markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

PREFACE + INTRODUCTIONs

book-title:  WHAT ARE “QUARKs” ??  

sub-title:  Essays re the Work of Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Dr. Menahem Simhony

by  Mark Creek-water Dorazio   email: MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

 

PREFACE:  This series of essays represents the work of two PhD-holders, Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Dr. Menahem Simhony, and a talented amateur (myself).  Their work involved developing two theories, (i.e., two “models”), in two different areas of physics.  Mine involved studying their two models, plus many other science-writers, and putting the two models together to create a third model, which incorporates most of their ideas, plus a few of my own.  I hope that you will agree that this model makes sense, whether you are a PhD-holder, or just simply interested in science.  Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, 31 December 2016, San Francisco

 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION

{ A NOTE REGARDING PUNCTUATION:  the symbol  “‘ … ‘”  (as with the Einstein-reference, below) indicates that I’m PARAPHRASING somebody.  The symbol  ” … “  indicates a QUOTE }

“‘ I’m not really much smarter than some of my colleagues — I just stay with a problem longer than they do ‘” —–Einstein

“His tenacity in sticking to a problem for years, in returning to the problem again and again —– this is the characteristic feature of Einstein’s genius” —–Leopold Infeld, quoted by Walter Isaacson in the foreword to the 2008-reprint of the book The Evolution of Physics (1938) by Einstein and Infeld.

Though they never worked together, and though each was probably not aware of the work of the other, Dr. Sternglass and Dr. Simhony, (the main “characters” in this series of essays), developed two [2] theories (i.e., “models” — as all the koool dudes say) in 2 different areas of physics, which fit together like 2 gloved hands:  as a serious truth-seeker, I was lucky enough to learn of their work, though they’re unknown to many (possibly most) PhD-holders in physics.  They have provided to me a KEY to understanding some of the outstanding CURRENT MYSTERIES in this tough subject of study, though I hold no degree in physics.  I hope that you will agree that the model which I have built, by blending their two models, with a few slight modifications, provides a realistic visualization regarding how nature works.

Please note that in Chapters 4 and 5 and 15 are three [3] actual, (“test-able”), PREDICTIONS, based on the NEW MODEL which I offer:  one is re the size of the PROTON, and one is re the mass density of so called “NEUTRON STARS”, and one is re GRAVITY WAVES.  Predictions are important for a new theory or model:  if observations and/or experiments can verify the predictions of a new theory or model, then it’s more probable that others will accept the new theory or model !!

Please also note that I wrote these essays over a time-period of several years, and that there is some repetition in them.  This is because I want each essay to stand on its own, so to speak, as much as possible.  So one can jump into the middle of the book, if one wants to, and read an essay which looks to be interesting, without necessarily reading the previous essays.

Please also note that there is an immense, but partially hidden, DRAMA in these essays, some of it hiding “between the lines”, so to speak:  the DRAMA is regarding the fact that, (as I describe in the FOREWORDs #1 section of these essays), there is a REVOLUTION —(i.e., a “PARADIGM CHANGE”)— brewing in this complex and competitive field of study, and the fact that this paradigm change might happen at any time:  like something “going viral” on the internet:  one never knows exactly WHEN that might happen.

BAD NEWS + GOOD NEWS

The bad news is this:  some of the most respected “authorities” in physics are actively resisting this coming “paradigm change” —(perhaps unconsciously)— because, among other reasons, it MIGHT AFFECT THEIR FUNDING … Sad, but true.

The good news is this:  the DRAMA of the coming paradigm change, (which can get very personal and nasty, given that human nature is what it is), makes the subject of physics much more interesting than one might think:  I remember that several years before starting the study project which enabled me to write this series of essays, I was already living in Berkeley, California, USA, and yet I had no clue that Berkeley is a world-class center for physics — partly, though not entirely, due to the fact that some of the scientists who designed and built the first nuclear bombs were from Berkeley.

I remember that, at that time, I met a guy there who was majoring in physics at the University of California in Berkeley, and that I was not very much impressed:  to me, at that time, physics just simply seemed like a boring subject to major in.  During the past 7 years, since starting my physics study project, I’ve learned that physics is definitely not boring !!

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

During the 1930s, a younger generation of physicists {(Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac,  … etc.)}  made many brilliant + important discoveries, which led to the development of what folks now call “the standard model”.  They insisted that the model’s non-ability to visualize what tiny things look like was not important, because the model provided so many advances to our understanding of our universe.  Of course, other physicists {(Einstein, de Broglie, Schroedinger, Dirac [who, with his long legs, “straddled the fence”, so to speak],  … etc.)}  begged to differ, and continued to search for a way to actually visualize what protons look like.

In his book [Ref.#1], Sternglass tells about his 1959-meeting with Niels Bohr, in Denmark, a few years before the great man died.  Plus, he talks about meeting with Einstein in 1947, at E’s little house in Princeton, NJ, where they talked re physics + philosophy in their first language, German.  Einstein + Bohr, for many years, famously debated the merits + non-merits of what we now call “the standard-model”:  Einstein always insisted that it was “incomplete” and needed some major insights to make it believable, while Bohr defended it very valiantly.

{[ Also in his book, Sternglass describes how strongly divided the physics-community was at that time (late 1950s), re this important issue:  “I asked de Broglie whether he would help me arrange a visit to Bohr in Copenhagen … at first, de Broglie was hesitant, saying that Bohr would not be happy about talking to someone who had spent so much time in the opposite camp … who shared Einstein’s ideas on the incompleteness of the Copenhagen School’s [i.e., the standard-model’s] view of quantum theory” [p.119, Ref.#1] ]}

Today many physicists have realized that the standard model has several disturbing defects:  this is what one current book writer says re this:  “The standard model is a bit like an aging movie star  whose best work is decades old  and whose flaws once seemed slight  but are now becoming glaring” [p.298, Ref.#12].  And I assure you that he is not the only PhD-holder who has noticed this.

Sternglass is a follower of Einstein, and of others who question some of the details of the standard model:  his “electron-positron pair model of matter” offers a clear + realistic way to visualize what protons look like, which the standard-model does not do.  One will not find his proton-model [p.250, Ref.#1] in any other book:  Sternglass’s ideas are original, based on his life as a truth-seeker.

On the other hand, books which “parrot” the standard-model are “a dime a dozen”, so to speak.  This is how I “discovered” Sternglass’s book:  after reading parts of many different books which parrot the standard model, I realized at some point in each book that I didn’t understand what the author was talking about;  then I found Sternglass’s book:  like a breath of fresh air, it made sense to me all the way to its end, where he describes his visualization of the structure of the proton, in the last chapter.  Since then I’ve never looked back.

In these essays, my hope is to convince folks of the value of Sternglass’s work.  To do this,  I’ve included also some of the work of Dr. Menahem Simhony [Ref.#2], which I “discovered” on the internet approx. a year after I “discovered” Sternglass’s book.  In combining the models of these two elders in the physics community, I’ve made a few slight modifications to each;  the result is, I think, a clear and realistic way to visualize what protons look like.  And I’ve tried to follow Einstein’s advice:  he said, many times, that one’s theory or model should be simple enough for a bright 10-year-old to understand !!

Please read more if any of this interests you.

Sincerely,  Mark “truth-lover” Creek-water Dorazio,  NewYorkCity,  23 MARCH 2015,  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

>>>>>>>>>>> END  OF  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION <<<<<<<<<<<

 

INTRODUCTION1:  Dr. STERNGLASS’s PROTON MODEL

=====>>>{[ NOTE:  for a biography, see APPENDIX6 ]}<<<=====

” To every man [and woman] is given the key to the gates of heaven;  the same key opens the gates of hell ” —–Richard Feynman, quoting a Buddhist tour guide in Hawaii;  from p.142 of the book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1999) …

Almost everybody has heard of “quarks”:  they are a part of the so called “standard model of particle physics”, which some very smart guys (such as Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann, and others) have worked on during the past 50 years:  according to the “standard model”, three [3] “quarks” compose each PROTON (2 “up quarks” + 1 “down quark”).  But:  according to Dr. Helge Kragh, a Danish physicist, “quarks” have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN A PHYSICS LAB [pp. 323+324, Ref.#17]:  in his book, he says that a research team at Stanford University in California once claimed to have observed some “quarks”, but that other physicists disputed the claim, and that, “after much discussion”, it was rejected:  needless to say, if anybody had succeeded in actually observing any “quarks”, then Dr. Kragh would have mentioned it in his book !!

Plus:  Dr. Kenneth W. Ford, whose long career included research re the theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus, as well as work helping to design H-bombs, agrees:  “quarks … to this day [2004], no one has seem them directly” [p.5, Ref.#27].

In his book [Ref.#1], Dr. Ernest Sternglass shows that “quarks” are composed of high-speed electrons and high-speed positrons;  i.e., of pure energy.

Dr. Sternglass + another theorist, Dr. Menahem Simhony, are the two main “characters” in this series of essays:  I hope to promote increased awareness of their work, which helps explain some of the current mysteries in physics, which the currently accepted “standard model” is not able to do.

Before the Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe Before the Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe Buy from Amazon
Below is a book review, which I found on the internet:
“In Before the Big Bang, Sternglass conducts a brief tour of modern particle physics and cosmology. He describes how the theories of Kant, Godel, Einstein and others led to the idea of an expanding but ultimately stable, rotating universe. And he recounts his firsthand exchanges with scientific greats such as Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr, and Richard Feynman. Drawing on decades of experimentation and theorizing, Sternglass discusses his idea for the nature of the ‘primeval atom’ [of the model of Georges Lemaitre] and the fundamental entities in the universe: the electron and its oppositely charged ‘twin’ — the positron. From these two particles, everything else evolved. The universe began with a single such pair, rotating [so that the outer-edge of its humongously large electromagnetic field moved at] close to the speed of light — [and] containing the entire mass of the cosmos … long before the explosive formation of ordinary matter in the Big Bang” … {[ from the website at: http://books.google.com/books/about/Before_the_Big_Bang.html?id=VmebQgAACAAJ ]}
=========================================

It seems that, in our universe, there is really only one physical entity, energy.  As a recent book writer expressed this idea,  “everything … anything you hold … no matter how dense, how heavy, how large, on its most fundamental level boils down to a collection of electric charges interacting with a background sea of electromagnetic and other energy fields — a kind of electromagnetic drag force … mass [is] not equivalent to energy;  mass [IS] energy … more fundamentally, there is no mass … there is only charge” [p.33, Ref.#7].

Dr. Milo Wolff [Ref.#8] believes that, in our universe, there are no “particles” — only waves, and has develop’d some easy maths to describe this idea:  here’s a LINK to a video where he talks about this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRv6WYWyOYA

“Space, once regarded as empty, is promoted to center stage as the medium of the waves and the raw material of the matter of the universe” [p.24, Ref.#8].  Dr.Wolff is a follower of Erwin Schroedinger:  for a review of his book, go to CHAPTER 9. 

Sternglass has no problem with quark theory, and mentions it in his book [Ref.#1], to show that his model accounts for the structure of protons and neutrons more realistically and more visualizably than the “quark” model.  And he was familiar with many of the obscure details of quark theory, as is evident in his published papers:

From the Proceedings of the 2nd Resonant Particles Conference in 1965:

file:///C:/Users/adult/Desktop/Sternglass%20Proceedings%202nd%20top%20conf%20Resonant%20Particles%201965.PDF

From the Proceedings of the American Physical Society’s annual meeting (1964):   http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4885112

Plus:  here is a LINK to a book, publish’d in 1964, in which Sternglass’s contribution is a chapter titled:  “Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Heavy Mesons”:

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

And here’s an other Sternglass paper, from Il Nuovo Cimento 35(1): 227-260 (December 1964): 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226502314_Electron-positron_model_for_the_charged_mesons_and_pion_resonances 

{[ Please note that you might need to “COPY” + “PASTE” the above LINKs to get them to work ]}

Basically, Sternglass says that the proton is composed of 4 [four] electron-positron pairs,  plus an unpaired positron at the center of the proton.  He says that each of the 4 ep-pairs carries a strong magnetic field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic field.  In fact, the schematic diagram on p.250 in his book clearly shows that each proton (and the neutron, too) has three [3] parts:  left side + center + right side.  This is analogous to the 3 [three] “quarks” which are supposed to compose each proton or neutron, according to the “standard model”.

In my opinion, this is ***WHY*** the “quark” model seems to work:  there really ARE three things in there, and one can call them “quarks”, and develop maths to describe them.  Richard Feynman + Murray Gell-Mann, + others, have done exactly that, during the past 50 years, and received Nobel prizes for this work !!  But the fact that the “quark” model provides no real capability to VISUALIZE what the little rascals actually look like is a clue that “quarks” might be mere MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONs, not real objects:  i.e., “quarks” might be merely mathematical tools, which one can use to calculate how sub-atomic “particles” behave.

In fact, Gell-Mann (who first proposed the “quark” model during the early 1960s) suggested exactly that, many times throughout the years !!  Details in APPENDIX8.

 

Sternglass, by contrast, first developed the ability to VISUALIZE what protons and neutrons actually look like, partly through his collaboration with Robert Hofstadter, who was in charge of one of the first powerful particle accelerators, the 150-feet-long machine at Stanford University during the 1950s.  From this, he used “semi-classical” maths (mostly high school algebra and geometry) to develop his proton/neutron model.

Dr. Menahem Simhony, also Jewish (as was Einstein, and some of the smartest scientists of the 20th century), has also, like Sternglass, developed a theory (i.e., a “model” as all the koool-dudes say) which is very different from the so called “standard model”.  His model involves a kind of substance which most physicists in the 19th century believed in, which they called “aether” or “ether”.  Because there was, at that time, no way to “prove” or demonstrate that it actually existed, theories which involve “ether”, or “aether”, or anything like it, have been out of style since the early 20th century.  Though Sternglass and Simhony never worked together, their two models support and affirm each other, and both affirm that some kind of “aether” or aether-like “stuff” exists in our universe.

To develop his model, Simhony used knowledge and technology which were not available to 19th-century scientists.  He says that this amazing substance [he calls it “EPOLA” — short for “electron-positron lattice”] permeates our universe, like a very very large 3-dimensional fish-net, inter-penetrating all of the “ordinary” matter in our universe, and enabling both GRAVITATION and RADIATION to happen [!!].  And he gives some persuasive and convincing arguments re why and how this might be true.

BY DENYING THAT ANY KIND OF “AETHER” or AETHER-LIKE STUFF EXISTs IN OUR UNIVERSE, STANDARD-MODEL PHYSICISTs ARE, IN EFFECT, “SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT” [!!] SO TO SPEAK.

Sternglass says, several times in his book, that he believes that “ether” exists, and describes it in a general way, reminiscent of how Maxwell and Faraday (during the 1800s) described their “aether”.  Though I feel that Sternglass’s description of “ether” is weak, I feel that Dr. Simhony’s “ether” model is EXCELLENT.  He calls his model “The Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space” [Refs. #2 + #2a], and prefers that we call this stuff, not “ether” or “aether”, but “EPOLA” — short for “ELECTRON-POSITRON LATTICE”:  one can call it also the “EPO-LATTICE” — which is how I refer to it in these essays.

Dr. SIMHONY’s WORK IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET:  http://www.EPOLA.co.uk or http://www.EPOLA.org … or google “SIMHONY TRIBUTE”.

PERSONALLY, after intense study of the models of both Simhony and Sternglass, I’ll say this:  what seem to be “quarks” are the result of interactions between (1) the ===>>FREE<<=== electrons + positrons in Sternglass’s model, which compose protons and neutrons,   and  (2)  the ===>>BOUND<<=== electrons + positrons in Simhony’s model, which compose the “epo-lattice” — which Simhony calls the “epola”.  In this sense, one can say that “quarks” are real:  but only because the aether-like substance which Simhony calls “the epola” is also real !!  I.e., one cannot have it both ways:  if one wants one’s “quark” model to make sense, then one just simply needs to admit that some kind of “aether” or aether-like “stuff” also exists !!

Sincerely, Mark “truth-lover” Creek-water Dorazio,  amateur physics enthusiast,  Phoenix, Arzona,USA;  2013.

More details at:

https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/176/

https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/a-semi-classical-calculation-re-proton-radius/

https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/semi-classical-calculation-re-the-mass-density-of-so-calld-neutron-stars/

$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF INTRODUCTION1 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

 

INTRODUCTION2:  Dr. SIMHONY’s “EPOLA”

“‘Many very intelligent and highly educated scientists just don’t have the capability to recognize the difference between a good theory and a bad theory'” —–Albert Einstein

Does everybody know what “Jello” is ??   Jello is a colloidal substance:  though one can’t pour it, it’s like water, in that it’s able to transmit waves through itself.  But it’s more firm than water:  because, in a bowl of Jello, the tiny globs of jello are BOUND to specific locations in the bowl:  i.e., they’re not free to SWIRL.

The tiny globs of SOY MILK in my morning coffee can SWIRL when I insert a spoon, but the tiny globs of JELLO in a bowl can not SWIRL.

The tiny elements which are bound to the epo-lattice [electron-positron-lattice] in Simhony’s model are, likewise, NOT ABLE TO SWIRL.  The lattice itself is able to transmit energy pulses (photons) through itself, because it’s elastic, because each epola-element is strongly bound to a specific location in the lattice, and can vibrate harmonically around that location, as Dr. Simhony details [Refs. #2 + #2a].

Plus, info on the “SIMHONY TRIBUTE” web-site says that the large binding energy which binds each epola-element to the lattice makes the lattice “STIFFER THAN A DIAMOND”:  this large binding-energy also helps enable photons to travel thru the epola at a very high rate of speed, the fabled speed of light.

Many years ago Simhony had an (!!! AHA !!!) moment when he realized that one can turn Einstein’s famously simple E = M.c^2 up-side-down to say v = sq.rt. [E/M], where “E” is “binding-energy” and “M” is “mass” and “v” is velocity.

I.e.,  working in a physics lab with salt crystals, which have a perfectly cubical structure, he realized that the simple speed-equation which works for the speed of SOUND thru a salt crystal also works for the speed of LIGHT.  This realization inspired him to propose that light is itself a harmonic vibration of elements which compose the epo-lattice, and that their structure is “face-centered cubic” — like that of salt crystals.  Inspection of the simple speed-equation (above) reveals that a LARGE binding-energy and a SMALL mass implies a high speed.

Specifically, for the epo-lattice:  v  =  sq.rt. [(8.2 x 10^(-7) gram.(cm/sec).(cm/sec) / (9.1 x 10^(-28) gram)]  =   sq.rt. [(9 x 10^(20) (cm/sec).(cm/sec)]  =  3 x 10^(10) cm/sec, which is the speed of light.

In other words:  the large binding-energy of the epola-element to the lattice (much larger than that of a sodium atom to a salt-crystal), and its tiny mass (much smaller than that of a chlorine atom in a salt-crystal), DETERMINE the speed of LIGHT thru the epo-lattice, according to the simple math formula above.  Similarly, the binding-energy of sodium and chlorine atoms in a salt crystal, and the mass of an individual atom, DETERMINE the speed of SOUND thru the crystal-lattice structure of the salt.

From the following youtube video:  “Professor Simhony is convinced … that space resembles a gigantic lattice that is made out of electron-positron pairs that form a cubic lattice” — and that, as ordinary stuff (atoms, molecules, etc.) moves thru the lattice, “the deformation of an epola cube unit affects also its neighbors;  hence, the bigger the deformation of an epola cube unit … the bigger the overall deformation in the epola-lattice becomes” … and “the bigger the matter-particle the bigger the inertia [because] the more epola sructures are involved in the passage [of the matter-particle thru the lattice].”

Basically, Simhony says that the epo-lattice is like a very large 3-dimensional fish net, which permeates our universe,  and inter-penetrates all the “ordinary” matter:  a lattice of electrons + positrons with a cubic structure, exactly like the “face-centered cubic” structure of salt, but much tighter:  so tight that there are > 10,000 of the elements which compose the lattice between every sodium atom nucleus and the next-neighbor chlorine atom nucleus in a salt crystal.

Here is another way to visualize how dense this stuff is:  the elements which compose the epo-lattice are so near to each other that there are > a TRILLION of the little rascals in the space which a single hydrogen atom also occupies.  How can they occupy the same space ??   Easy:  because ATOMs ARE MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE !!  The ONLY part of an atom which would have any problem sharing space with the epo-lattice is the NUCLEUS of the atom, and THAT little rascal is JUST THE RIGHT SIZE to easily go BETWEEN the elements which compose the lattice:  like very tiny fishes going thru very tiny holes in a very very large 3-dimensional fish-net.

In fact, as Dr. Simhony explains:  one of the reasons why large nuclei (uranium, plutonium, etc.) tend to split into two pieces [“FISSION”] is because they are too big to easily go between the elements which compose the lattice.  {This is just simply COMMON SENSE, if one has the correct VISUALIZATION of what the “space” in our universe really looks like, which Simhony’s model provides}

The main idea here is that every atomic nucleus of the “ordinary” matter in our universe is continuously and continually entering + exiting the cube-shaped “cells” (tiny “boxes”) in the epo-lattice, and interacting with them all the while;  but because atoms are mostly empty space, these interactions affect only a very tiny percentage of the epola-cells within each atom, while the vast majority of epola-cells at any moment in time are almost totally unaffected by the passage of atoms thru the epo-lattice.

Here is a quole from one of the internet-sites re Dr. Simhony’s model:  it describes the epo-lattice as having “real substance and much higher mass density than atomic matter … the epo-lattice is open and not at all solid (it’s like a vacuum) … atomic particles filter through the epola like a shoal of fish through a coarse net … in this way, and by the vibrations of its electrons and positrons, the structure of the local epo-lattice defines and controls the motion of all atomic matter and particles, and is responsible for the phenomena of inertia and gravity… the epola is not an aether as originally defined, and far from being aethereal … but a dense aggregation  … of leptons [i.e.,  of electrons and positrons]”   [from the internet-site at  http://www.epola.co.uk/faq/FAQframe.html   in section 5, titled  “Is the epola model an aether theory?”]

Simhony does say that the epola would have satisfied Faraday’s search for a dielectric aether and the mechanistic basis for the Maxwell equations.  {Please google it or them, if you need to}

To say that the epo-lattice is “stiffer than a diamond” is a reflection of how the large binding-energy might make it “feel” — if one could somehow imagine a way to “feel” it.  A good analogy is to imagine putting one’s hand into a tight glove:  the presence of the hand inside the glove causes the glove to expand slightly, so it pushes back, inwardly, on the hand.  Similarly, a proton (or an atom’s nucleus, which is a collection of protons + neutrons) inside an epola-cell causes the cell to expand slightly, so epola-stuff pushes back, inwardly, on the “visitor”.

This “push-back” is an example of what J. A. Wheeler [Ref.#24] was talking about when he said that “matter tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move”.   The nucleus of an atom (a collection of protons + neutrons) is a bit of “matter” inside an epola-cell, which is a bit of “space”.  The “space” expands a bit, due to the presence of a bit of “matter” — the nucleus.  The firm “push-back” from the epo-lattice tells the nucleus to “stay together, you little rascal !!!”  Perhaps this “push-back” from epola-stuff helps hold the protons + neutrons in an atom’s nucleus together ??  Details in CHAPTER 7.

?? WHAT DID EINSTEIN THINK ??

Even Einstein was not able to visualize very well what was happening with tiny objects.  I once read that he said that his general theory of relativity was built on a solid rock and brick foundation re interactions between large objects like galaxies + stars, but was “built on a foundation of straw” re tiny objects such as protons.  I am deeply thankful to Dr. Simhony for helping me to visualize this in a way which Einstein never could, though he would have wanted to, I reckon !!

Some physics writers say that Einstein did not believe that any kind of “ether” {“aether”} or ether-like substance exists in our universe, but that is just simply not correct.  Following are two [2] quotes from the great man, one from 1894 or 1895, (when he was only 15 or 16 years old !!), and the other from 1920 —–when he was super-famous:  evidently, he initially believed that “aether” exists, because most 19th century scientists accepted and/or believed that “aether” exists;  then for a while he evidently doubted the existence of “aether” — but, evidently, by 1920 had come back to believing in its existence.

Note:  both of the Einstein-quotes are appropriate for modern folks, today, who want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth re these mysteries:  because some of the smartest and most respected “authorities” in physics have —(for several generations, since the 1930s)— been saying (and teaching grad-students, world-wide) that there is no “aether” [“ether”] or aether-like stuff in our universe.

Quote from 1894 or 1895:  “When the electric current comes into being, it immediately sets the surrounding aether in some kind of instantaneous motion, the nature of which has still not been exactly determined.  In spite of the continuation of the cause of this motion, namely the electric current, the motion ceases, but the aether remains in a potential state and produces a magnetic field … the magnetic field is a potential state [of the aether] —–Einstein, age 15 or 16  { from the web-site at: http://www.straco.ch/papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf }.

Note:  the clear and articulate style of the quote (above) indicates one reason why Einstein became so famous:  because, in science, communicatuin is very important, and he was a good communicator.

Quote from 1920:  in 1920, when he was 40 years old and super-famous, Einstein gave a speech at the University of Leiden, in Holland, at the invitation of his friend Paul Ehrenfest:  here’s what he said, in the LAST PARAGRAPH of that speech:“Recapitulating … According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable;  for in such space there … would be no propagation of light“  —–Einstein, 1920 {from the web-site at:  http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm}.

Recapulating:  anybody who quotes Einstein to try to “prove” that there is no “aether” {“ether”} or aether-like substance in our universe just simply hasn’t done his or her homework !!

MORE DETAILs RE DR.SIMHONY’s “EPOLA”
19th century scientists (Maxwell, Faraday, Hertz, Helmholtz, Lorentz, Heaviside, etc. — these were very smart guys) intuitively reasoned [“reckoned”] that there must be something in the “outer-space” between our earth and our sun to conduct the sun’s light + other energies to us.  Likewise for star light:  they reckoned that a substance which they called “aether” probably permeates the vastly large interstellar spaces in our universe:  they reckoned that this stuff might be like ocean water conducting ocean-waves:  the water doesn’t GO anywhere, but merely OSCILLATEs, back and forth, and/or around and around.  
At this point one can INSERT two [2] NOTEs:
 
NOTE1:  Physicists know that ocean-water, which consists of zillions + zillions of UNBOUND tiny objects (i.e., water-molecules), transmits waves thru itself MAINLY by a physical process called COMPRESSION or LONGITUDINAL-OSCILLATION:  a water-molecule gets hit by one toward its left, and then hits the next one, toward its right, assuming that the waves are moving left to right.  However, a substance whose tiny objects are BOUND into some kind of structure, such as salt crystals, can transmit waves by the physical process of LATERAL or TRANSVERSE OSCILLATION, in which the tiny objects vibrate or oscillate in a direction which is perpendicular to the direction in which the waves move.
NOTE2:  Some of the guys + gals who hold PhDs might have a problem with the idea that energy moves thru “outer-space” as waves, because this idea was officially “discontinued” approximately 1930, and is presently not part of the accepted view in physics:  the so called “standard model”.  Before I “discovered” Simhony’s work, I explained to people that “photons” are not waves, but more like little bullets, as I think Einstein visualized them.  After I “discovered” Simhony, I went back to visualizing them as waves — of a very special kind,  too difficult to detail here.  More details in APPENDIX10.
 
OCEAN-WAVEs  CARRY  ENERGY  —–  NOT  WATER 
 

I.e.:  the water doesn’t GO anywhere, but the waves DO go places, very far, and carry large amounts of energy, which is obvious to anybody who has ever seen ocean-waves breaking on a beach.

The main difference between 19th century science’s “aether” and Simhony’s “epola” —(“electron-positron lattice”)— is this:  19th century scientists visualized their “aether” as being thin and wispy, and therefore able to SWIRL, like wind-currents:  the very word (aethereal or ethereal) should inform one of this important fact:  even some of the folks who are aware of Simhony’s model just simply don’t GET the important idea that the stuff just simply DOES NOT SWIRL;  and also —{[ in GERMAN, “also” means “therefore” ]}— the stuff does not get dragged along behind a moving moon or planet, as some 19th-century scientists speculated:  because (again: this is IMPORTANT) each of the many zillions of elements which compose the epo-lattice is STRONGLY BOUND to its position in the lattice.

Though “stiffer than a diamond”, the epo-lattice is able to transmit energy-vibrations, (i.e., “photons”), through itself at the fabulous fabled “speed of light”, because it’s both “stiff” and “elastic”.  And these vibrations, (called “photons”), carry energy, similar to how ocean-waves carry energy.  And there is no contradiction between the words “stiff” and “elastic”.

For example:  when two billiard-balls collide, they deform slightly, and then bounce apart:  if they were not “elastic”, then they would not deform and bounce back like they do.  For one more example:  if one throw a rock at a barn-door, then it bounces back, because the door deforms slightly when the rock hits it, then bounces back, so that the rock also bounces back:  because the barn-door is “elastic”.  In both cases, an object which seems “stiff” turns out to be also “elastic”.  One needs to understand that the epola in Simhony’s model is both “stiff” and “elastic”.

Only if one understands that can one understand how the epo-lattice might be responsible for the existence of GRAVITY.  In fact, the great and famous James Clerk Maxwell  “considered  the possibility of explaining gravity in terms of his electromagnetic theory, but abandoned the attempt after realizing that he would then have to ascribe an enormous intrinsic energy to the ether” [p.4, Ref.#17]. 

Please note that this is exactly what Simhony has done, and that Simhony was aware that Maxwell had also considered this explanation for gravity, because he includes the above Maxwell-quote in frequently asked question #8 on one of his internet-sites [Ref.#2]:     http://www.EPOLA.co.uk/faq/FAQ.htm#faq8 …

Here is an easy way to describe Dr.Simhony’s explanation for gravity, simply and quickly:  GRAVITY DOESN’T PULL — IT PUSHES:
What happens is that each atomic nucleus of “ordinary” matter in our universe causes the electron-positron lattice [epo-lattice] in its immediate neighborhood to expand a tiny bit;  so a large collection of atomic nuclei (such as a moon or planet or star) causes the epo-lattice in the space which it occupies to expand, by an amount proportional to the number of atomic nuclei present;  i.e., by an amount proportional to the mass of the object.  Because the lattice itself is “stiffer than a diamond”, this means that, in the region BETWEEN a moon and a planet, the lattice also expands, slightly, so that it is slightly less dense in that in-between region.  So the epo-lattice which surrounds BOTH objects, being slightly more dense, pushes inwardly on the two objects, so they “GRAVITATE” toward each other.
That’s all there is to it:  no fancy maths:  only common sense:  to me, this explanation is so simple that it feels like it’s probably correct.
For more details, go to Simhony’s published books and papers [Refs. #2 + #2a].  Plus: in CHAPTER 11 there’s some evidence from NASA [National Aeronautics & Space Administration] that Simhony’s model might be correct.
$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF INTRODUCTION2 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

“One needs to keep a sense of awe + wonder in one’s heart + mind re these mysteries:  otherwise, one might feel like a one-legged man (or woman) in a butt-kicking contest”  —–the author

I once read that Einstein said that he worked on his Special Theory of Relativity for 10 years, starting at age 16, and finishing at age 26, in 1905.  In fact, Einstein wrote one of his first papers, (i.e., “essays”), when he was only 15 or 16 years old,  regarding the “aether”.  It’s still appropriate today, due, in part, to the fact that, for several generations, the most respected leaders in the physics community have taught grad students at universities, world-wide, that “aether” does not exist.

There’s more re this in the INTRODUCTION2 and FOREWORDs #3 sections of these essays:  right now, I’ll tell you a little bit re myself:

AMAZINGLY, and HAPPILY, and THANKFULLY, due to my strong desire to know the TRUTH regarding how “MOTHER NATURE” works, [or, if you’re religious, re how “GOD” works], I’ve discovered the work of two physicists who worked many years developing two theories [i.e., “models”] to explain some of the mysteries of our universe which the so called “standard model” just simply cannot explain.  Sadly, they are almost unknown:  not only to the general public, but also to their colleagues in the physics community.

Though they never worked together, and though each was probably not aware of the work of the other, their two models support and affirm each other:  Dr. Ernest Sternglass’s model explains how protons work, and the origin of “quasars”, (some times called “gamma-ray bursters”), which are the most powerful energy sources in our entire known universe.  Dr. Menahem Simhony has discovered a good way to explain details regarding a kind of “stuff” in our universe which is similar to, but also quite different from, the “aether” in which most of the heavy-hitters of 19th-century physics believed, but which somehow, for historical reasons, went out of style during the first half of the 20th century.  Though Simhony would prefer that we call this stuff “EPOLA” — short for “electron-positron lattice”, rather than “aether”.  He says that this amazing stuff, this “epola” or “epo-lattice” enables both radiation and gravitation to happen !!

To make a long story shorter:  due to my “discovery” of these two almost unknown retired physicists, I now know some of the truths regarding how nature works, while many guys + gals who hold PhDs are almost totally clueless.  Because the so-called “standard model” just simply does not cover some of the amazing discoveries which Sternglass and Simhony have made.

And, though I know that some readers will be quite skeptical re this claim, Sternglass and Simhony are NOT “crack-pots”.  Far from it:  during the past 7 years, since I started studying physics, I’ve developed the ability to DISCERN crack-pottery from, {[ like ]}, a mile away … really.  In the FORE-WORDs section I give one obvious example re true crack-pottery:  i.e., the claim that INTERSTELLAR ELECTRIC CURRENTS power our sun:  this is NONSENSE:  though strong interstellar electric currents DO exist in OTHER parts of our universe, [google “BIRKLAND CURRENTS”], they definitely do NOT power our sun !!

MORE RE ME:

DURING 2006, astronomers observed a SUPERNOVA explosion [SN2006gy] which was, evidently, one of the most powerful SN-explosions ever observed.  A super-DUPER-nova explosion.  So the story appeared in many newspapers, world-wide, and all the news stories agreed that a very massive star, ( > 100x the mass of our sun), and very far away, ( > 100 million light-years away), had collapsed + exploded, so far away from us that when the event happened, dinosaurs still roamed around on planet earth, and humans had not yet evolved.  That’s how long the light needed to travel from there to here !!

{[ One needs to keep a sense of awe and wonder … re these mysteries … ]}

What really attracted my attention were reports that this explosion had produced EQUAL NUMBERS of electronss + positrons, along with powerful gamma rays.

In other words, at intense heat and pressure, positrons are just as natural as electrons, despite the fact that many book writers say that “we live in a matter-dominated universe.”  I.e., though some folks try to characterize them as “anti” matter, there’s really nothing at all “anti” about positrons.

Even then I knew that gamma-rays + electrons + positrons are, {( like )}, the equivalent of “smithereens” in physics:  it seemed that much of the mass of this large star had been converted to “smithereens” — blasted and/or crushed into the smallest possible pieces of itself.  And the fact that there were equal numbers of electrons + positrons made me want to learn more.  Electrons were familiar to me, after studying chemistry at the University of Delaware.

But, like many non-scientists, I was NOT QUITE SURE what positrons are.  So I re-activated my childhood interest in astronomy, and started reading books re astrophysics.  This quickly led me to NUCLEAR physics, and all the physics in between.

During May of 2009 I discovered Dr. Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1].  This fortunate discovery has made Dr. Sternglass my main physics-mentor.  Approx. a year later I discovered the work of Dr. Simhony, [(also Jewish, as was Einstein, and some of the smartest guys in physics)], on the world-famous internet [Ref.#2].  Since then I’ve been working to BLEND the models which these two elders created.

Sternglass and Simhony retired many years ago, and Sternglass died recently, on 12 February 2015, at age 91.  Several months later, Simhony, too, passed away, aged 93.  I feel like I’ve picked up their models and run with them.  I had several phone-conversations with Sternglass, in which he urged me to continue studying physics;  plus, he expressed pleasure at knowing that others are following his line of inquiry into these mysteries.

Since discovering his book [Ref.#1] almost 6 years ago, in the main library, downtown, in Berkeley, California, USA, this study-project has become the main passion of my life:  if I’d had this kind of passion for my studies at the University of Delaware (B.S., computer science, 1971), then my life-after-university would (no doubt) have been somewhat different.  As a result of my intense study of the two models which Sternglass + Simhony created, and many other sources, I can now hold a physics conversation with anybody, regardless of how many PhDs they have, though I’m a mere amateur.

At first, I treated Sternglass’s book like some Christians treat the BIBLE:  i.e., as revealed wisdom, regarding which I had no way to say for sure if any of it might be incorrect.  Since then, during the past almost-6 years, I’ve learned much more than I ever knew re this challenging and complex subject of study, so that I can now say which parts of Sternglass’s model might be wrong.

Specifically, regarding his “MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE” for the rapidly rotating [i.e.: “orbiting” or “oscillating”] little rascals (electron + positron) in an electron-positron pair in his model:  he says that the centers of the electric charges (one positive, one negative) cannot approach nearer to each other than approx 0.7 x 10^(-13) cm;  [i.e., 0.7 x 10^(-15) meter].  In my modification of his model, I propose that, in fact, they might be as near to each other as approx. 17x less than that:  i.e.: approx 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm;  [approx. 4.1 x 10^(-17) meter].

NOTE1:  re the (approx. 17) factor above:  This is the square root of the ratio between the mass of a pi-meson and that of an electron.

NOTE2:  Sternglass applies his “minimum approach distance” to ep-pairs whose mass is approx. that of a pi-meson, while the much shorter one in my model applies to ep-pairs whose mass is (following Simhony) the “rest-mass” of a single electron (or positron), which is much less than that of a pi-meson.

Since discovering the models of Sternglass and Simhony, I’ve been working to BLEND them, to create a third model, by making a few slight modifications to each of their two models:  Chapters 4 and 5 and 15 in this series of essays contain three [3] “test-able” predictions of this new model, which represents the ideas of 2 PhD-holders (Sternglass + Simhony) plus those of a talented amateur (myself):  I feel like this  [ !!NEW!! ]  model explains, clearly and logically, some of the difficult mysteries of this challenging + competitive subject of study, and sincerely hope that you will agree !!

Sincerely,  Mark “truth-lover” Creek-water Dorazio,  ApE (amateur physics-enthusiast),  Princeton, New Jersey and Little Falls, New Jersey, USA,  2015;  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF AUTHOR-INTRODUCTION >> $$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

Advertisements

One comment on “PREFACE + INTRODUCTIONs

  1. Pingback: BOOK-TITLE: HOW PROTONs WORK: ESSAYS RE THE WORK OF DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on December 28, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: