QUOTE:  “Der Herr Gott ist sehr raffiniert, aber ist er nicht boshaft”   —–Einstein  {translation at the start of CHAPTER 7}


DEAR PHYSICS ENTHUSIASTs:  re the question which is the title of this essay:  I think that everybody in the entire known universe who ever studied physics will agree that it is one of the most mysterious of the many mysterious mysteries in physics.  It must be especially difficult for a physicist who believes in a personal GOD to understand why HE or SHE or IT would “create” this very confusing mystery, knowing that some of the humans whom he or she or it also “created” would be pulling their hair out trying to solve this very mysterious mystery !!  {( Just kidding:  in fact I reckon that “GOD” has got nothing to do with this mystery !! )}

In fact, I would like to think that if I can persuade you that I know the answer to this mysterious mystery, then you will recommend me for a Nobel prize;  becuz I sure can use a million bucks, OK ??   {( Just kidding:  my REAL passion for writing this essay is to try to help folks to learn the TRUTH !! )}

On a wall inside the physics building at the University of Delaware, where I was many years ago a student, there is a large photograph, (from the Hubble space-telescope, I think), which shows a part of our universe where there are many big lots of galaxies:  some of them are so far away that (in the photo) one can’t see any individual stars:  instead, each one looks like a tiny bacterium looks, if one views it under a microscope:  even a very powerful microscope does not reveal any individual atoms in a bacterium, though one knows that they are in there.

Similarly, in the photo, one can’t see any individual stars in a galaxy, tho one knows that they are in there !!

{[ Interestingly, there are approximately as many stars in an average galaxy as there are atoms in an average bacterium.  I forget how many, but I did do the calculation, several years ago.  Please, just simply trust me — there are approximately the same number of atoms in a single bacterium as there are stars in a galaxy ]}

That is an amazing statement (above), yet it’s true.  One might want to pause here a little bit and think and/or meditate re that amazing statement.

I feel that one of the great strengths of Sternglass’s model is that it treats our universe as a microbiologist might treat a bacteria culture in his or her biology lab:  as if the patterns of stars and galaxies in our universe are not random, but a reflection of the idea that all the “cosmological systems” [“cosmo.systs”] [p.234, Ref.#1] in his model initially grow like bacteria, by a divide-in-half process.  So their sizes and numbers and locations are determined by (1) the initial size of the electromagnetic field of the “primeval atom” [p.2, Ref.#1] and (2) the total amount of mass/energy in it, as Sternglass details in the book.

In other words, just as a biologist might expect his or her bacteria culture to grow a while and then slow down, and stop, when the container becomes “full”, Sternglass’s model predicts specific sizes and numbers and arrangements for “cosmo.systs”, based on the very large, yet finite, total size and energy content of the “primeval atom” — analogous to the amount of space and nutrition available to bacteria in a biology experiment.

In this way, Sternglass’s visualization helps one to deal with the intimidating “mental hurdle” of trying to visualize how very large systems, such as galaxies and galaxy clusters, behave.  His model, which he once described to me, by phone, as being “self-consistent”, enables one to view our entire universe, as if it were in a little display case in a physics lab.  To do this, he had some help from two of the greatest geniuses of 20th-century physics:  Einstein, whom he visited with in 1947 at the great man’s little house in Princeton, NJ, talking re physics and philosophy in their first language (German);  and Paul Dirac, who was around for many years during Sternglass’s career, and died in 1984.

In his book [Ref.#1] Sternglass describes how he used a slight modification of Dirac’s so called “large numbers hypothesis” [one can google this phrase for details] to derive a very elegant, and theoretical, way to calculate the mass of our universe.

The math formula [p.265, Ref.#1] —{be careful: there’s a TYPO in the book}— is:  (Mu) / (Me) = (Mu) / (Mp) = [ (K x Qe x Qp) / (G x Me x Mp) ]^2   where “Mu” is the mass of our universe, “Me” is the mass of one electron, “Mp” is the mass of one positron, “K” is Coulomb’s electrostatic constant, “Qe”is the electric charge of one electron, “Qp”is the electric charge of one positron, and “G” is Newton’s gravitational constant.  {( Note: solving this equation gives a mass of approx. 15,810,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams  for our universe );  ie, approx. 1.581 x 10^(58) grams)}

{NOTE: this numeric value of  is approx. 100x greater than the mass of our universe which one usually sees in books + papers + essays which address this issue:  this is “consistent with the evidence that only about one percent of the mass of the universe is in visible form” [Sternglass, p.210, Ref.1]}

Please read the math formula (above) carefully:  the “Mp” (above) is the mass of a positron,  not a proton;   of course, it’s not necessary to use both “Me” and “Mp” in the formula, because they are exactly equivalent.

And “Qe” and “Qp”, too, are equivalent.  The reason why I write the formula this way is to emphasize that Sternglass’s model is about electron-positron PAIRS:  in fact, he calls it “The Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter”.  In this model, electron-positron pairs are the main constituent of both protons and neutrons:  so he busts the myth that, (as physics book writers love to say), “we live in a matter-dominated universe” — because we don’t !!  In fact, if I were a positron, then I would seriously resent being called “anti” !!  Really.

Because, according to Sternglass’s Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter, there are exactly  as many electrons [(“MATTER”)] in our universe as there are positrons [(“ANTI-MATTER”)]:  because the positrons [i.e., so called “anti-matter”] are {( ?? HIDDEN ?? )} inside the protons + neutrons which compose ordinary atomic nuclei  — because most of the mass of protons and neutrons is in the four electron-positron pairs in each proton or neutron, according to Sternglass’s model.

This is why astronomers reported that the very massive and energetic supernova explosion observed in 2006 [SN2006gy] produced equal numbers of high-energy electrons + positrons:  because protons + neutrons contain equal numbers of electrons + positrons, if one counts the odd electron which is usually hanging out somewhere nearby the proton.  Evidently this extremely powerful event blasted and/or crushed many many protons + neutrons down into the smallest possible parts of themselves — the speedy electrons + speedy positrons which compose them, according to Sternglass [p.250, Ref.#1].

===>> {NOTE:  nobody has ever observed any “quarks” in a physics-lab [pp. 323 + 324, Ref.#17]} <<===

My point here is that Dr.Sternglass, in his search for the truth, has “busted” some of the myths which many guys + gals with PhDs have been indoctrinated to believe.  e.g., that we live in “a matter-dominated universe.”

{In his book, he also “busts” the so called “double-slit experiment” — which appears in many physics textbooks.  Please read the book to learn how he does this — Before the Big Bang (1997) is available at, where there are > a dozen reviews of it, most of them positive}

     ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***


Well:  In Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1], he says that our universe initially consisted of a single very large and very massive entity:  the “primeval atom” of the model of Georges Lemaitre [Ref.#1b], which one can google for details.   He says that the electromagnetic field of this “monster” was, essentially, the size of our universe.  He says that its humongous EM-field divided in half, and each of the 2 halfs divided in half, and each of those pieces divided in half, and so on, until there were zillions of tiny pieces, each with the mass of approximately five [5] protons.

At this point (or soon after) there was a “phase transition”:  zillions of the little rascals re-configured, in a way which led to the formation (one wants to say “creation”) of many zillions of neutrons, most of which quickly “decayed” — forming many zillions of protons.  Analogous to the phase transition which happens when water freezes and forms ice, this phase transition released lots of energy — enough to power a “BIG BANG”.


During the divide-in-half scenario which preceded the “big bang”, (which I call the “countdown to the big bang”), the masses and sizes of the systems involved in it became smaller and smaller and smaller as the pieces of the “primeval atom” divided in half, again + again + again.  Sternglass calls these pieces “cosmological systems” regardless of their size or mass.  In his “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1] he lists “Masses, sizes, and rotational periods of cosmological systems predicted by the electron[-positron] pair model of matter.”



This is a concept which every Physics-101 textbook in the entire known universe explains:   one can define it as the (mass) x (velocity) x (radius) of a rotating or orbiting system.  Each of the “cosmological systems” in Sternglass’s model consists of an electron + a positron, which “rotate” or “orbit” around each other, each moving at almost the speed of light.  {Alternatively, one can visualize this as a very rapid electrical oscillation}.  The radius is the distance between the center of the electron’s electric charge and the center of the positron’s electric charge.  The mass is that of the entire system, which is much more than the “rest mass” of an electron + a positron:  because the little rascals are NOT resting, but moving at ALMOST the speed of light.  Sternglass lists mass and radius data for many differently-sized systems in his “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1].

The tricky part about calculating the angular momentum [often called “spin”] of such a system is to realize that the e and the p are moving at a speed of almost  two times the speed of light  with respect to each other.  So one needs to use [2 x c], not [c], for the velocity.

Using the numbers in Sternglass’s “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1], one can calculate the angular momentum of each of the systems involved in the “countdown to the big bang”.  For the large cosmological systems, the angular momentums are much too large to represent anything which a physicist might consider a “particle”.  However:  when one gets down to the size and mass of an ordinary, sub-atomic, “particle”, one finds that the angular momentum has a “normal” value:  i.e., a value which one can associate with a “normal” sub-atomic “particle”.  For a “normal” “particle”, one usually expects an of either (0) or +(1/2) or -(1/2) or +(1) or -(1) or +(3/2) or -(3/2) or +(2) or -(2) …

{[ Of course, when one mentions that an has a numeric value of (1), one really means (1) x (Planck’s constant) / 2x(pi) … likewise with all the other “spin” numbers above, whether they be whole or fractional numbers:  one needs to multiply by (Planck’s constant) / 2x(pi) some times called “h-bar”) ]}

So a “spin-1 system” has an angular momentum of approx. 6.6261 x 10^(-27) erg.sec / 2x(pi), which is equivalent-to approx. 1.0546 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm …



Using Sternglass’s “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1], one can calculate both the RADIUS and the MASS of a “cosmological system” whose angular momentum is  2 x {(Planck’s constant) / 2x(pi)},  which is equivalent to 2.1092 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm.  And one can refer to this “system” as a “SPIN-2 system”.

Please refer to CHAPTER 4 for details re the actual calculation, which involves solving two easy math equations simultaneously.  When one does the calculation, one finds that this particular —{( pun intended )}— “Sternglass cosmological system” has a mass of approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram and a radius of approx. 8.677 x 10^(-14) cm.

To CHECK the calculation, one can multiply [4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram] x [5.9958 x 10^(10) cm/sec] x [8.677 x 10^(-14) cm], and find that it equals [2.1092 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm], which is equivalent to  2 x {(plank’s constant) / 2x(pi)}.  So it’s a spin-2 system.  Note: 2 x (speed of light) = approx. 5.9958 x 10^(10) cm/sec.



Please note that the calculated radius, above, is very-close to the measured “radius of the proton” — which experiments have determined, by a variety of methods, to be in the range of between approx. 8.42 x 10^(-14) cm and approx. 8.97 x 10^(-14) cm.  CODATA-value is given as approx. 8.768 x 10^(-14) cm [Ref.#20].  Please also note that one calculated this numeric value by using easy maths, (i.e., high school algebra), from Sternglass’s theory, with none of the fiendishly difficult maths for which quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is famous.

Regarding the calculated mass (above):  it’s approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram.  WHAT MIGHT THIS BE ??

Well, in Sternglass’s proton model [p.250, Ref.#1], each proton consists of four [4] electron-positron pairs, and an unpaired positron at the proton’s center.  Please note that nobody has ever observed any “quarks” in a physics lab [pp. 323 + 324, Ref.#17].  As already mentioned:  Sternglass says that each cosmological system in his model consists of an electron-positron pair.  Note that the total mass of four [4] of the cosmological systems [i.e., ep-pairs] in the calculation above is approximately equal to that of 1780 electrons, which is almost equal to the known mass of the proton.  Perhaps the unpaired positron at the proton’s center provides the remainder of the proton’s mass.  Perhaps this is why the proton’s mass is approx. that of 1836 electrons.



The cosmological system [cosmo.syst] in Sternglass’s Table 1 [p.234, Ref.#1] whose angular momentum makes it a “spin-2” system has a mass of approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram.

{ Note: this number does not appear in “Table 1”, as he presents it in the book, but one can extend the table to include it.  Just remember to multiply the radius by the fine-structure constant, (i.e., to divide it by 137.036), to account for the “relativistic shrinkage” of the tiny cosmo.systs near the end of the table }

Four [4] of these particular [pun-intended] cosmo.systs have a total mass which is almost the known mass of the proton;  i.e., a total mass of approx. 1.6217 x 10^(-24) gram:  i.e., a total mass of approx. 1780 electrons.  Perhaps the positron at the proton’s center (which carries the proton’s net electric charge) has a mass of approx. 56 electrons, for a total mass of approx. 1836 electrons ??

So one can say that perhaps the reason why the proton’s mass is approx. that of 1836 electrons is because four spin-2 electron-positron pairs, {i.e., “Sternglass.cosmo.systs”}, plus an unpaired positron-at-the-center, is the most stable combination of these objects possible.

Perhaps a physicist with greater knowledge re these mysteries can explain more of the details re why this is the most stable combination of these objects possible ??

QUESTION:  how did Einstein help Sternglass develop his theory/model ??   ANSWER:  E. advised S. to always have a “day job” to pay his bills, to allow him to work on developing his theory/model during his free time, so he could “make his mistakes in private”.

Sincerely, Mark Creek-water Dorazio;  amateur physics enthusiast;  Princeton, NJ, USA;  12 January 2015

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 8 >> $$$$$$$$$$$


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 January 12, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: