(1) Sternglass, Ernest;  book:  Before the Big Bang (1997);
(1a) Sternglass, Ernest;  essay:  “Relativistic Electron-pair Systems and the Structure of Neutral Mesons”;  Physical Review, v.123, pp. 391-398 (1-JULY-1961);

(1b) Lemaitre, Georges;  book:  The Primeval Atom (1950);
(2) Simhony, Menahem;  internet-sites:,
(2a) Simhony, Menahem;  book, 160 pages:  The Electron-Positron Lattice Space (1990);

(2b)    ibid.;  book, 294 pages:  Invitation to the Natural Physics of Matter, Space, and Radiation (1994);

(2c)    ibid.;  book, 70 pages:  The Story of Matter and Space (1999);

(2d)   ibid.;   internet-site:

(3) Grathman, Roy;  quote:  “the proton is always plucking at the corners of the epola-cell inside of which it’s located”, in an e-mail to me, (approx. 2011);  NOTE: this gentleman is familiar with Dr. Simhony’s model, and one of my main informants re it;  plus, he’s one of the researchers whom I have informed re Dr. Sternglass’s model;

(4)  Dorazio, Mark Creek-water;  essay:  “A Semi-classical Calculation Regard-ing Proton-radius” (2013);
(5)     ibid.;  essay:  “A Semi-classical Calculation re the Mass-density of so-call’d ‘Neutron-stars’ ” (2013);
(6)     ibid.;  essay:  “Lattice-Length of the Epola-cell” (2014);

(7)  McTaggart, Lynne;  book:  The Field (2002);

(8)  Wolff, Milo;  book:  Schroedinger’s Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws (2008);

(8a) Wolff, Milo;  Youtube-video:  “Milo Wolff – Wave Structure of Matter”;

(8b) Haselhurst, Geoffrey;  internet-site:

(9)  Van der Merwe, Alwyn (editor);  book:  Old and New Questions in Physics, Cosmology, Philosophy, and Theoretical Biology (1983);

(10)  Pinnow, Douglas;  internet-site:;

(11)  Arp, Halton;  book:  Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1966);

(11a)     ibid.;  Youtube-video:  “Harton Arp Intrinsic Red Shift”;

(11b)     ibid.;  Youtube-video:  “Universe – Episode 1 – The Cosmology Quest – The Electric Universe and Plasma Physics”;

(12)  Impey, Chris;  book:  How It Began (2012), p.298;
(13)  Thorne, Kip;  book:  Black Holes and Time Warps (1994);
(14)  Baade, Walter + Zwicky, Fritz;  essay:  “Supernovae and Cosmic Rays”,  Phys Rev, (15-JANUARY-1934);
(15)  Demorest, P.B., + others;  essay:  “A Two-solar-mass Neutron Star Measured Using Shapiro Delay”, Nature, (28-OCTOBER-2010); —–> (SEE QUOTE BELOW) <—–
(16)  Melia, Fulvio;  book:  High-Energy Astrophysics (2009);
(17)  Kragh, Helge;  book:  Quantum Generations (1999), pp. 322-324;
(18)  Kragh, Helge;  book:  Dirac: A Scientific Biography (1990);
(19)  Dirac, Paul;  book:  Directions in Physics (1978);
(20)  Antognini, A., + others;  essay:  “The Proton Radius Puzzle”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, v.312, n.3 (2011);
(21)  Stern, David P.;  NASA-article:  “Principles of the Magnetic Trapping of Charged Particles” (2001),
(22)  Paul, Wolfgang;  essay:  “Electromagnetic Traps for Charged and Neutral Particles”, Rev.Mod.Phys., v62, n3, July 1990;
(23)  Gomer, V., et al;  essay:  “Magnetostatic Traps for Charged and Neutral Particles”, Hyperfine Interactions, 109 (1997) 281-292;
(24a)  Wheeler, J.A.;  book:  Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam (1998);
(24b)      ibid.,  “Geons,” Phys.Rev. 97, 511-536 (1955);
(25a)  Black, Adam (editor-in-chief);  book:  The Feynamn Lectures on Physics, definitive edition (2006);
(25b)  Feynman, Richard;  book:  The Character of Physical Law (1965, 1967);
(26)  Kuhn, Thomas;  book:  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962);
(27)  Ford, Kenneth W.;  book:  The Quantum World (2004), p.67;
(28)  Cartwright, John, internet-site:
(29a)  Motz, Lloyd;  essay:  “Gravity and the nature of fundamental particles”, Nuovo Cimento, 26, 1 (1962);
(29b)  Motz, Lloyd;  essay:  “The Unit Gravitational Charge Solves the Cosmological Problem Without Inflation” (1983), bulletin, Columbia University Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics;
(29c)       ibid.,   essay:  “The Cosmological Problem”, The Sixteenth Int’l Conf. on the Unity of the Sciences, Atlanta, Georgis, Nov. 26-29, 1987, p.6;
(30)  Pickering, Andrew;  book:  Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics (1984);
(31)  Unzicker, Alexander;  book:  The Higgs Fake:  How Particle Physicis Fooled the Nobel Committee (2013);
(32)  Thornhill, Wallace;  Youtube-video:  “Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet”;
(33)  Baggott, Jim;  book:  The Quantum Story (2011);
(34)  Friedlander, Michael W.;  book:  A Thin Cosmic Rain (2000);
(35)  Susskind, Leonard;  book:  The Black Hole War (2008);
(36)  Bethe, Hans + Morrison, Philip;  book:  Elementary Nuclear Theory (1947, 1956);
(37)  Brooks, Michael;  book:  Thirteen Things That Don’t Make Sense (2008);
(38)  Morrison, Philip;  book:  Nothing Is Too Wonderful to Be True (1995);
(39)  Krauss, Lawrence;  book:  Quantum Man (2011);
(40)  t’Hooft, Gerard;  book:  In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks (1997);
(41)  Fleming, Ray;  essay:  “A tau particle model based on the Sternglass theory” (2014), http:/
(42a)  Sternglass, Ernest;  essay:  “new Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Meson and Baryon Resonance States,”  Proceedings of the 2nd Resonant Particles Conference (1965);    file:///C:/Users/adult/Desktop/Sternglass%20Proceedings%202nd%20top%20conf%20Resonant%20Particles%201965.PDF
(42b)     ibid,  essay:  “Electron-pair theory of meson structure and the interactions of nuclear particles,”  Proceedings of the American Physical Society (1964);
(42c)     ibid.,  chapter in book:  Nucleon Structure (1964) edit. Robert Hofstadter & Leonard Schiff:  “Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Heavy Mesons”;
(42d)     ibid.,  essay:  “Electron-positron model for the charged mesons and pion resonances,”  Il Nuovo Cimento 35(1), 227-260 (Dec 1964);
(42e)     ibid.,  essay:  “Evidence for a Relativistic Electron-pair Model of Nuclear Particles,”  Int’l.J.Theoretical Physics 17, 347 (1978);
(43)  Hall, Jonathan M., et al;  essay:  “On the Structure of the Lambda (1405),”  Proceedings of the 32nd Int’l Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, 23-28 June 2014, Columbia University;
(44)     ibid.,  essay:  “Lattice QCD Evidence that the Lambda (1405) Resonance Is a K-Nucleon Molecule,”  Phys.Rev.Lttrs. 114, 132002 (1 April 2015);
(45)  Dayton, Benjamin;  essay:  “Hydrodynamic Model of Neutral Pion,”  Physics Esays 24, 49-71 (2011);
(46)  Rovelli, Carlo;  book:  Seven Brief Lessons of Physics (2014);
(47)  Lemaitre, Georges,;  book:  The Primeval Atom (English translation 1950);
$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF REFERENCES >> $$$$$$$$$$$
Please note that the term proton-element appears in the WORD-LIST, and that it has a specific meaning in my modification of Sternglass’s model.
In his book [Ref.#1] Sternglass talks about “cosmological systems” [“cosmo.systs”], which are unlike anything in the so called “standard model”.  {Details re different kinds of cosmo.systs are in “TABLE 1”, p.234, Ref.#1}   According to the model, these “Sternglass.cosmo.systs” existed BEFORE THE BIG BANG, in the form of pure electromagnetic energy, and therefore behaved as objects both gravitational and electrical, but contained no protons or neutrons, for the simple reason that each “cosmo.syst” is the “SEED” [Sternglass’s word] of protons + neutrons:  In other words, Sternglass’s model explains the origin of all the protons + neutrons which now exist.
Plus, not only did this stuff exist before the big bang, but some of it exists right now, and constitutes the vast majority of so called “DARK MATTER” in our universe.  It’s out there, lurking, unseen and unseeable, in the vast regions between stars and galaxies.  More details in CHAPTER 1. 
Every proton-element is actually, according to the model which I present in these essays, nothing but a tiny Sternglass.cosmo.syst [p.234, Ref.#1] of a particular (pun intended) size and mass, and each consists of the simplest imaginable system:  an electron + a positron, orbiting around each other.  If that idea seems too weird, then one can visualize these objects as very rapid electrical oscillations, with the understanding that electrons and positrons are nothing but pure electrical energy.
Each proton-element exists only inside protons (and neutrons, which have a similar structure), so they have never been properly studied in a physics lab.  Similarly, “quarks” have also never been observed in a physics lab [Ref.#17, pp.322-324].  Perhaps they are the same thing ??  If so, the proton-elements are much more beautiful, being all of the same mass, and of a simple structure which one can easily visualize;  namely, an electron and a positron which orbit around each other, while each also spins around its own axis, one in “spin-up” mode, the other in “spin-down” mode, thus enabling them to co-exist without annihilating each other.
One can reckon with the idea that there is an un-paired positron at the proton’s center, and a paired electron and positron at the neutron’s center, which form a different kind of pair than a proton-element.
{In other words, one can reckon that there is another way in which an electron and a positron can co-exist without annihilating each other;  namely, by spinning (not orbiting) around their common center, one with a charge radius of approximately 0.587 fermis, and the other with a larger charge radius of approximately 0.989 fermis:  can you guess which is the electron, and which is the positron ??}
One can reckon that, as a proton-element exits from a proton (or neutron), [perhaps after a scientist smashes an other proton (or neutron) into it], it releases some energy;  and that it “decays” into a pi-meson;  and that the released energy propels the pi-meson outwardly at a high speed.
Please note that both pi-mesons and proton-elements are electron-positron pairs, which are about the simplest kind of systems imaginable, and therefore easier to visualize than “quarks”;  that pi-mesons are smaller and less massive, by a factor of approximately  5/8 masswise,  and by approx. the square root of that factor lengthwise;  and that multiplying the two factors together gives a numeric value of 2, given that the proton-element is a spin-2 system, while the pi-meson in Sternglass’s model is a “spin-1” system.  Evidently the neutrinos which are released when scientists smash protons together carry away the excess spin, often called angular momentum, so that pi-mesons which fly away from the collision of two protons are observed to be “spin-zero” objects.  According to Sternglass, this “zero” is the numeric value of the TOTAL angular momentum of the pair, because the spin angular momentums of the electron and positron add together with each other, and their sum then cancels the orbital angular momentum.  
Please note specifically that there are three “angular momentums” involved here — two due to spin, and one due to orbit, and that the orbital is twice as strong as each of the two spin units.   So one can reckon that spin-spin and and spin-orbit interactions between the electron and positron which compose the pair might account for the three “color charges” in quark theory.  I tried to do this, but got a headache, so I gave up, for now.
Because their orbital velocity is so high, (it’s almost the speed of light), these are relativistic electrons+ positrons, whose mass is much greater than the “rest mass” of electrons + positrons.  Because they’re not resting, but moving at almost the speed of light:  in fact, Sternglass says that, because there is “no upper limit to the energy contained in the relativistic electron-positron pair system … I realized that a higher energy version of this microscopic structure could in principle form the seed of stars, galaxies, and the entire universe, as difficult as this was to contemplate” [p.175, Ref.#1].
Here is an easy way to describe what the proton-element is:  According to Sternglass’s model, there was initially a “primeval atom” [mentioned above, and first proposed by Georges Lemaitre [Ref.#1b], whose work one can learn about at].  This big rascal divided in half, and each piece divided in half, and each of those pieces divided in half, and so on, and so on:  each time when a system divided in half, the mass of each of the two pieces decreased by a factor of 2, and their size (i.e., the length of the radius) decreased by a factor of the square-root of 2:  so the angular momentum, too, decreased every time when a system divided in half, because ( is (mass) x (velocity) x (radius).
Eventually, the size of the system was small enough so that its angular momentum was equal to 2 x [Planck’s constant / 2x(pi)]:  In physics jargon, this is a “spin-2 system.”
This is the little rascal which I call the “proton-element”.  As already mention’d [in CHAPTER 8], the mass of a spin-2 sternglass.cosmo.syst is a bit less than 1/4 the mass of a proton:  so when four [4] of them team up, along with an unpaired positron, they make a proton.
Note:  there are more details re this in CHAPTER 4 and CHAPTER 8.
$$$$$$$ $$$$ << END OF APPENDIX1 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

NOTE:  as you read this attempt to model the “primeval atom[p.2, Ref.#1] as a gigantic electrical capacitor, please be aware that it is, at best, only a rough and approximate model.  Firstly, because our universe is so unimaginably large and ancient, the electrical phenomena which we observe in our part of it, in this era, might be different from those which prevailed in former eras, and/or in other parts of our universe.  Secondly, as an amateur physics enthusiast, my understanding of electrical phenomena is, to be honest, not very good:  hopefully, the ideas which I present here might inspire somebody with greater knowledge and skill to propose a better capacitor model.

Anyway, for what it’s worth:  one of the things which a capacitor can do is to temporarily store electrical energy, and release it “on demand”.  If a capacitor were the size of our universe, as was the “primeval atom” in Sternglass’s model, then this “temporary” energy storage might be for millions or billions of years, as Sternglass describes the “temporary” life times of the large “cosmological systems”  [“cosmo.systs”]  in his model [Table 1, p.234, Ref.#1].  One can easily imagine that an electrical capacitor the size of our universe might take a long time to discharge.

Consider an electrical capacitor consisting of two metal cylinders, one inside the other, with a non-conductor in the small gap between them, to insulate them from each other.  Standard math formulas found in many electrical engineering textbooks say that:

C  =  [ (permeability) x H ] / ln(B/A),   (Eqn.#1),  where “C” is capacitance, “(permeability)” is the electrostatic permeability of space, a known quantity, “H” is the height of the cylinder, “ln” means “natural logarithm”,  “B” is the radius of the outer cylinder, and “A” is the radius of the inner cylinder;  obviously, the gap between the two metal cylinders [i.e., “plates”] is equal to  B – A.   So   (B – A) = D   (Eqn.#2),  where “D” is the tiny gap between the plates.

Using the mathematical identity  (permeability) = 1 / [ 4x(pi) x K ],  one sees that Eqn.#1 implys:  C = H / [ 4x(pi) x K x ln(B/A) ]   (Eqn.#1a),  where “K” is Coulomb’s electrostatic constant,  and “pi” is 3.1416;

One can visualize twisting this cylinder into the shape of a torus [i.e., a donut] until its “top” and “bottom” join, with the hole at the donut’s center having a radius of zero.  So it looks more like a fat bagel than a donut.  One sees that the “height” has become a circle, whose length is equal to 2x(pi) x B.  One sees that this circle is located inside the torus, half-way between its center hole and its edge. 

Using Eqn.#1a and doing a careful analysis of this new shape reveals a new formula for capacitance: C = [ 2x(pi) x B ] / [ 4x(pi) x K x ln(B/A) ] =  B / [ 2 x K x ln(B/A) ]. Visualizing our universe as a gigantic torus, {to be consistent with one’s visualization of all the other cosmo.systs as having that shape}, one sees that B”  ( and also “A” ) represents half of the radius of our universe, which one can call “R”.  So one now has:  C = R / [ 4 x K x ln(B/A) ]   (Eqn.3); 

{ NOTE:  one of the beautiful aspects of Sternglass’s model is that both the mass and the radius of our universe are known quantities [Table 1, p.234, Ref.#1] }

From any electrical engineering textbook, one has:   W = Q^2 / (2 x C),   (Eqn.#4),    where “W” is the amount of work [=energy] needed to charge up a capacitor, while “Q” is the resulting charge.  As before, C” is capacitance.

One sees that, together, Eqns. #3 + #4 imply:   W = [ 2 x K x Q^2 x ln(B/A) ] / R   (Eqn.#5);

EQN.#2 implies: B = A + D   (EQN.#2a);   so  ln(B/A) = ln( (A + D) / A ) = ln( 1 + D/A );   because  D/A  is very small,  one knows that  ln( 1 + D/A )  =  almost exactly  D/A;  because  “A” represents half of the radius of our universe, one has:  ln(B/A) = 2xD / R   (Eqn.#6);

Combining Eqns. #5 + #6  gives:   W = [ 4 x (K x Q^2) x D ] / R^2   (Eqn.#7);

Note:  because these equations model our universe [actually, they model the primeval atom in the Sternglass-Lemaitre model of our universe, Ref.#1] as a gigantic capacitor, one can now make a few changes to illustrate this more forcefully.

First, one can change “W” to say “Mu x c^2”(where “Mu” is the mass of our universe)— on the assumption that the amount of “work” which our “Mother Nature” did when she “created” our universe must in fact be equivalent to the total energy content of our universe.  Next, one can add a subscript to “R”,  to affirm that one is talking about the radius of our universe, a known quantity in Sternglass’s model.  So Eqn.#7 becomes:  Mu x c^2  =  [ 4 x (K x Q^2) x D ] / (Ru)^2   (Eqn.#7a),  where “Ru” is the radius of our universe.

Now,  for the final step, one needs to look at the Q^2″ in Eqn.#7a:  this is the square of the total of all the tiny electric charges [electrons + positrons] which compose the ordinary matter in our universe.  Regarding this, there is yet one more blessing:  in Sternglass’s model,  the number of electric charges needed to total up to the mass of our universe —(i.e., the number of ep-pairs —– is a known quantity.  Sternglass says that the number of electron masses needed to equal the mass of our universe is approximately 1.736 x 10^(85) [p.211, Ref.#1].  He was inspired to calculate this very large number by Paul Dirac’s so-called “large numbers hypothesis” —– which one can google if one needs to.  In fact, he calls this “the Dirac number” —– to honor Dirac for his daring genius in following this line of thought into these mysteries.

{ When he says “electrons” he means “electrons and positrons” as one can verify by doing the math:  each ep-pair weighs approx. 2 x Me  =  2 x [9.11 x 10^(-28) gram] = 1.822 x 10^(-27) gram:  he gives the mass of our universe as approx. 1.581 x 10^(58) grams [Table 1, p.234, Ref.#1].  Dividing the big number by the little number gives  8.68 x 10^(84)  as the number of ep-pairs:  so 2x that is the number of electrons + positrons, which Sternglass refers to as just simply “electrons”.  His thinking here is that a “positron” is just simply an “electron” which carries the opposite electric charge }

So the total electric charge on the gigantic electric capacitor which was once the “primeval atom” would be equivalent to [Mu / 2xMe] x Qe;  because, for the capacitance calculation, each ep-pair represents one unit of charge.  This unit [“Qe”] is well known to be approx. 1.602 x 10^(-19) coulomb.

Putting all this together gives:  Q^2  =  [ (Mu x Qe) / (2 x Me) ]^2  =  (1/4) x [ (Mu x Qe) / (Me) ]^2    (Eqn.#8);  combining Eqns. #8 and #7a  gives:  Mu x c^2  =  [ (K x Qe x Qe) x (Mu^2) x D ] / [ (Me^2) x (Ru^2) ] … One can rearrange this to say:  D  =  [ c^2 x (Me^2) x (Ru)^2 ] / [ (K x Qe x Qe) x Mu ]    (Eqn.#9);

NOTE:   “c”  “Me” and “(K x Qe x Qe)”  are known quantities,  while, as already mentioned,  in Sternglass’s model,  “Ru”  and  “Mu”  are also known.  But what about  “D”  ??

Using numeric values   c = 3 x 10^(10) cm/sec,   Me = 9.11 x 10^(-28) gram,   (K x Qe x Qe) = 2.3 x 10^(-19) / sec.sec,  Ru = 2.35 x 10^(30) cm,   and  Mu = 1.58 x 10^(58) grams],   one calculates a value of approx. 1.14 x 10^(-12) cm  for  “D”;   

NOTE:  this tiny distance is analogous to the gap between the “plates” in an ordinary electrical capacitor.  If our universe was once, in effect, a gigantic electrical capacitor,  then one might expect the average gap between the oppositely-charged electrons and positrons at that time, (before the big bang), to be approx. that tiny size:  i.e., approx. the size of an average atomic nucleus,  which is also approx. the size of one of the “epola-cells” in Dr.Simhony’s model,  when a large atomic nucleus is inside it, which causes the cell to expand a bit [Ref.#2] [Ref.#6].

In other words:  this numeric value, calculated from first principles using Sternglass’s theory, is  in the right ballpark.  So the idea to model the primeval atom in Sternglass’s model [Ref.#1] as a very large capacitor might turn out to be sensible and rational and do-able.

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END of APPENDIX2 >> $$$$$$$$$$$





One comment on “REFERENCEs + APPENDIXs 1 and 2


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on December 2, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: