imprint (i.e. static snapshot image) of a macroscopic magnet which resembles the intrinsic magnetic dipole field of the electron thus a stationary magneton.

This technology and scientific experimental breakthrough has tremendous potential for the fundamental research of elementary particles and Quantum Theory in general and an impact in all physical sciences with unforeseen yet results in deciphering the 4 elementary phenomena and their correlation in our Universe, thus Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Gravity. It may be as well that for the first time the Heisenberg Uncertainty has been experimentally circumvented!

Magnetic 10nm nanoparticles forming compass rods inside the Ferrolens thin film and aligning to the external applied magnetic field of a permanent magnet. These nanorods are scattering light making the Quantum Magnet Field flux lines visible to the naked eye.

More supplementary material can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/y3je49tb

Although literature regards the electron as point having a quantum mechanical term intrinsic angular momentum associated with spin it is regarded in theory that the electrons do not physically spin. The reasons for this consensus decision and debate counterarguments are best described in this link here, https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/58020/do-electrons-really-spin .

However, by using the new quantum magnetic optic Ferrolens device and method we describe in our research and from light Doppler shift observations and from the dipole vortex geometry of the Quantum Magnet Field (QMF) shown by the ferrolens we can say with a high degree of certainty that the electrons DO physically spin around their magnetic moment axis.

(Note: The flow shown on the magnetic flux lines in the above animation represents the energy flow of virtual photons inside the electron's stationary dipole magnet field (magneton).

(Note: South magnetic pole is up as shown in the above animation)

Source of animation at http://www.horntorus.de/gifs.html , credits: Wolfgang W. Daeumler ).

The observations, results of our research and above illustrations match the reported by literature quantum spin helicity-chirality for the electron and also its magnetic spin 1/2.

http://www.8128.info/magnetic-moments/

Emmanouil Markoulakis

MPhil, MSc, BEng (hons), BSc (hons)

Research Fellow

First and corresponding author

Hellenic Mediterranean University

Former Technological Educational Institute of Crete

(CAUTION: Except of the included already published article above the rest of the text and material presented herein has no permission to be used in any way nor distributed and is active future publication material and conclusions belonging solely to the authors herein)

It is known that when the speed of an elementary particle approaches the speed of light, its acceleration by an electric or magnetic field decreases. According to STR, this is due to the nonlinear increase in momentum (mass). Have direct measurements of the momentum been carried out through the pressure exerted by the beam of relativistic particles on the target at different speeds?

The decrease in acceleration may be due not to "relativistic corrections", but to an increase in the friction force against the "physical vacuum".

My initial discussion question was about micromanagement of the current state of sciences. Fortunately, I quickly realized that this topic is too deep and I opted for a more lighter subject “Are black holes sources of the dark matter?”. The main stream science seems to be divided on this issue, and rightfully so, we simply do not understand it enough.

However, if you ask my opinion a purpose of black holes is to pulverize matter, and by doing so reseed the universe. Hence, what pulverizes beyond our ability to detect baryonic, or non-baryonic matter, is a dark matter. So, is it plausible to think of the black holes as being “cosmic mills” that are grinding and pulverizing matter to keep our universe alive, i.e., pumping all the pulverized matter back to where it came from. Your thoughts?

Elementary particles have their own mass and charge. Mass is known to be acquired by the Higgs field. How charge is acquired by a particle?. Is both the phenomena are dependent?.

An alternative to the ΛCDM model in modern cosmology is the model of the rotating spase of the Universe :

"ROTATING SPASE OF THE UNIVERSE, AS A SOURCE OF DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER."

Evidence presented in preprint:

"Analytical evaluation of the numerical values of the Hubble constant and main spatial-energy characteristics of the observable Universe."

Main evidences:

1. The vacuum pressure in all points of the Universe is constant. To expand the space required the pressure drop.

2. The source of dark mass is the kinetic energy of rotation of the space of the observable Universe. Elementary particles of dark mass does not exist. Therefore, numerous experiments for several decades in their search did not give a result. Prediction: these particles will not be detected in future experiments at the Large Hadron Collider.

3. The preprint gives an analytical estimate of the Hubble constant based on the characteristics of elementary particles. Consequently, this constant is an immanent property of the observable Universe. It cannot be a characteristic of dark energy.

4. Modules: the forces of Planck, the forces of gravitational compression of the observable Universe and the imaginary forces of dark energy are equal to each other. But there is a red space from distant objects of the observable Universe. This is possible only if its space rotates.

5. The Hubble Sphere, as the observable Universe, is located inside the Schwarzschild Sphere. Hence the observable universe is a black hole.

6. The observable Universe, like an electromagnetic fractal of the Universe, is a slowly rotating black hole in a gravitational fractal of the Universe: "FRACTAL STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE." https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01330337v1

Since the Big Bang, one incomplete rotation of 345 degrees has been made.

I personally think that this is the reason why Quantum Mechanics has not yet been reconciled with electromagnetism.

I observed that the confusion seems so deep in the community on this issue that many references erroneously equate Electrodynamics with Maxwell's theory and even equate electrodynamics with electromagnetism, as if only one interpretation had been conceived of.

To summarize the issue, Ludvig Lorenz interpreted both E and B fields of free moving electromagnetic energy as peaking to maximum synchronously at the same time, which is an interpretation that Maxwell disagreed with; while Maxwell's was that both fields have to mutually induce each other while being 180 degrees out of phase for the electromagnetic energy to even exist and propagate, in permanent oscillation on a plane transverse with respect to the direction of motion of the energy in vacuum.

In agreement with Wilhelm Wien's analysis that kinematic mechanics and electromagnetic mechanics should be grounded on an electromagnetic foundation, the Electromagnetic Mechanics of elementary particles project was carried out:

Consistent with Lorenz's concept:

A- Consistent with the invariant speed of light in vacuum.

B- Consistent with EM transverse wave propagation in a supporting medium in vacuum.

Inconsistent with Lorenz's concept:

C- Inconsistent with self-sustaining, default self-guiding and self-propelling at c of localized transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy quanta without any need for a supporting medium.

D- Inconsistent with observed LRC circuits demonstrating that both E and B fields cyclically mutually induce each other while being 180 degrees out of phase timewise.

E- Unable to explain electronic orbitals stability in atoms.

F- Inconsistent with momentum kinetic energy existing as a physical substance and consequently cannot explain the electron magnetic moment anomaly.

G- Inconsistent with the physical existence of magnetic energy and its relation with classical mass.

H- Cannot be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics.

I- Cannot be reconciled with Classical/Relativistic Mechanics.

Consistent with Maxwell's concept:

1- Consistent with the invariant speed of light in vacuum.

2- Consistent with EM transverse wave propagation in a supporting medium in vacuum.

3- Consistent with self-sustaining, default self-guiding and self-propelling at c of localized transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy quanta without any need for a supporting medium: https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

4- Consistent with observed LRC circuits demonstrating that both E and B fields cyclically mutually induce each other while being 180 degrees out of phase timewise.

5- Can explain electronic orbitals stability in atoms https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067.

6- Consistent with the physical existence of momentum kinetic energy and consequently allows explaining the electron magnetic moment anomaly https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2259 and unifying all classical force equations http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2256.

7- Consistent with the physical existence of magnetic energy and its relation to classical mass http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2257.

8- Can be reconciled with Classical/Relativistic mechanics: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197, and with Quantum Mechanics: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

Inconsistent with Maxwell's concept:

9- Nothing.

Maxwell stated that the existence of a sustaining medium that came to be named aether was necessary for his interpretation, because until recently, only one wave concept had been conceived of as being able to sustain a transverse oscillation, which is the same concept still being used to describe and explain shear waves in solid media for example (see "s-waves" in relation with deep Earth sounding).

This means that until today, electromagnetic energy was understood as being a "pulse" in some underlying medium and not as a "physically existing substance" that could self-propel as separate quanta.

Also, Maxwell was studying the behavior of light at the observable macroscopic level and his solution was adequate at the general level for dealing with electromagnetic energy, as witnessed by the so numerous successful applications that electromagnetic energy provides us with. He did not consider the possibility that light might be quantized and actually could be made of separate quanta at the submicroscopic level, which became suspected only 30 years later with Wien's experiments and Planck hypothesis, that was then confirmed by Einstein's photoelectric proof and Compton and Raman scattering.

The de Broglie hypothesis in the 1930's then allowed to conceive of the possibility that a localized photon could be made of a self-sustaining transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy half-quantum, coupled with a longitudinally oriented momentum energy half-quantum, that could then self-propel without any need for a sustaining medium. Maxwell had no way to even imagine such a possibility before de Broglie came up 70 years later with a possible inner structure of a localized photon compliant with his interpretation.

Even in the 1930's, nobody lit up to this possibility, because the community had already adopted the Lorenz interpretation, from which perspective, this cannot logically be conceived of.

For convenience, here is a link to the list of papers formally published between 2007 and 2018 meant to analyze the various conclusions that logically emerge from Maxwell's interpretation at the subatomic level:

The Hubble constant is an immanent property of the observable Universe, its analytical estimate is obtained solely on the basis of the characteristics of elementary particles. It can not characterize the dark energy.

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35477.37604

If we imagine a person (or his soul) as an elementary particle, then during the energy transition to a more favorable level, energy is released. (if you like this idea we can formulate it together as an article)

Dear All,

The omnipresent aether medium is coming back in science today with new proof of concept experiments and and as an alternative theory to the Copenhagen interpretation fallacy. The theory now contradicting the establishment and gaining ground over time is an old theory namely the the pilot wave theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ (pilot wave theory)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZPVp0NGEYY (Nassim Haramein explaining)

http://dualwalkers.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory. (biased view)

Elementary particles and quanta of energy are all manifestations of these same omnipresent medium (aerher), in the form of vibrations, condensations, waves, and in general distortions of this aether universal dark (i.e. we can not detect it yet but only can see the effects of interaction with it like EM SNF WNF and Gravity).

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

SR and GR are valid to Pedro. Also, the principle of inertial motion, which is due as far back as Galileo, is NOT that there are no special or preferential frames, such as the CMB or other, but that there are no frames in inertial motion where the laws of physics are different to inertial observers.

Apparently, there are several Pedros nowadays in the world of physics and maths, including the well-known Pedro by Bernard d'Espagnat in quantum mechanics, all differing from one another on important or even minor views.

All, here, affirming the view that we live in a 3D world, and time is an independent variable. The consequence is the subject of this discussion, and how it can influence life.

Pedro called himself a die-hard pragmatist. The world he rightly saw was 3D and a passing reference, which he called time. Someone could call Pedro a "realist", even himself described him that way, many times, but others could equally well call him a "platonist".

The muon is an elementary particle similar to the electron, but with a much greater mass, that has a very short lifetime, far too short to reach the sea level. It exemplifies the discussion, as an example.

First, it is indisputable in life that muons, are produced too high to reach us, measured by their own lifetime, but we do see them at sea level.

IF the muon lives longer for maths reasons, as Pedro is at rest and we all live in 3D as Pedro insists, that is not physical. one can't use the word "remember" in that context when one sees a muon at sea level. They just seem to live longer if Pedro is at rest, it is an illusion. Nature is what Pedro sees as objective.

But, IF It makes sense to remember that muons do live longer to Pedro, albeit not to the muon, if Pedro is at rest, and for everyone? It is not just that some calculation says so, anyone can remember. Nature can also be intersubjective. What Pedro sees is then revealed as just subjective.

Then, 4D spacetime is just not an arbitrary math method, then we all live in 4D spacetime, times passes differently for Pedro at rest, than for the muon. That fact is in the future as anyone can remember, not just as one can calculate. Muons will arrive at sea level.

Pedro takes the first view, that 4D spacetime is not physical, just maths, not life. The muon, however, in life, arrives at sea level. We have memories of it, and other events that depend on 4D, such as movement at any speed v > 0.

1. The CMB does not introduce new physics. The SR and GR do NOT work on the basis that there is no preferential or special inertial frame of reference.

In physics, many problems arise in the form of boundary value problems in second order ordinary differential equations. We are discussing here the Matrix Variational Method, as an efficient approach to bound state eigenproblems [1--8], proposed by the author starting in 1977 and used in top peer-reviewed literature in physics, in general [1,6,7] and in the calculation of scaling laws of Rydberg atoms [2], bound states of QM systems [3], bound states of three quarks [4,8], and other areas, such as [5].

We will also use this RG space in a new way, to conduct an open course, as a discussion. This course is physically offered at the same time, in Pasadena, CA.

The objective here is to present the topic as a method in mathematics, for second-year students in college, generally when they see differential equations, not just the epsilons and deltas of calculus, but the more advanced tools and intuition used in physics and maths.

This discussion will aim, as much as possible, to be free of the original connection to physics, in order to be more easily used in other disciplines. It represents the “translation” of a method in physics to mathematics, for general use, while benefiting from the physical intuition that started it.

We will use the theorem that says, “Any second order linear operator can be put into the form of the Sturm-Liouville operator,” and treat the Sturm-Liouville operator in closed-form. This will be done not by using eigenfunctions of any expansion, but an expansion that already obeys the boundary conditions for each case and provides a closed-form expression, which we will calculate following [1-8].

Contributions, and other examples, are welcome.

REFERENCES

[1] Ed Gerck, A. B. d'Oliveira, Matrix-Variational Method: An Efficient Approach to Bound State Eigenproblems, Report number: EAV-12/78, Laboratorio de Estudos Avancados, IAE, CTA, S. J. Campos, SP, Brazil. Copy online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286625459_Matrix-Variational_Method_An_Efficient_Approach_to_Bound_State_Eigenproblems

[2] Jason A C Gallas, Ed Gerck, Robert F O'Connell, Scaling Laws for Rydberg Atoms in Magnetic Fields, Physical Review Letters 50(5):324-327, Jan 1983. Copy online at

[3] Ed Gerck, Jason A C Gallas, Augusto. B. d'Oliveira, Solution of the Schrödinger equation for bound states in closed form, Physical Review A 26:1(1), June 1982. Copy online at

[4] A. B. d'Oliveira, H. F. de Carvalho, Ed Gerck, Heavy baryons as bound states of three quarks, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 38(1):27-32, Sep 1983. Copy online at

[5] Ed Gerck, A. B. d'Oliveira, The non-relativistic three-body problem with potential of the form K1r^n + K2/r + C, Report number: EAV-11/78, Laboratorio de Estudos Avancados, IAE, CTA, S. J. Campos, SP, Brazil, Nov1978. Copy online at

[6] Ed Gerck, Augusto Brandão d'Oliveira, Continued fraction calculation of the eigenvalues of tridiagonal matrices arising from the Schroedinger equation, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 6(1):81-82, Mar 1980. Copy online at

[7] Ed Gerck, A. B. d'Oliveira, Jason A C Gallas, New Approach to Calculate Bound State Eigenvalues, Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 13(1):183-300, Jan 83. Copy online at

[8] Ed Gerck, A. B. d'Oliveira, The logarithmic and the square-root potential as confining potentials for quarks, Report number: EAV Report 02/79, Laboratorio de Estudos Avancados, IAE, CTA, S. J. Campos, SP, Brazil. Copy online at

Dear All,

The omnipresent aether medium is coming back in science today with new proof of concept experiments and as an alternative theory to the Copenhagen interpretation fallacy: The theory now contradicting the establishment and gaining ground over time is an old theory namely the the pilot wave theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ (pilot wave theory)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZPVp0NGEYY (Nassim Haramein explaining)

http://dualwalkers.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory. (biased view)

Elementary particles and quanta of energy are all manifestations of this same omnipresent medium (aerher), in the form of vibrations, condensations, waves, vortices and in general distortions of this aether universal dark (i.e. we can not detect it yet but only can see the effects of interaction with it like EM SNF WNF and Gravity).

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Many years ago, atoms were considered as unbreakable. But now it is possible to split it. Similarly, can we split so called fundamental particles like election also?

Since leptons and quarks are successfully associated with a group of 3-ribbon braids (Helon model of Bilson-Thompson), one could try to relate this group to the fundamental group of a node that lies on a 3-dimensional torus, and on a 2-dimensional torus it is a trefoil knot. It is remarkable that a 3-torus spanned by a 3-sphere with punctured poles has the symmetry SU(3). Consequently, the nodes can be interpreted as closed vector fields lying on the 3-sphere.

If the standard model has been calculated so exactly, then it is surely possible to get that also in a real system model not only in a box of bricks -even with the QCD problem!

Can Lead (Pb) sheet filter gamma and is it transparent to Fast and Epithermal Neutrons?

How thick should the filter be?

Does it produce secondary radiation during the filtration?

The electron, which is considered completely stable, contains a unit electrical charge, not 1/3, and is a fermion, not a boson. Isn't that strange?

The proton, on the other hand, contains 3 quarks, two with charge 2/3 and one with -1/3.

Can't this be a hint that the electron, albeit so stable, might contain a structure of (anti)quarks? Of course, if there is such a structure, the (anti)quarks in the electron are held together not by gluons, but by particles of a field by far stronger.

This is why I ask whether the standard model is closed.

On the other hand, I am aware of a prediction saying that there may exist a gap between zero rest-mass (photons, gluons, etc.) and the mass of the lightest particle. I am also aware that there is an international prize on some proof to be done,

But I don't know details - it's not my domain of competence. So, does the gap exist, or it is yet to be proved?

The meaning of the mass-gap, in my modest understanding, is very non-trivial. It is that we cannot split the basic particles infinitely. We split the atoms and found nuclei and electrons. We split the nuclei and found protons and, neutrons. We split the protons and neutrons and found quarks. The mass-gap would tell us  STOP!!!! Further, you won't be able to split, NO matter how much energy you would invest!!!!

So, what is know to us so far?

The reason for formulating the Question:

The question raised by I.C. Teixeira is relevant, and puts in evidence how limited is our knowledge and understanding of the Universe we live in.

From an engineering point of view, we observe reality (the physical world in which we live), we try to understand it, mainly using a cause-effect perspective, we propose a scientific theory, and we try to prove our allegations using abstract models to describe what we observed.

For instance, we observe an attractive force between physical bodies. Sir Isaac Newton brilliantly discovered the Gravitational field, and elegantly proposed a first-order model to measure the gravitational force between two bodies, of mass m1 and m2 at a distance d. The well-known formula F=G m1.m2/square(d) describes the value of such force.

As I understand it, the existence of matter as we know it is the cause behind the effect – the gravitational field. The mass is the model parameter that describes the quantity of matter of a body, made of chemical elements and compounds, well ‘classified’ in the Mendeleev Table of Elements. So, really the existence of the physical matter we find in Nature has an effect – these bodies influence themselves, through an attractive force – Gravitation.

However, we observe that not only attractive forces exist between bodies. In fact, there are repulsive forces too. This is very fortunate, because otherwise if only attractive forces exist, the Universe would finally collapse, or implode. Hence, our observation leads us to another reality of matter. The repulsive forces are the effect of another field of influence among bodies – what we came to call the Electromagnetic Field (EM).

What is the cause behind the EM field? Well, James Clerk Maxwell was a genius who observed these effects, and identified two types of electric charges, which can either exhibit an attractive or repulsive force, depending on the fact that they are of opposite or equal polarity, respectively. Maxwell equations brilliantly describe the EM field and the resulting forces. Again, we are very fortunate to live in such Universe, because information flow and life ultimately depends on it.

So, the reason for my question.

What is the characteristic of matter that we refer as “electric charge”?

What are the physical phenomena that originate such EM fields?

While mass is the model parameter that describes the quantity of matter of a body, what is the physical reality in matter behind what we refer as an electric charge?

Why elementary particles (protons) exhibit an opposite polarity of other elementary particle (electrons)?

I’ve been searching but I could not find any works on the 3D topology of a gyroscope. It seems the spin has a deep origin in the topological and geometrical structures of an elementary particle. Gyroscopic stability is an interesting feature and, in fact, if elementary particles have the topological structure of a gyroscope than it is possible to explain why their spin angular momentum can take half-integral values by applying the Schrodinger wave equation in two dimensional multiply-connected space. Please refer to my articles entitled ON THE SPIN ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, ON THE QUANTISATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM and in particular SPACETIME STRUCTURES OF QUANTUM PARTICLES for more details.

Dear people,

if a "measurement" is ment to be an interaction of an elementary particle, why can we still see wave-interference patterns in the double-slit-experiment which are conducted in rooms on earth? Why is interaction with "Gravity" itself not a "measurement" which leads to a collapse of the wave function?

Thank you. 

Until now only Gell-Mann published  a significant  Picture of the particle physic:

the meson Sextett with the Strangeness +1,0 and -1 by crossing the 0 Point of the Spin-axis  with the incident Charge.

This 0 centre Point could now be the Higgs particle and the W+ and W- ray could be put together to the Charge-Axis. So we can get a Stereo Picture and a total System of the Standard Model "brick box".

Where could this System of the Standard model be published?

Gravitons are hypothetical elementary particles that mediate the force of gravity within the framework of quantum field theory. Their existence is necessary for forging a meld between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general theory of relativity, a quest that has been going on for fifty years. This quest has produced reams of equations and elegant experiments with no definitive answer (it’s worth noting that the search for individual gravitons is different from the search for gravitational waves, a purely classical endeavor). LIGO and LISA are only two of the more ambitious projects designed toward this goal. Until now none of these experimental setups have been able to detect gravitational waves, but with individual gravitons it might be a completely different ball game.

Over the last few years Freeman Dyson, Tony Rothman and Stephen Bough among others have written papers demonstrating that it might be impossible to detect single gravitons if anything resembling realistic physics is taken into account. They have analyzed existing approaches and concluded that the scale of the experimental apparatus in these approaches might have to approach absurdly unrealistic limits if they are to successfully detect gravitons. Gravity thus might remain a statistical bulk property like temperature or pressure, irreducible to the properties of individual particles. If this is indeed true there might forever be an ‘iron curtain’ of ignorance erected between the quantum and classical worlds. It’s a possibility that is maddening, and one that should certainly keep any physicist with even a modest ambition of unifying the known forces of nature awake.

I'm not considerable familiar with physical experimental work. I have raised this issue to understand the problems of this experience. I appreciate the professionals help and comments.

Maybe a very high mass star can itself compress to very high matter density.

But what observations lead to the assumption, a smaller object could collapse at Schwarzschild dimension?

I remind the nuclear matter has the highest known density.