# LARMOR-PRECESSION CALCULATION SHOWS CONNECTION BETWEEN THEORETICAL WORK OF STERNGLASS AND SIMHONY

Essay by: Mark Creek-water Dorazio

Reads: 1249 | Likes: 1 | Shelves: 0 | Comments: 0

LARMOR-PRECESSION CALCULATION SHOWS CONNECTION BETWEEN THEORETICAL WORK OF STERNGLASS AND SIMHONY

Mark Creek-water Dorazio, 5 March 2018; mark.creekwater@gmail.com

SUMMARY [i.e., "Abstarct"]

Dr. Menahem Simhony (1921-2015) created a believable model of an ether-like substance in our universe, which is quite different from the theoretical "ether" or "aether" of 19th-century scientists like Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz. Based on theoretical work by Dr. Ernest Sternglass (1923-2015), one can modify Simhony's model to say that the elements which compose the "epola" [electron-positron lattice] in the model are not individual electrons and positrons, as Simhony says, but electron-positron pairs [ep-pairs], often calleddipoles. This is because Sternglass's model features positronium-like relativistic electron-positron pairs which might in fact be identical to the elements which compose the electron-positron lattice in Simhony's model. One can call these dipolar relativistic ep-pairs "Sternglass.cosmo.systs," as explained below.

Just as Simhony's epola is quite different from Maxwell's ether, Sternglass's relativistic ep-pairs [dipoles] are quite different from positronium. The main difference between positronium and one of these relativistic ep-pairs is that the e and p in positronium move much more slowly than the relativistic ones, which move at almost the speed of light. The other main difference is that the e and p in a relativistic pair are much nearer to each other than the e and p in positronium. Sternglass calls these ep-pairs "cosmological systems" [cosmo.systs], regardless of their size, which (if one measures them by the size of their electromagnetic field) can be as large as a star or galaxy !!

In this essay, it is found, using easy maths, that the frequency of the Larmor precession of the spinning electron and positron in the smallest possible relativistic ep-pair of this kind is comparable to the characteristic rotational, i.e., orbital, frequency of the pair, which is not the case for any of the larger cosmo.systs; so that this particular (pun intended) ep-pair in Sternglass's model might in fact represent the elements which compose the ep-lattice in Simhony's model.

Key words: aether, amplitude, cosmological system, dipole, electrons, epola, ether, Larmor precession, positronium, positrons, Simhony, Sternglass

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PREFACE AND APOLOGY

Please note that there might be some incorrect uses of some simple math-formulas in Part 3 of this essay. As an amateur physics enthusiast, the writer is not aware of any technical expertise upon which he can draw to gain a better understanding of how to correctly use these formulas. The writer is therefore actively seeking advice here, and welcomes the kind of criticism which might help him to improve the essay, which is, as is usual in theoretical physics, a "work in progress."

However, criticism which is based on an unquestioning acceptance of questionable and/or debatable popular interpretations of details of the so-called standard model, and/or a fear of new and/or creative ideas, is definitely not welcome. Especially the claim that something is "impossible." There is a famous witticism, spoken many years ago, and appearing in many textbooks, that, in particle physics, "Everything not forbidden is compulsory." This surprising idea was "coined by physicist Murray Gell-Mann as a basic law of quantum mechanics. Any interaction between sub-atomic particles not expressly prohibited by some natural law must be assumed to be probable (the soft version) or must be inevitable (the hard version)." https://clevesblog.callisoncreative.com/2010/03/15/everything-not-forbidden-is-compulsory/

To expand on this interesting idea, one can ask: how can one "forbid" something, if such forbidding is based on one's interpretation of some aspect of a flawed and incomplete "standard model" ?? In Appendix B of this essay are quotes from some Ph.D-holders to show that the standard model is, to say it politely, not quite right.

As a non-expert, the writer cannot try to "prove" that, for example, it's possible for an electron and positron to rotate (i.e., to orbit) around each other, each moving at almost the speed of light. In the past, some Ph.D-holders and others who seem to consider themselves experts, (whether they are or not), have told the writer that such a system is impossible according to the laws of physics. In fact, Sternglass showed, (to the writer's satisfaction), that the existence of such a tiny and rapidly-rotating relativistic electron-positron pair system is very believable, in a paper published in the Physical Review Journal on 1 July 1961, when the writer was 13 years old ... {musical interlude: "It was a veeeerrr-ry good year, la la la laaa la laa, . . . " }[Ref.#1b].

Using easy maths, the writer shows in this essay how one can reckon that the Larmor precession frequency of a spinning electron or positron in a relativistic ep-pair is approximately equal to the frequency of the orbital rotation of the pair if the pair's mass is that of an ordinary electron, as detailed below. In all the larger systems of this kind, the frequency of the Larmor precession is much less than the system's orbital frequency, given that it varies with the inverse of the FOURTH POWER of the system’s radius. This bold assertion regarding a possibly significant agreement between a phenomenon based on magnetic forces (Larmor precession) and one based on electrical forces (orbital rotation) helps explain why the mass of the electron is what it is. Plus, it shows that the work of Sternglass and Simhony might have some merit, despite their being almost unknown to the present physics community.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part 1: STERNGLASS’S AND SIMHONY’S MODELS

In Sternglass's model, there are "cosmological systems" [cosmo.systs] ----- which appear in "Table 1" on page 234 of his 1997 book [Ref.#1a: there’s also a 2001 edition], which he describes in detail in the book, which is titledBefore the Big Bang. He says that these cosmo.systs are a special kind of stuff, which contain no protons or neutrons, because they are the "seeds" [his word] of protons and neutrons, and existed before any protons or neutrons existed, i.e., before the big bang.

They are similar to the theoretical "geons" which John Archibald Wheeler wrote and talked about many years ago [Ref.#2]. Both "Wheeler.geons" and "Sternglass.cosmo.systs" were theorized to consist of pure energy, which one can reckon is also ultimately true for everything in our universe: i.e., one can reckon that the only reason why we perceive protons and neutrons as "particles" is because they are so tiny: one reckons that, if one could shrink down to the size of a proton, then it would seem like pure energy -----(!! like fire !!)----- rather than like a "particle".

Sternglass says that the cosmo.systs in his model can be of almost any size or mass, from that of a galaxy cluster, to that of a pi-meson, and perhaps smaller[Ref.#1a]. He says that, for every cosmo.syst, regardless of its size or mass, the mass is proportional to the square of the radius. This is the info which "Table 1" (mentioned above) details: "Masses, sizes, and rotational periods of cosmological systems predicted by the electron-pair model of matter." Note that when he says "electron-pair" he means electron-positron pair, i.e., a dipole.

Following a model which Georges Lemaitre proposed when Sternglass was only about 5 or 6 years old [Ref.#3], Sternglass says that each cosmo.syst [cosmological system, p.234, Ref.#1a] consists of a relativistic electron-positron pair, and that all of them come from a theoretical "primeval atom" ----- which Lemaitre sometimes referred to as a "cosmic egg." According to this Sternglass-Lemaitre model, the initial primeval atom (i.e., the original cosmo.syst) contained all the mass/energy in our universe, and divided in half, producing two smaller cosmo.systs, each with half the mass/energy, and each with a radius smaller by a factor of the square root of two. Those two monsters then divided in half, producing four super-massive objects, each with one fourth the mass of the primeval atom and a radius half the size of the radius of the primeval atom.

This divide-in-half scenario (which one can call "the count-down to the big bang") continued, producing more and more smaller and smaller cosmo.systs. After only 270 generations of this divide-in-half process, the cosmo.systs were the size of sub-atomic particles. At this point, or shortly thereafter, they experienced a phase transition, which resulted in their re-configuring to form trillions of trillions of neutrons, most of which quickly "decayed" --- producing protons.

Sternglass compares this phase transition to what happens when water molecules re-configure to form ice: when ice forms, there is a release of energy (binding energy), the same amount of energy needed to melt the ice. Likewise, the phase transition in Sternglass's model released a very large amount of binding energy, enough to power a big bang. Thus the model describes the source of the immense energy which powered the Big Bang, as well as the birth processes of all the protons and neutrons which exist.

Sternglass admits that he cannot say how the primeval atom initially came to be. However, if one accepts the possibility that our universe has always existed, with no beginning, then one can imagine a "big crunch" (the opposite of a big bang), in which all the ordinary matter in our universe might have collapsed down to a tiny volume, which, instead of instantly exploding, like a supernova, created the primeval atom, by transforming into pure electrical energy, according to E=mc2. Please note that a "big crunch" (or a "big bounce") is not a "crack-pot" idea, but that many researchers are presently considering it, as a quick google-search easily shows. In Ref. #18 is a good discussion of this idea.

Sternglass says that the primeval atom had an immense rotating electromagnetic field, which rotated as a "rigid body" so that its outer edge moved at the speed of light, but he never describes the primeval atom's shape; one can reckon that, because it had (or was) a very large rotating electromagnetic field, it might have been shaped like a very large donut (actually more like a fat bagel), technically called a torus.

In fact, using equations found in electronics textbooks, one can model the primeval atom as a gigantic electrical capacitor, which initially stored all the energy in our universe (excluding that of the "epola" in Simhony's model [Ref.#4] as an immense electromagnetic field, whose gradual collapse [which one can also refer to as a gradual “decay”] created all the ordinary stuff in our universe. A capacitor the size of our universe would probably need a long time to discharge. For details, see Appendix2 of a series of essays by this writer [Ref.#5b].

Part 2: DETAILS REGARDING THE MODELS OF SIMHONY AND STERNGLASS

Simhony says that the electron-positron lattice [epola] in his model permeates all the space in our universe and inter-penetrates all the atoms which compose the ordinary matter in our universe. In fact, he says that epola-stuff does notoccupyspace, because the epolaisapace; in this writer’s opinion, this is a valid (and interesting !!) way to define space. This stuff is similar to the theoretical "ether" of 19th-century science, but Simhony says that it is also quite different. The main difference is that it is not thin and wispy, as the word "ether" implies. Instead, according to his model, it's stiffer than the strongest bound atomic solids, as he describes it, or "stiffer than a diamond" --- as one of his followers posted on the "Simhony tribute" internet-site [Ref.#4b].

How then can we even move, if the stuff is everywhere in our universe and "stiffer than a diamond" ?? Because the tiny distance between the elements which compose the lattice is just right to allow the nucleus of an atom to pass between them. Please note that 19th-century scientists could not easily visualize this, because they did not know that every atom has a tiny nucleus, where most of its mass is concentrated. In other words, they did not know that atoms are mostly empty space. Nobody knew this important fact until 1911, when Ernest Rutherford discovered it. One needs to visualize this to “get” how Simhony’s model works.

Despite its extreme stiffness, the epola is also elastic. Many things are both stiff and elastic; billiard balls, for example: only because they are elastic do they collide and then bounce apart smoothly. One needs to be able to accept this idea, (i.e., that a substance can be both stiff and elastic), to understand how Simhony's epola-model works. Visualize a big bucket of Jello: if one strikes the side of the bucket, the Jello quivers. Henrick A. Lorentz used this word "quiver" in his 1902 Nobel-prize acceptance speech to describe his visualization of "ether" --- after first describing "ether" as "a kind of jelly, half liquid, half solid." https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1902/lorentz-lecture.html

While Simhony says that individual electrons and positrons compose the lattice, alternating like individual sodium and chlorine nuclei in a salt crystal, the writer of this essay has modified this to say that it's not individual electrons and positrons, but electron-positron pairs (also-called “dipoles”) which compose the lattice. This is the main difference between Simhony’s model and the model presented here.

###############

Part 3a: TO CALCULATE THE LARMOR-PRECESSION FREQUENCY OF AN ELECTRON OR POSITRON IN A STERNGLASS.COSMO.SYST ...

... the writer studied the discussion which appears on pages 299 through 308 in one of the best physics textbooks which he has ever seen: Modern Physics(2005), by Serway, Moses, and Moyer [Ref.#6]. Note that an electron or positron in a magnetic field experiences a torque which causes its spin-axis to precess around an axis which is parallel to the orientation of the magnetic field, at a frequency ---(also called “angular velocity” --- and usually given in radians per second)--- known as theLarmor precession frequency. According to equation (9.5) on page 298 of Ref.#6:

FREQ(larmor) = Qe*B / 2*Me,

where "B" is the magnetic field strength of the spinning electron, when measured at the center of the positron. Or vise versa, as the two are equal. Of course “Me” is the mass of an electron, as the discussion in Ref.#6 is referring to the spinning electron in an atom. However, in this essay, the writer is referring to the Larmor frequency of a spinning electron or positron whose mass is only half the mass of an electron, because the entire dipole has the mass of a single electron, so the appropriate formula here is simply:

FREQ(larmor) = Qe*B / (2.pi).Me (Eqn.1),

where we have divided by the factor (2.pi) to convert the Larmor frequency from radians/sec to cycles/sec.

Note also that, according to Ref.#6, it seems likely that the tiny objects orbit around each other at a slant, meaning that their spin axes are significantly different from their orbital axis, as illustrated in Figure 1, above. Because this slant evidently does not affect the frequency of the Larmor precession [see equation (9.5) in Ref.#6], one does not need to consider it any further.

Part 3b: MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH

To calculate the strength of the magnetic field which each of the constituents of an electron-positron pair create by virtue of their ferocious spinning, which affects the behavior of the other, one can use the following math-formula, from a popular physics internet-site [Ref.#7].

B = [(permeability) x (mag.mom.)] / [4 x pi x R^3](Eqn.2),

where "(permeability)" is the magnetic permeability of free space, a known constant, and "R" is the distance from the center of the spinning e or p to the specific location in the magnetic field which one is looking at. In other words, "R" is the radius of the ep-pair which we are looking at, defined as the distance between the center of the electron and the center of the positron.

Note that this formula is given to calculate magnetic forces between two bar magnets, and that one can model the electron-positron pair in a Sternglass.cosmo.syst as a pair of tiny bar magnets, as Sternglass mentions several times in Ref.1a. Note also that this formula is not accurate unless “the magnet is small as compared to the distance on which the force is considered” [Ref.#7] --- which isdefinitely notthe case here. So one must expect that, by using this formula, one will obtain a result which is not accurate.Even so, one can still use the formula, and then add a correction-factor later.

Part 3c: CALCULATING THE MAGNETIC MOMENT OF AN ELECTRON OR POSITRON IN A STERNGLASS.COSMO.SYST

In the positronium-like electron-positron pairs (also called Sternglass.cosmo.systs) which we are looking at here, the e and p which compose a pair rotate (i.e., orbit) around each other, each moving at approx. 99.99999 % of the speed of light. The main difference between this kind of ep-pair and positronium is the fact that the e and p in positronium move at a speed less than 1 % of the speed of light. If the idea of an e and p orbiting around each other at almost the speed of light seems unbelievable, then one can visualize this as a very rapid electrical oscillation, with the understanding that both electrons and positrons are in fact nothing but pure electrical energy.

Sternglass detailed this kind of relativistic ep-pair system in a paper which was published in the July 1, 1961 issue of thePhysical Review Journal [Ref.#1b].

As the electron and positron orbit around each other, each also spins around its own axis. Sternglass is very specific regarding how they spin: he says that they spin oppositely (i.e., "anti-parallel") to each other.

As already mentioned, the spin axes are oriented at an angle with respect to each other. Like a spinning top, each of the tiny objects (an electron and a positron) does a Larmor precession as it spins and orbits. Using the formula which we will develop below, one can calculate that, for a cosmo.syst whose mass is that of a pi-meson, the Larmor-precession frequency is tiny when compared to the frequency of the orbit, but that for a cosmo.syst whose mass is that of an electron, it is similar to the orbital frequency.

To calculate the magnetic moment of the electron or the positron in a Sternglass.cosmo.syst, one can use the math-formula found in many physics-101 textbooks, namely:

mag.mom. = (current) x (area) (Eqn.3),

where one visualizes the current as if a single electric charge of 1.6022 x 10^(-19) coulomb were rotating around (moving at the speed of light) in an orbit whose radius is half the "R" in Eqn.2 [see Figure 1, above]. Plus, one visualizes the area as that of the circle which this orbit circumscribes. This leads to:

mag.mom. = {[(Qe) x (c)] / [pi x R]} x {[pi x R^2] / 4} (Eqn.3a),

where "Qe" is the electric charge of the electron or positron, "c" is the speed of light, and "R" is the distance between the center of the positron and the center of the electron.

Please note that [pi x R] is the distance which the electric charge must travel to complete one orbit; i.e., it's the circumference of the charge's orbit. It's not [2 x pi x R], as one might expect, but only half that; this is because the spin radius of the individual e or p in a Sternglass.cosmo.syst is half the orbital radius of the system. See Figure 1, above, which shows that the spin radius in only half the system radius, which is defined as the distance between the center of the electron and the center of the positron. For the same reason, the area is given by [(pi x R^2) / 4], rather than by [pi x R^2].

Simplifying Eqn.3a gives:mag.mom. = [(Qe) x (c) x (R)] / 4 (Eqn.4).

Part 3d: PUTTING EQUATIONS 4 AND 2 AND 1 TOGETHER ...

… one obtains:

FREQ(larmor) = (permeability).Qe.Qe.c / (2.pi).(16.pi).Me.Rs.Rs (Eqn.5),

where “(permeability)” is the magnetic permeability of free space, “Qe” is the electric charge on an electron or positron, "Me" is the mass of the system, "Rs" is the system's radius, and, as usual, "c" is the speed of light.

As mentioned in Part 2, above, Simhony says that each of the trillions of trillions of tiny elements which compose the epola [electron-positron lattice] in his model has the mass of a single electron or positron. The main argument in this essay is based on the idea that the smallest possible cosmo.syst in Sternglass’s model, whose mass is also that of an electron, might in fact be identical to one of the elements which compose the lattice in this writer’s modification of Simhony's model. In other words, though they never worked together, and though each was probably not aware of the work of the other, their theoretical work suggests the existence of this tiny object. As is described in Appendix A, this object (if it actually exists) is much smaller than a proton or neutron.

Using Eqn.5, one can now calculate the Larmor precession associated with each of the tiny objects (a relativistic electron and a relativistic positron) which theoretically compose this Sternglass cosmological system, the smallest one possible, whose mass is that of an ordinary electron.

Please refer to Appendix A for a derivation of the numeric value of the radius [Rs] of this smallest possible Sternglass.cosmo.syst.

Using in Eqn.5 numeric values: Rs = 4.113 x 10^(-17) meter, Me = 9.1094 x 10^(-31) kg, (permeability) = 4 x pi x 10^(-7) kg.m/coul.coul {also called "newtons per amps squared"}, Qe = 1.6022 x 10^(-19) coulomb, and (c) = 2.998 x 10^8 meters/sec, one calculates a numeric value for the Larmor-precession frequency of the smallest of the Sternglass cosmological systems as 2.0069E25 cycles per second.

Comparing this to the orbital frequency of the smallest cosmo.syst, (i.e., the one whose mass is that of an ordinary electron and whose radius is 4.113 x 10^(-17) meter), leads to: (orbital frequency) = (c) / (pi x R), where (pi x R) is the circumference of the system's orbit, not (2 x pi x R), because the center-point of the orbit is halfway between the center of the electron and the center of the positron, so the orbital radius is onlyhalfthat of the system. Using numeric values as above gives an orbital frequency of2.3203E24 cycles per second.

As one can see, the two numeric values are “in the same ballpark” --- but the Larmor-precession frequency is almost 10x that of the orbital motion, and it’s difficult to believe that such a system could be stable. Specifically, the ratio between the calculated values of the two frequencies is 8.649, with the Larmor precession having the greater frequency.

To explain this seemingly-impossible result, (that the Larmor-precession frequency is 8.649 times that of the orbital frequency), one can reckon that it is due to the fact that Eqn.2 in Part 3b gives an inaccurate result unless “the magnet is small as compared to the distance on which the force is considered” [Ref.#7]. As already mentioned, the size of the "magnets" here is approximately the same as the length of their distance apart, which means that the equation gives an inaccurate result. So one can confidently say that the true Larmor-precession frequency is smaller than the result given by the calculation.

How much smaller would one expect the true Larmor frequency to be than that which was calculated ?? Well, one can imagine that there might be several ways in which a Larmor-precession frequency and an orbital-motion frequency might combine to produce a stable orbit. One can reckon that in every case, the two frequencies must resonate with each other, like two strings on a guitar or violin resonate with each other to produce a sound which in pleasing to the ear. Perhaps the two frequencies might be like a middle C and a high C on the piano, to use a musical analogy. Or perhaps the two frequencies are identical, which is the simplest possibility to consider.

Part 4: ANALYSIS OF THE CALCULATION

Given that one has found this nice agreement between the calculated frequencies of orbital rotation and Larmor precession in a simple ep-pair system, by doing a few simple mathematical manipulations, one wonders: can one do a few more simple mathematical manipulations to explain why this agreement appears ?? Yes, as is described below:

If one goes with the idea that the two frequencies are equal, the results of the calculation show that:

FREQ(larmor) = [(permeability)*Qe*Qe*c] / [32.pi.pi)*Me*Ree*Ree]*(8.649) =

[c] / [pi*Ree] = FREQ(orbital) (Eqn.6),

where "Me" is the mass of an electron and "Ree" is the radius of an epola-element, considered here as identical to the smallest Sternglass.cosmo.syst, whose mass is that of an electron.

One can simplify Eqn.6 to say that: [(permeability)*Qe*Qe] = 8.649*[2*(pi)*16*Me*Ree], which simplifies further to:

(permeability) x Qe x Qe = 8.649*32*(pi)*Me*Ree (Eqn.7).

In his "Table 1" [p.234, Ref.#1a] Sternglass details mass and size data for the "cosmological systems" in his model. From this table one can derive a simple math-formula which embodies the idea that, for every cosmo.syst, regardless of its mass or size, the mass is proportional to the square of the radius:

Rs = [ 2 x G x (Mu x Ms)^(1/2) ] / [ (c^2) x 137.036 ] (Eqn.8),

where "Rs" is the radius of the system, "G" is Newton's gravitational constant, "Mu" is the mass of our universe, “Ms” is the mass of the system, "c" the speed of light, and the number 137.036, the inverse of the fine-structure constant, appears in the equation to account for the "relativistic shrinkage" which Sternglass says affects the small cosmo.systs, i.e., those whose masses are less than approx. that of 10 protons. One can imagine that the reason why the tiny objects shrink is to be able to fit inside a single epola-cell, and that this happens during the "count-down to the big bang," mentioned in Part 1 of this essay. Sternglass says nothing about the possibility that this is the reason for the “relativistic shrinkage” --- given that he was not aware of Simhony’s work, as this writer verified by asking him [Ref.#8].

Note that “^(½)” means that one calculates the square root of the expression inside the parentheses, and that the equation is a modified Schwarzschild formula, a phrase which one can google.

Using Eqn.8, the radius of the cosmo.syst whose mass is that of an ordinary electron is given by:

Ree = [ G x (Mu x Me)^(1/2) ] / [ (c^2) x 137.036 ](Eqn.8a),

where "Ree" means "radius of epola-element" --- on the hypothesis that the elements which compose the epo-lattice [electron-positron lattice, i.e., epola] in Simhony's model are in fact identical to this particular (pun intended) Sternglass.cosmo.syst; i.e., this writer proposes that the epola-element and the smallest possible Sternglass.cosmo.syst is/are one and the same. Note that "Me" (the rest mass of an electron) is the mass of the system, because it’s the mass of an epola-element in Simhony’s model. As in Eqn.8, “Mu” is the mass of our universe. See Chapter 14 of Ref.#1a ---(titled "The Mass of the Universe")--- for details.

Sternglass describes how he was inspired by Paul Dirac's "large numbers hypothesis" [Ref.#16] to derive an elegant way to estimate the total mass of our universe.“I decided to see what these numbers would give for the mass of the universe if the basic particles were the electron and positron, rather than the proton and anti-proton”[p.210, Ref. #1a]. See Appendix D for more re this. The equation which he derived is:

Mu = Me x [(K x Qe x Qe) / (G x Me x Me)]^2 (Eqn.9),

where the parameters are defined as above. By this method he gets a numeric value of approximately 1.581x10^(58) grams, which is approx. 100 times the numeric values which one sees in some of the books and published papers which address this issue. As Sternglass says, this is "consistent with the evidence that only about one percent of the mass of the universe is in visible form" [p.210, Ref.#1a].

Combining equations 8a and 9 leads to:

Ree = 2.[K*Qe*Qe] / [137.036*Me*c*c] (Eqn.10).

The next mathematical manipulation uses the relationship between two known constants, namely Coulomb's electrostatic constant [K] and the so-called electrostatic permittivity of free space:

K = 1 / [4*pi*(permittivity)] (Eqn.11).

Combining equations 10 and 11 leads to:

Ree = 2.[Qe*Qe] / [4*pi*137.036*(permittivity)*Me*c*c](Eqn.12).

Combining equations 12 and 7 one obtains:

(permeability) = [276.77] / [2 x 137.036 x (permittivity) x c x c] (Eqn.13),

and re-arranging gives:

(permeability) x (permittivity) x (c) x (c) = 276.77 / 274.07 = 1.010,

which is approximately the known numeric value of the expression on the left side, i.e., 1.000. This result leads one to suspect that our initial hypothesis, that the two frequencies are identical, might be correct. If so, then one can say that the frequency of the Larmor precession of the electrons & positrons which compose the elements of the epo-lattice is identical to the frequency at which the electron & positron in the system rotate around each other.

According to the calculations presented above, this frequency is approximately 2.320E24 cycles/sec.

This result is significant for two reasons.

(1) It shows a direct connection between two phenomena, one of which is due to MAGNETIC forces (Larmor precession), and one of which is due to ELECTRICAL forces (rotational frequency). In fact, it is a believable explanation for why the mass of an electron is what it is. Because this is the mass of the only cosmological system whose Larmor precession frequency is equal to its rotational frequency, which probably makes it extra stable.

(2) It shows a direct connection between the work of Simhony, who visualized an electron-positron lattice which he called "epola," and Sternglass, who visualized objects which he called "cosmological systems." By showing that the elements which compose the epo-lattice in this writer’s modification of Simhony's model might be identical to the cosmological system whose mass is that of a single electron in Sternglass's model, we show a significant agreement between the models which these two researchers created independently of each other.

In fact, this writer believes that the concept of the "cosmological system"might be Sternglass's most important contribution to our understanding of our universe, enabling a researcher to conceptualize the connection between the very large (e.g., a galaxy) and the very small (e.g., a pi-meson. Because, according to Sternglass, each is a cosmological system, and the cosmo.syst which created the galaxy looked exactly like a pi-meson, but was simply much larger and more massive.

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

CONCLUSION

One expects that (for the system to be stable) the two frequencies in a relativistic electron-positron pair, that of the Larmor precession and that of the orbital rotation, should resonate with each other somehow. When one tries the idea that they are equal to each other, one obtains an almost-correct result, namely, that (permeability).(permittivity).(c).(c) = 1.010. To explain why this might be, one can visualize the process which created the electron-positron lattice, if in fact it exists, as a very high energy event which forced the ep-pairs into a stable configuration where magnetic and electrical forces balance, given that Larmor-precession frequency is due to magnetic-torque forces, while orbital frequency is due to electrical-attraction forces. See Ref.#18 for an interesting discussion of the idea that a "big crunch" might have preceded the Big Bang.

At a fundamental level, one can say that the discussion presented in this essay suggests a plausible reason for why the mass of the electron is what it is. I.e., one can say that the reason why it-is-what-it-is is because it is the mass of the Sternglass cosmological system whose Larmor-precession frequency, which is due to magnetic-torque forces, resonates with the system's orbital frequency, which is due to electrical forces.

On a practical level, the discussion presented in this essay might help inspire folks whose minds are open to ideas which do not have the official approval of the scientific community to consider the possibility that the epola [electron-positron lattice] in Simhony's model might actually be real. Plus, it might help inspire folks to look at Sternglass's work for a demonstration that one can describe protons and neutrons, (as well as all the unstable "particles" which physicists have discovered during the past 80 years), with no reference to "quarks" --- just simply as different combinations of high-speed, relativistic, electrons and positrons and electron-positron pairs [Refs. #9, 10, 11], also-called “dipoles.” According to Danish book writer and historian of science Helge Kragh, none of the hundred$ of highly-educated and highly-paid re$earcher$ who u$ed high-co$t equipment to look for "quarks" over the year$ ever found any [pp.322-324, Ref.#12].

Please note that Sternglass compares the many different ways in which speedy electrons and positrons and ep-pairs can combine with each other to produce unstable "particles" to the many different ways in which atoms can combine with each other to produce "molecules." See Refs. #9 through #11, below.

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

Appendix A: Derivation of the numeric value of the radius of the smallest Sternglass.cosmo.syst

Essentially a Sternglass.cosmo.syst is a whirlpool-like vortex of swirling energy. The tiny ones have high mass-densities, making them seem like little bullets, though ultimately they are whirling vortexes of pure energy, as Sternglass mentions several times in his book [Ref.#1a].

In his "Table 1" [p.234,Ref.#1a] Sternglass details mass and size data for the "cosmological systems" in his model. From this table one can derive a simple math-formula (already shown above, in Part 4) which embodies the idea that, for every cosmo.syst, regardless of its mass or size, the mass is proportional to the square of the radius:

Rs = 2.[ G x (Mu x Ms)^(1/2) ] / [ (c^2) x 137.036 ] (Eqn.8),

where "G" is Newton's gravitational constant, "c" is the speed of light, "Mu" is the mass of our universe, "Ms" is the mass of the system, and "^(1/2)" means that one calculates the square root of the expression in parentheses.

Please note that this is a modified Schwarzschild-radius formula {a phrase which one can google}, in which "G" is scaled to have a larger value inside the "inner space" of a smaller cosmological system.

Sternglass's method of calculating a theoretical numeric value for the mass of our universe [Mu = 1.581*10^58 grams] was inspired by Paul Dirac's "large-numbers hypothesis" --- a phrase which one can google. He describes how he derived it in Ref.#1a. Using the above formula with numeric values: G = 6.67408 cc/gram.sec.sec, Mu = 1.581 x 10^58 grams, Ms = (mass of electron) = 9.1094 x 10^(-28) gram, and c = 2.9979 x 10^10 cm/sec, gives Rs = 4.113 x 10^(-15) cm, [i.e., 4.113 x 10^(-17) meter]. This object is much smaller than a proton, and much more dense.

Appendix B: Ph.D-holders agree that "quarks" have never been observed; i.e., that the standard model is not quite right

In his 1999 book Helge Kragh says that hundreds of research teams tried to observe "quarks" after Murray Gell-Mann proposed them during the 1960s. None succeeded, in spite of a team at Stanford claiming to have observed some "quarks" --- a claim which was soon challenged, and "rejected by the elementary particle physics community" as Kragh describes it [pp.322-324, Ref.12].

Sternglass, too, takes a disdainful tone when describing this: “As [Abraham] Pais described in Inward Bound,‘the reaction of the theoretical physics community to the [quark] model was generally not benign. … The idea that hadrons were made of elementary particles with fractional quantum numbers did seem a bit rich. According to Pais, not since the late nineteenth century, when the reality of atoms was at issue, did the question return: ‘is this a mnemonic device or is this physics?’ This proposal, although not easy to swallow for most theorists, was a boon to experimentalists, who spent the next twenty years searching for such objects, without any firm evidence for free quarks.”[p.188, Ref. #1a].

The conventional current explanation is that physicists do not observe any free "quarks" because they strongly resist being pulled apart, analogous to very strong rubber bands, which only get stronger if one stretches them. But it's known that if you smash two protons together hard enough, then pi-mesons fly off. Sternglass says that these pi-mesons are the true "quarks" ----- nugget-like objects inside protons and neutrons: relativistic electron-positron pairs that are just as hard as so-called "quarks" are supposed to be.

Kenneth W. Ford, whose long career included helping to design the first H-bombs and researching the internal structures of neutrons, and who worked with heavy-hitters like J.A.Wheeler and Hans Bethe, says that, [as of 2004] nobody had ever observed a "quark" [p.67, Ref.#14].

Robert Laughlin, who won a Nobel prize in physics in 1998, wrote in his book: “A large portion of the accepted knowledge-base of modern science is untrue … obligating us to look at it more skeptically … and to value consensus less” [p.213,A Different Universe(2005)].

In his bookThe Quantum Zoo(2006), Marcus Chown notes that: “Eighty-odd years after the birth of quantum theory, physicists are still waiting for the fog to lift so that they can see what it is trying to tell us about fundamental reality … Feynman himself said: 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.' ”

One can suggest that it is due to a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the true nature of "quarks" that the above is true. If one considers Sternglass's overarching idea that electrons and positrons are the only truely fundamental particles in our universe, then it's superiority to the "quark" model should be obvious. For one thing, electrons and positrons are definitely known to exist.

Jim Baggott, who wrote the bookFarewell to Reality(2013), says on p.131: “We … are … immensely proud of [standard-model theories] … but these theories are riddled with problems, paradoxes, conundrums, contradictions, and incompatibilities … in one sense, they don’t make sense at all.”

For all the above reasons, to paraphrase Feynman, I think that one can safely say that "quarks" are not real objects, but mere "mathematical figments" --- as Murray Gell-Mann, suggested, many years ago [Ref.#15].

"Maybe these 'kworks,' as Murray called them, (he had the sound in his head before he found the spelling in [Finnegan's Wake, by James] Joyce), were just interesting mathematical figments. 'It is fun to speculate,' he wrote, 'about the way quarks would behave if they were physical particles of finite mass (instead of purely mathematical entities). . . . A search for stable quarks . . . would help to reassure us of thenonexistenceof real quarks.' ... He assumed these weird things would not be found."

"Gell-Mann struggled for the words that would imperfectly describe his quarks, calling them not only "mathematical" but even "ficticious." One colleague interpreted Murray's maddening ambiguity like this: 'If quarks are not found, remember I never said they would be; if they are found, remember I thought of them first.' "

"He continued to hedge his bets. In 1967, when he and Richard Feynman ... were featured inThe New York Times Sunday Magazine,Gell-Mann said quarks would probably prove to be 'a useful mathematical figment.' At a lecture at a physics summer school in Erice, Sicily, he said that quarks might well turn out to be 'purely illusory, a passing phase in our description, which will go away after a while, when we learn how to ... solve our equations without using quarks.' "[Ref.#15]

Appendix C: What is the size of an electron ??

While some physics enthusiasts prefer to regard the electron as having one size and one size only, the present writer feels that it is reasonable to believe that they come in many different sizes. As Hermann Minkowski said during the early 20th-century: "The rigid electron is in my view ... no working hypothesis ... Approaching Maxwell's equations with the concept of the rigid electron seems to me the same thing as going to a concert with your ears stopped up with cotton wool" [Ref.#13].

As a tiny bit of pure, swirling, electrical energy, it seems very probable that an electron, and also an electron-positron pair, can exist at a variety of different sizes. For example, one reckons that in a high energy situation it can shrink down to a small size where it carries a large mass density. Analogous to this, and as Simhony observes, a gamma-ray photon has a mass density comparable to that of a hard nugget, so it feels like a "particle" to us, while radio waves, for example, do not.

Likewise, a Sternglass.cosmo.syst is a whirlpool-like vortex of swirling pure energy. The tiny ones have high mass-densities, making them seem like little bullets, though ultimately they are whirling vortexes of pure energy, as Sternglass mentions many times in his book [Ref.#1a].

Appendix D: Some really far-out ideas

Background:Sternglass mentions in his book and also in some of his published papers a large number which he calls “the Dirac number” --- to honor Paul Dirac, one of the greatest 20th-century physicists, who loved to play with large numbers [Ref.#16]. Its numeric value is 4.166 x 10^(42), and it represents a measure of how much stronger the electric force is than the gravity force. One can calculate it by using two simple math-formulas which appear in almost every physics textbook in the entire known universe, namely:

F(electric) =K.Qe.Qe / r.rF(gravity) = G.Me.Me/ r.r,

where “F” is force (as labeled), “K”is Coulomb’s electrostatic constant, “Qe”is the electric charge of an electron or positron, “G”is Newton’s gravitational constant, and “Me”is the rest mass of an electron or positron. Note that the two forces represent the electrical attraction and the gravitational attraction between an electron and a positron. The ratio of these two numeric values is given by:

ratio =K.Qe.Qe / G.Me.Me.

Using numeric values K =8.9875 x 10^(9) kg.m.m.m/sec.sec.coul.coul, Qe =1.6022 x 10^(-19) coul, G =6.674 x 10^(-11)m.m.m/kg.sec.sec, and Me =9.1094 x 10^(-31) kg, one obtains 4.166 x 10^(42) as the ratio, i.e., the “Dirac number” [Nd]. Note that Sternglass considered this ratio to be a fundamental constant of nature.

More Background: From Sternglass’s “Table 1” [p.234,Ref.#1a] one can derive an expression for the radius of a sternglass.cosmo.syst [described above, in Part 1]. The equation has already been mentioned, above, in Part 4 and in Appendix A:

Rs = [2 x G x (Mu x Ms)^(1/2) ] / [ (c^2) x 137.036 ] (Eqn.8).

This is a modified Schwarzschild-radius formula, which one can google if one needs to. One can turn the equation around, by solving for “Ms”:

Ms = {[(Rs)^2] x [(137.036)^2] x [c^4]} / {Mu x 4 x G^2} (Eqn.8b).

Now one can multiply both sides by “c^2” to get the energy-content of the system, on the assumption that the system’s energy-content equals its mass x the square of the speed of light:

Energy = Ms*c^2 = {[(Rs)^2] x [(137.036)^2]*[c^6]} / {Mu x 4 x G^2}.

Simplifying this, by using numeric values c^2 = 8.9875 x 10^20cm.cm/sec.sec, Mu = 1.581 x 10^58 grams, and G = 6.674 x 10^(-8)cm.cm.cm/gram.sec.sec, one obtains:

E = [4.840*10^22 grams/sec.sec]*Rs*Rs (Eqn.14).

Note that this equation gives the energy-content of a Sternglass.cosmo.syst in terms of its radius, and is of the same form as the equation for the energy-content associated with a system which consists of a weight hanging on a spring and bobbing up and down, a phenomenon called simple harmonic motion.

Regarding Simple Harmonic Motion: A typical example of simple harmonic motion is a weight hanging on a spring and bobbing up and down. In simple harmonic motion, the equation for energy-content of the system is:

E = ( ½)*(k)*[(amplitude)^2] (Eqn.15),

where “k” is the elasticity-constant of the spring, a measure of its stiffness, and “(amplitude)” is defined as the maximum displacement of the system’s center-of-mass from the equilibrium-point. A weight on a spring goes up to some distance above the equilibrium-point, then goes down, through the equilibrium-point, to an equal distance below it, then starts back up again. The distance above or below the equilibrium-point is the amplitude of the system.

Note that the “k” above is the elasticity constant in Hooke’s law, which describes simple harmonic motion, and appears in every physics textbook in the entire known universe. One can visualize a rotating ep-pair system as an elastic vibration of the electron and positron which compose the system, whose vibrational frequency is modulated by the elastic space medium, similar to how the spring modulates the up-down motion of the weight in simple harmonic motion.

In a Sternglass.cosmo.syst, which consists of an electron and a positron orbiting around each other (see Part 1, above), there are two equal and opposite parts of the system, an electron and a positron, and each contains half of the system’s total energy-content. So, to calculate the system’s total energy-content, one calculates that of each half, then multiplies that by two.

As mentioned in Part 2, above, the epola is an elastic substance. So, (analogous to the “k” in Hooke’s), one can visualize the epola as having an elasticity constant ---(some times called a “stiffness constant”)--- which one can calculate if one knows the amplitude and the energy-content of the system. Because of its extreme stiffness, one would expect the elasticity constant of the epola to be quite large.

According to Hooke's law, one can use Eqn.15 to calculate the energy content of an electron and a positron orbiting around each other. Visualizing the orbiting ep-pair as being of a torus-[donut]-shape, (as in Figure 1, above), it’s clear that the amplitude of each half of the system is equal to half of the system’s radius, with "radius" defined as the distance between the center of the electron and the center of the positron. So that each half of the system contains an amount of energy given by:

E = ½ x Ke x (amplitude)^2 = ½ x Ke x (Rs/2)^2 = ½ x (Ke x Rs^2) / 4

---so that the system’s total energy-content is equal to (Ke x Rs^2)/4. Combining this info with Eqn.14 gives:

Ke = 1.936 x 10^23 grams/sec.sec=1.936 x 10^23 grams/sec.sec.

Thus one obtains, from Sternglass’s “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1a], an elasticity constant (also called “stiffness constant”) for the epola in Simhony’s model (see Part 1, above), although it’s probable that Sternglass was not aware of Simhony’s model.

### ### ### ### ###

Playing with Fundamental Constants: In an effort to learn more, one can play with some of the fundamental constants of physics, by focusing on the dimensional-units associated with them. While doing so, the writer noticed that

Ke ~ Kc.G.Me.Me /(permeability).c.c.(some volume),

where “Ke” is elasticity constant, “Kc” is Coulomb’s electrostatic constant, “G” is Newton’s gravitational constant, “Me” is rest mass of electron or positron, “(permeability)” is magnetic permeability of free space, “c” is speed of light, and “(some volume)” is to be determined. Note the dimensional-units:

Ke~ kg/sec.sec, Kc~ kg.m.m.m/sec.sec.coulomb.coulomb, G~ m.m.m/kg.sec.sec,Me~ kg, (permeability) ~ kg.m/coulomb.coulomb, (also-called newtons/amps.amps), c~ m/sec, and (some volume) ~ m.m.m. One can check the units to be sure that the expression is dimensionally consistent.

Using numeric values:

Ke = 1.936 x 10^20 kg/sec.sec, Kc = 8.9875 x 10^9 kg.m.m.m/sec.sec.coul.coul, G = 6.674 x 10^(-11) m.m.m/kg.sec.sec, Me = 9.1094 x 10^(-31) kg, (permeability) = 1.2566 x 10^(-6) kg.m/coul.coul, and c.c = 8.9875 x 10^16 m.m/sec.sec, one obtains:

1.936 x 10^20 kg/sec.sec ~ [4.407 x 10^(-72)]/(some volume) (Eqn.15).

The first thing which one notices about this expression is that the left side is much much larger than the right side. Even if one uses a very small numeric value for (some volume), there is still a large discrepancy between the left side and the right side.

The very small volume of an epola-element, with a radius of 4.113 x 10^(-17) meter, and a torus-[donut]-shape, is given by :

volume = [(pi).(pi) / 4] x (Ree)^3 = 1.7168 x 10^(-49) m.m.m;

Inserting this numeric value into Eqn.15 gives:

1.936 x 10^20 kg/sec.sec ~ 2.567 x 10^(-23) kg/sec.sec.

One immediately notices that the ratio between the left side and the right side is close to the numeric value Nd, the “Dirac number” mentioned above, in this section of the essay; i.e.:

ratio = 1.936 x 10^20 / 2.567 x 10^(-23) = 7.542 x 10^42.

On a hunch, the writer decided to look at the possibility that this ratio is equal toexactlyNd, so as to calculate a new, slightly smaller, numeric value for (some volume):

{1.936 x 10^20 kg/sec.sec} / {[4.407 x 10^(-72)]/[some volume]}= 4.167 x 10^42,

which leads to: (some volume) = 9.484 x 10^(-50) m.m.m;

Assuming a torus-[donut]-shape for the tiny object gives its radius as 3.375 x 10^(-17) meter, equivalent to 3.375 x 10^(-15) cm.

Note that this is smaller than the numeric value derived in Appendix A and used in the calculation above. Can one relate this “new” radius to anything in physics which is already known ?? Yes, as is described below:

Suppose that one wants to use an “electron microscope” ---(i.e., a particle accelerator)--- to try to “see” an object this small. In a previous essay [Ref.#17] the writer noted that the amount of kinetic energy which a fast electron in a particle accelerator would need in order to be able to “see” something this small is close to the measured energy-content of three of the "particles" ---(unstable baryons)--- which have been discovered in particle-accelerator experiments. These are the “bottom lambda” and the “bottom sigma” and the “bottom xi” ----- which weigh in at 5.62 GeV, 5.81 GeV, and 5.79 GeV, respectively. These are the heaviest “particles” of this kind, except for the “bottom omega” --- which is slightly heavier.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons

In that essay [Ref.#17] the writer used 4.113 x 10^(-15) cm as the numeric value for the radius of the epola-element, as derived in Appendix A, above. If, instead, one use the slightly smaller numeric value derived above [3.375 x 10^(-15) cm] in the same calculation, then one obtains a numeric value which agrees almost exactly with the known energy-content of the above mentioned unstable baryons, namely, 5.85 GeV.

Details of this calculation appear in Ref.#17, to which one can refer if he or she wishes, just simply by clicking on the link provided below: essentially one calculates the relativistic mass [M] of a fast electron with a de Broglie radius [R] of 3.375 x 10^(-15) cm, which is given by a simple math-equation:

M = (h-bar) / (c).(R) = (1.0546 x 10^(-27)) / (3 x 10^10) x (3.375 x 10^(-15)) = 10.42 x 10^(-24) gram,equivalent to9.38 x 10^(-3) erg,which is equivalent to5.85 GeV. As one can see, this numeric value is in almost-perfect agreement with the measured energy-content of each of the three unstable baryons mentioned above.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Perhaps the real meaning of the high-energy and high-co$t particle-accelerator experiment$, (which are $uppo$ed to have di$covered new “particles”), is this: perhaps the new so-called “particles” are in fact little blips of resonant energy which indicate that scientists have already “seen” the tiny electron-positron pairs which constitute the epola-elements in Simhony’s model, by using in particle accelerators fast energetic electrons whose de Broglie radii were approximately 3.375 x 10^(-15) cm. If so, then this means that they have found evidence that the epola really exists.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Please note that the writer admits that some of the calculations described in this essaymight be incorrect, and welcomes constructive criticism of them, and of the essay itself. Plus, any input re the possibility that the electron & positron in a relativistic ep-pair orbit around each other at a slant, as illustrated in Figure 1, above, would be welcomed.

With kind regards, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, Chandler, Arizona, USA,Anti-copyright 5 March 2018, mark.creekwater@gmail.com

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

REFERENCES

(1a) Ernest Sternglass, book: Before the Big Bang(1997, 2001).

(1b) ibid., essay: "Relativistic electron-pair systems and the structure of neutral mesons,"

Phys.Rev. 123, pp.391-398 (1 July 1961).

(2) John Archibald Wheeler, Phys.Rev. 97, pp. 511-536 (1955).

(3) Georges Lemaitre, book: The Primeval Atom(1950).

(4a) Menahem Simhony, internet-site: http://simhonytribute.webs.com/epolavalidation.htm

(4b) ibid., internet-sires: www.EPOLA.org and www.EPOLA.co.uk

(4c) ibid. book: The Electron-Positron Lattice Space (1990).

(5a) Mark Creek-water Dorazio, video: https://vimeo.com/search?q=aether+quarks+or+not

(5b) ibid., book: Essays Regarding the Work of Sternglass and Simhony (2013); https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-new-proton-model-2/

(6) Serway, Moses, and Moyer, Modern Physics(2005), p.299 re Larmor precession, pp. 306-7 re cos(54.7) = (0.577).

(7) internet-site: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81877/force-between-two-bar-magnets

(8) Phone-conversation by the writer with Ernest Sternglass, summer 2012;

(9a) ibid., "Electron-pair theory of meson structure and the interactions of nuclear particles,"

Proceedings of the American Physical Society, Stanford University (1964); http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4885112

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4885112%20%5bElectron-pair%20Theory%20of%20Meson%20Structure%20and%20the%20Interactions%20of%20Nuclear%20Particles%20(1964)%5d

(9b) ibid., "Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Heavy Mesons," in the book Nucleon Structure(editors R.Hofstadter and L.Schiff, 1964);

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964nust.conf..340S

(10a) Ernest Sternglass, "New evidence for a molecular structure of meson and baryon resonance states," Proceedings of the 2nd Resonant Conference on the Structure of the Nucleon, Ohio University, Athens (1965), in the book Resonant Particles(1965) edited by B.A.Munir;https://books.google.com/books/about/Resonant_particles.html?id=_rnvAAAAMAAJ&hl=en&output=html_text

(10b) ibid., "Electron-positron model for the charged mesons and pion resonances," Il Nuovo Cimento 35(1), 227-260 (Dec 1964);https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226502314_Electron-positron_model_for_the_charged_mesons_and_pion_resonances

(11) ibid., "Evidence for a Relativistic Electron-pair Model of Nuclear Particles" Int'l.J.Theo.Phys. 17, 347-352 (May 1978);https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=P4jkBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA2&dq=frontiers+of+fundamental+physics&ots=j0MdyN0B0

(12) Helge Kragh, book: Quantum Generations (1999).

(13) Arthur I. Miller, book: Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, p.350 (1981).

(14) Kenneth W. Ford, book: The Quantum World (2004), p.67.

(15) Johnson, George, internet-site: Discover - Science for the Curious(15 December 2013) http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/2013/12/15/idea-grand-ritz/#.Wc7edkuGPrc

(16) Helge Kragh, book: Dirac: A Scientific Biography (1990).

(17) Dorazio, Mark Creek-water, essay: “Is There an ‘Aether’ ?? Can We ‘See’ the Elements Which Compose It ??” (2017), published atwww.wordpress.com[link below];

https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/paper-a-semi-classical-calculation-re-the-mass-density-of-so-calld-neutron-stars/

(18) Rovelli, Carlo, book: Seven Brief Lessons On Physics (1994), https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Brief-Lessons-Physics-Rovelli/dp/0399184414?tag=askcomdelta-20

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

Mark Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics enthusiast,

anti-copyright 5 March 2018, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

**Submitted:** March 05, 2018

© Copyright 2022 **Mark Creek-water Dorazio**. All rights reserved.

### Facebook Comments

### More Non-Fiction Essays

### Boosted Content from Other Authors

*Article /
Non-Fiction*

*Book /
Fantasy*

*Short Story /
Flash Fiction*

### Boosted Content from Premium Members

*Poem /
Poetry*

*Book /
Other*

*Book /
Westerns*

*Book /
Fantasy*

### Other Content by Mark Creek-water Dorazio

*Book /
Non-Fiction*

*Short Story /
Non-Fiction*

*Essay /
Non-Fiction*

Existing Comments: