**CHAPTER 11: WHAT IS** **THE “PIONEER ANOMALY” ??**

**“I had too much stuff … my machines came from too far away” —Richard Feynman, re the failure of his presentation at the Pocono Manor Conference, March+April 1948 {details in CHAPTER 14}**

Recently I was explaining Dr. Simhony’s theory to an individual who had expressed interest in it, and he asked me: “Is there any **proof** of this ??” This prompted me to tell him about the so called “Pioneer anomaly” — and also to realize that I might want to say something about it in my book. This essay is the result.

Many years ago, starting in the early 1970s, the folks at **NASA [National Aeronautics & Space Administration]** launched a series of spacecraft toward other planets in our solar system, to learn more about them, and about some of their moons.

They eventually launched more than a dozen spacecraft in two programs known as **Pioneer **and **Voyager. ** Though these missions were very successful, at least four of them, (Pioneers 10 + 11, and Voyagers 1 + 2), became notorious for an interesting reason, which became known as “the Pioneer anomaly.”

It seems that, as the spacecraft went farther and farther from earth, the radio signals which they sent back to earth started arriving sooner than expected. Not by much: only by a tiny fraction of a second, but enough to alert scientists that something unexpected and unpredicted was happening.

Why would the radio signals arrive too soon ?? Were the spacecraft moving more slowly than expected, for some unknown reason ?? Many individuals in the physics community became passionate in their efforts to learn the reason for this “anomaly”. According to a book published in 2008, ** “every month, one or two new papers appear that espouse some exotic explanation for the Pioneer anomaly” [p.42, Ref.#37: Thirteen Things That Don’t Make Sense (2008) by Michael Brooks].**

It seems that most of the folks who have tried to solve this mystery have automatically assumed what NASA engineers assumed (that the spacecraft are moving more slowly than expected), when there is an obvious second possibility: perhaps radio signals move a bit faster in the more “empty” regions of our solar system out beyond the large planets, as Dr. Simhony says.

This is what the Pioneer anomaly is all about: it’s a** current mystery **** in physics, which the standard model can’t explain, because the standard model (as many physicists interpret it) says that the speed of light (and radio signals) in a vacuum is exactly the same, everywhere in our universe.

**** NOTE: though one knows that several years ago a team of researchers published a paper which is supposed to be the “definitive” explanation for the anomaly, based on the space craft slowing down due to the actions of some on-board systems which were designed for a different purpose, one does not believe this explanation, in the same sense that one does not generally believe government lies.**

The fact that our scientists have astoundingly accurate electronic technology, enabling them to measure the tiny time differences involved, is a tribute to their amazing intelligence and skill. But the explanation for the “mystery” might be more simple than expected, if Dr. Simhony’s model is correct.

As already mentioned: the model predicts that in a region of space which is emptier (less dust, gas, etc.), the binding energy, (and therefore the “stiffness”), of the local epo-lattice will be slightly greater, and the speed of radio signals out there will also be slightly greater, because a stiffer lattice will conduct radio signals slightly faster.

As it says on the “Simhony tribute” web-site, with some nice brightly colored schematic diagrams: “Test data of the Shapiro effect … exactly validates the EPOLA-model prediction that light [and radio signals] traveling in the less dense, expanded, EPOLA, near massive objects will be reduced in speed … the Speed of Light in a vacuum is NOT constant !” …

Plus: “If this is the case, then the reverse ought also to be true … [radio signals] traveling in deep space at distances far remote from our sun should travel FASTER, due to the more densely packed, elastically stiffer, properties of the EPOLA in this region of the universe … the bewildering Pioneer 10 and 11 anomaly, where radio-signals were returning to earth TOO SOON [i.e., sooner than expected], has been solved! Without Simhony’s model, some scientists have gone so far as to consider that the law of gravity as we know it [might] be wrong.”

From the same internet-site: “Google ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ and you will be amazed at the bewilderment of scientists all over the world when not ONE but TWO different spacecraft began doing the same thing as they proceeded further and further out into deep space” **[ http://simhonytribute.webs.com/ ].**

So it looks like NASA has provided some unexpected support for Dr.Simhony’s model. As Dr. Brooks says in his book, quoted above, the Pioneer anomaly “might [be] a sign of impending crisis … our current picture of the cosmos might have to change in the near future” **[p.45, Ref.#37].**

The “impending crisis” in physics has been growing for > 80 years, ever since the folks who developed what we now call “the standard model” decided to officially discontinue the idea of “ether” or “aether” or any kind of ether-like substance in our universe. Since the 1930s, professors in university physics departments, world-wide, have taught grad-students that there is no ether or ether-like substance in our universe.

In 1997 Dr. Girard t’Hooft published a book titled **In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks. ** Based on my reading, and also on seeing him in a youtube video, I feel that t’Hooft is one of the more open-minded of the PhD-holders who believe in the standard model. In 1999 he shared a Nobel prize with Dr. Martin Veltman: below is a quote from p.75 in his book:

**“Veltman was very skeptical … it was not easy to convince him that what we call empty space is actually filled with invisible particles … He said [that these would] betray their presence by their gravitational fields.” **

Exactly !! Simhony says that the “invisible particles” which fill space, (to which d’Hooft refers in the quote directly above, and which Simhony calls “epola”), are the **cause **of gravity, exactly as the mysterious “Higgs bosons” are supposed (by standard model believers) to be. Though they themselves do not have any weight, and therefore do not “betray their presence by their gravitational fields,” yet they **“gift” **[Simhony’s word] gravitational fields [i.e., “weight”] to everything else. Exactly as the “Higgs field” is supposed to do. Perhaps they are equivalent ??

Betraying his own lack of familiarity with Simhony’s model, Dr. t’Hooft continues: **Exactly how nature does manage to mask these gravity effects so efficiently and completely that we fail to notice anything at all is a mystery” [p.75, Ref. 40].**

Perhaps Dr. Simhony has already solved this mystery ??

**########### << END OF CHAPTER 11 >> ###########**

**CHAPTER 12: WHAT IS “MAGNETIC TRAPPING”**

**“The proton [has] a complex structure, unlike the electron” [Sternglass, Ref.#1, p.114]**

As already mentioned: by the mid-1950s Sternglass and his colleagues at Stanford University, (i.e., Hofstadter and Neddermeyer), were convinced that protons + neutrons are “complex” objects. This is because they found evidence of electric + magnetic fields in several different places inside the little rascals, not concentrated at the center as one would expect for a “simple” object. **{ Note: Hofstadter received a Nobel Prize for this work, in 1961 }**

Because all of the stuff which they and other researchers produced in high-energy collisions involving protons and/or neutrons ultimately broke down (i.e., “decayed”) into electrons + positrons, Sternglass suspected that electrons + positrons might be the constituents of whatever internal “systems” produced the different electric + magnetic fields which they had observed (i.e., “measured”), inside protons + neutrons.

**“The evidence suggested to me, then and now, that the electron and the positron are the ultimate stable entities with which the universe began … the only truly indivisible elementary particles that have been observed in the lab since their discovery” [p. 207, Ref.#1].**

After devoting approx. half of his adult life to the monumentally challenging task of trying to discover what protons and neutrons look like, Sternglass published his proton/neutron model in 1997, in a book titled **Before the Big Bang [Ref.#1].**

In it, he visualizes the proton as consisting of four [4] electron-positron pairs, (also called “dipoles”), plus an unpaired positron at the center, the whole thing arranged to look like an upper-case letter **“H”. **There are 2 illustrations of this in the book, on pages 163 and 250. Sternglass says that each ep-pair has a strong magnetic field associated with it, analogous to planet earth’s magnetic field.

He says that the electric forces between electrons + positrons inside protons + neutrons are “relativistically increased” — due to their great speed, almost the speed of light. Alternatively one can visualize this as a very rapid electrical oscillation, with the understanding that electrons + positrons themselves are **pure electrical energy.**

He says that the positron at the center holds the 4 pairs together, by bouncing back and forth, from side to side, moving at almost light-speed. He says that, to do this, the unpaired positron must weigh approx. the same as 2 of the 4 pairs, which would be approx. 1/3 of the mass of the entire proton. Plus, he explains many more details, in a clear and realistic way, using easy maths, which anybody who likes math can understand.

In my search for a believable proton model, after studying Sternglass’s model very intensely, along with many other sources of information re this complex and challenging subject, I’ve made a few modifications to it.

For example, I now visualize the positron at the center as being much less massive than Sternglass does: in **CHAPTER 4 **I detail my reasons for believing that the little rascal contains only approx. 1/33 of the proton’s mass, while carrying **all** of its net electric-charge. Plus, I reckon that the proton’s shape (and also that of the neutron) might be similar to that of a **tetrahedron,** instead of Sternglass’s upper-case **“H”.**

**========>>> ASK YOUR-SELF: IF YOU WERE “GOD” —(or “MOTHER NATURE”)— WOULD YOU WANT TO USE THE STRONGEST AND MOST SIMPLE 3-DIMENTIONAL GEOMETRIC SHAPE TO CREATE A UNIVERSE ?? <<<======== **

Plus: instead of the relativistically increased dynamical forces which Sternglass uses to explain why protons are so stable, (i.e., to explain what holds them together), I now believe that **“magnetic trapping” **might be what holds the unpaired positron at the center, and in fact holds the entire proton or neutron together.

What is “magnetic trapping” ?? It’s a nifty little trick which physicists now know how to do in physics labs: they use **magnets** to hold charged (or uncharged) tiny things (such as atoms and sub-atomic “particles”) in place **[Refs. #21 + #22 + #23].** **Perhaps our “mother nature” already figured out how to do this, or something similar ??**

{Note: I first learned of magnetic trapping from an information display on the wall of a corridor in the physics building at the University of Delaware, where I was many years ago a student}

**MORE DETAILs, WHICH ARE NOT ABOUT MAGNETIC TRAPPING, BUT ARE STILL INTERESTING**

Dr. Simhony says that a proton or neutron entering an epola-cell causes that cell to expand a little bit, then return to normal after the little rascal exits. Of course the nucleus of an atom, which is a collection of protons + neutrons, does the same thing. Because atomic nuclei are always entering + exiting epola-cells, the ones in the path of an atomic nucleus will expand and then contract as the tiny nucleus passes through them. But, **because atoms are mostly empty space,** most of the epola-cells in our universe at any given moment are **not** affected significantly by moving atomic nuclei.

**ATOMs ARE MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE**

In America we have the football stadium analogy: if an atom’s nucleus were the size of a small marble, on the 50-yard line, then the atom itself would be almost as big as the entire stadium. In Europe the book writers often refer to a cathedral to illustrate this: if the atom were the size of a cathedral, then the atom’s nucleus would be approx. the size of a single rosary bead in the hands of a woman sitting in the first pew.

The main idea here is that protons + neutrons contain ep-pairs which are continuously and continually interacting with the ep-pairs which constitute the epo-lattice — i.e., the “epola” of Dr. Simhony’s model.

**Simhony calls his model “the electron-positron lattice model of space” — while Sternglass calls his “the electron-positron pair model of matter.”**

The ep-pairs which constitute the epo-lattice are much smaller and much less massive than those in protons and neutrons, but they are much more dense.

And there are obviously many many many many more of the electron-positron pairs (“dipoles”) which constitute the lattice, compared to the number of ep-pairs in ordinary stuff, i.e., in protons + neutrons. Because the lattice is everywhere in our universe, while protons + neutrons are, by comparison, “few and far-between.” To illustrate this, one might write the word “many” 42 times: because if Dr. Simhony is correct, then there is in our universe approx. 10^(42) times as much epola-stuff as ordinary stuff.

However, ironically, the epola-stuff has no weight, or mass, because the epo-lattice is what “gifts” (Simhony’s word) mass, and therefore weight, to ordinary stuff — **EXACTLY AS THE SO CALLED “HIGGS FIELD” IS SUPPOSED TO DO, **according to the standard model. Perhaps they’re actually the same thing ??

**SUMMARY**

Magnetic trapping might be what holds individual protons and neutrons together.

**########### << END OF CHAPTER 12 >> ###########**

**CHAPTER 13: PhD-HOLDERs SLAM THE STANDARD MODEL**

**“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” — Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, 1967**

As a child I read many astronomy books. When I first started this physics study project, almost 10 years ago, I naively assumed that scientists had by now worked out most of the details re how nature works, and that I would be able to learn them just simply by finding and reading a few library books re this challenging and interesting subject of study.

I quickly learned that this is not so, and that, in fact, there are dozens, (perhaps hundreds), of competing theories and/or models out there, and that nobody knows for sure if **any** of them are correct.

The main purpose of this series of essays is to publicize and promote the work of two almost unknown theorists, who are almost unknown —(**not** because they are “crack-pots” — which they are **not,** but … )— because of how difficult it is to get one’s paper published in a “reputable” physics journal if it differs too radically from the officially approved model, the so-called “standard model”.

Please note that, as a young man, Sternglass’s papers were published in some of the most reputable journals, such as the **Physical Review** (1961) [**Ref.#1a] **and the **Bulletin of the American Physical Society **(1963, 1965) **[Ref.#42b] **and the **International Journal of Theoretical Physics** (1978) **[Ref.#42e].**

It was only as specific details of his theory [i.e., his “model”] began to differ from the standard model’s details, that he had trouble trying to get papers published, as he tells about in his book, **Before the Big Bang (1997, 2001), [Ref.#1]. **Evidently there is a kind of **“catch-22”** in physics: a “peer review” system in which an “old guard” of well respected “authorities” and “referees” try to prevent the publication of papers which offer alternatives to the standard model. This automatic rejection of alternatives is similar to what **Galileo Galilei** famously experienced during the 1600s, when the authorities at that time threatened to excommunicate him if he refused to disavow his “radical” ideas.

**The Standard Model Is, to Say It Politely, “NOT QUITE RIGHT” **

But what gives to me, a mere amateur physics enthusiast, the capability to say that parts of the standard model might be wrong ??

Just this: for almost 10 years I’ve studied physics very intensely, and have read from some PhD-holders that the standard model might be a bit weak in some of the areas where it purports to explain the truth. So here are some quotes from PhD-holders, re these several weaknesses:

**“The standard model is like an aging movie star, whose best work is decades old, whose flaws once seemed slight, but are now becoming glaring.” That’s from Dr. Chris Impey, on page 298 of his book HOW IT BEGAN (2012) [Ref.#12] … **

In his book **The 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.’”**

Jim Baggott, who wrote the book **Farewell 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”.**

Plus: on p.137 in this same book: **“What kind of fundamental theory … can’t predict the masses of its constituent elementary particles ? Answer: one that is not very satisfying.” **And on p.259: **“Clearly, the notion that the entire universe is a hologram projected from information encoded on its boundary belongs firmly in the bucket labelled ‘fairy-tale physics’ ”. **

{ While the idea in the previous paragraph is not actually a part of the standard model, I’ve seen it in more than one book, and even as naive as I was, I reckoned that it must surely be nonsense !! }

In his book **Facts and Mysteries In Elementary Particle Physics (**2003), Martin Veltman did not even wish to acknowledge “supersymmetry”: **“The fact is … this is a book about physics, and this implies that the theoretical ideas discussed must be supported by experimental facts … neither supersymmetry nor string theory satisfy this criterion … they’re figments of the theoretical mind.”**

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)].**

Plus: on p.50, Laughlin says that ** “Scientists have ideological positions just like everyone else … sometimes the consequences are bizarre … the Schroedinger cat has … become a symbol of transcendence, a meaning exactly opposite to the one Schroedinger himself intended … often viewed by students as a step on the path to enlightenment … It is not … In science one becomes enlightened not by discovering ways to believe things that make no sense but by identifying things that one does not understand and doing experiments to clarify them.”**

And on p.216: **“Large experimental laboratories cannot get the continuous funding they need without defending their work … which they typically do by forming self-refereeing monopolies that define certain ideas and bodies of thought to be important, whether they actually are or not … in extreme cases, one gets a complex web of sophisticated measurements that serve no purpose other than to expand journals and fatten frequent-flyer accounts.”**

Finally, from **Richard Feynman, **one of the heaviest of 20th century “heavy-hitters” in physics. In a letter to his wife, he wrote that: **“I am not getting anything out of this meeting … There are hosts (126) of dopes here — such inane things are said and seriously discussed — and I get into arguments outside of the formal sessions … Whenever anyone asks me a question, or starts to tell me about his ‘work’ … it is always either — (1) completely un-understandable, or (2) vague and indefinite, or (3) something correct that is obvious and self-evident worked out by a long and difficult analysis and presented as an important discovery, or (4) a claim, based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct thing accepted and checked for years is, in fact, false (those are the worst — no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which, it is finally revealed, at the end, fails, or (6) just plain wrong … Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences.” ** That’s on page 245 in a book titled **Quantum Man **(2011) by Lawrence Krauss **[Ref.#39].**

**########### << END OF CHAPTER 13 >> ###########**

**CHAPTER 14: RICHARD FEYNMAN + JULIAN SCHWINGER**

**“He had the ideas and then I translated them into math” —–Freeman Dyson re Richard Feynman**

Richard Feynman + Julian Schwinger: two physicists with very different mathematical approaches, who each developed a successful way to describe and explain the behavior of sub-atomic “particles” — and shared a Nobel prize (1965) for doing so.

Born in the same year (1918), each started learning mathematics at a young age, and went on to invent some new mathematics, after thoroughly mastering the “ordinary” maths which physicists use.

Schwinger used something called “Green’s functions” as a starting point on his math-journey. Feynman invented his own math symbols, which only he could read, and eventually invented “Feynman diagrams” — which other PhD-holders learned to know and love, and which today appear in almost every modern physics book in the entire known universe. Particularly **[pun intended]** the books re “particle” physics.

There was a famous physics conference at Pocono Manor, in Pennsylvania’s Appalachian mountains, in March of 1948, a few days after I was born: I always have fun when I read about it in a physics book, and it’s in many of them. Almost every important American theoretical physicist, and some European ones, were there.

Schwinger’s presentation continued for 7 or 8 hours, and was very dense with maths, line after line, page after page. Yet the conference room was still packed when he finished, as he was the current young super-star in physics at that time. Feynman’s presentation followed Schwinger’s, but was not as well-received as Schwinger’s.

Yet, when they compared notes, they realized that they had essentially solved the same theoretical problem by two different methods: each had climbed to the top of the same mountain, by two very different and very difficult routes … paths … lines of thought.

Their very different mathematical approaches actually gave answers which agreed very accurately with experimental evidence. If their results had **not** agreed with experiment, then their work would **not** have led to Nobel prizes. The important thing here was not that their maths agreed with each other, but that they agreed with the **experimental evidence.**

As it turned out, there was a third gentleman, not present at that 1948 conference, who had been working on the same problem, in Japan: Sin-Itiro Tomonaga would eventually **share** the 1965 Nobel prize with Feynman + Schwinger for independently —(and several years earlier !!)— developing a similar-but-different approach to solve the same problem.

Plus: a 4th gentleman, younger than the other three, probably **would** have shared the same Nobel prize, if the Nobel-prize committee did not have a tradition of awarding no more than three individuals for the same accomplishment. This 4th individual was Freeman Dyson, of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, USA, who wrote a series of papers to show that the maths which the three other theorists used were essentially equivalent to each other.

One of the very amazing things about math is that it is almost infinitely **diverse,** and almost infinitely **deep,** and can be adapted to describe and/or explain almost any situation — even one which might not actually exist in reality.

Murray Gell-Mann, who “invented” quark-theory during the 1960s, suggested at that time that “quarks” might be mere mathematical conveniences — tools which one can use to analyze + calculate how tiny objects behave, but not themselves real “particles.” **“It’s fun to speculate about the way quarks would behave if they were … real”**** [p.323, Ref.#17, p.88. Ref.#30]. ** **“Even after the New York Times had [featured] quarks in [a] 1967 article, Gell-Mann was quoted as saying [that] the quark was likely to turn out to be merely ‘a useful mathematical figment’ ” [p.292, Ref.#39].**

The important thing re quark theory is that it gives results which agree very accurately with experimental evidence. Likewise, Dr. Ernest Sternglass (the main “character” in this series of essays) insisted that his **“semi-classical”** model was able to accurately explain masses and lifetimes of all the newly discovered “particles.”

See, for example, the Proceedings of the Resonant Particles Conference, Athens, Ohio (1965): ** file:///C:/Users/adult/Desktop/Sternglass%20Proceedings%202nd%20top%20conf%20Resonant%20Particles%201965.PDF**

… PLUS: 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, published 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): **

**—–{ PLEASE NOTE: you might need to “copy” + “paste” the LINKs (above), to get them to work }—–**

Sternglass’s model is much simpler than quark theory, and has the added bonus that it’s **visualizable:** **“anschaulich”** in German: Einstein believed that a theory of model should be visualizable. Plus, Sternglass’s model relies on electrons + positrons, which are KNOWN to exist, while “quarks” **HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN AN PHYSICS LAB !!** **[p.323, Ref.#17] … **

**In other words: Sternglass’s model uses electrons + positrons to solve the same problem for which the standard model needed to “invent” a long list of “new” “particles.”**

So how and why is it that every university physics department now teaches quark theory to grad students, while Sternglass’s model is almost unknown and/or forgotten ??

Well, it’s about personality: Feynman had a very strong personality, and his ability to inspire and influence others in his chosen field of study is legendary: evidently he helped to convince Gell-Mann, (and in fact the entire physics community), to accept quark theory as the best way to explain how tiny objects behave. **“By the early 1970s Feynman had become convinced that the partons [in HIS theory] had all of the properties of Gell-Mann’s hypothetical quarks (and Zweig’s aces), though he continued to talk in parton language (perhaps to annoy Gell-Mann)” [pp.299+300, Ref.#39]. **{Please note that Feynman’s office at Caltech was right next door to Gell-Mann’s office, a fact which Sternglass mentions in his book **[Ref.#1],** and that a researcher named “Dr. Zweig” (also at Caltech) had developed a similar model, in which he called the little rascals “aces” instead of “quarks”}

Please note also this interesting comment re Feynman’s personality: **“It may … be true that … he could have accomplished much more had he been more willing to listen and learn from those around him, and insist less on discovering absolutely everything for himself” [p.314, Ref.#39].**

Me??? I’m trying to learn enough quark theory to show that Dr. Ernest Sternglass might have developed an equivalent way to solve the same problem, (i.e., to describe and explain how sub-atomic “particles” behave), in addition to the ways in which Tomonaga + Schwinger + Feynman did. And that he did so in a “semi-classical” way, using the ordinary maths (algebra + geometry + calculus) which high school students study, which many of us already know and love, with only minimal references to the fiendishly difficult maths associated with quark theory. Wish me luck !!

**$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 14 >> $$$$$$$$$$$**

**CHAPTER 15: WHAT ARE “GRAVITY WAVES” ??**

**“Gravity is an EMERGENT phenomenon” —Erik Verlinde, Dutch PhD-holder **

Recently I attended an excellent presentation (at Princeton’s **Institute for Advanced** **Study**) regarding the recent observation of **“gravity waves.”** Though Einstein predicted them, and though many researchers have, for many years, tried to observe them, it seems that the folks at **LIGO [Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory] **have made the first successful observation and measurement of gravity waves.

According to the presenters, the observed and measured gravity waves were from two “black holes” —(each containing the mass of approx. 30 of our suns)— which merged together with each other, producing a larger + more massive “black hole”.

However, Dr. Ernest Sternglass’s model **[Ref.#1]** predicts exactly the opposite: his **Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter** predicts that a certain kind of object, {it can have almost **any** mass, from that of a galaxy to that of a pi-meson}, will eventually divide in half, producing two objects, each containing half the mass. He calls these objects “cosmological systems” — and says that his model predicts that there are millions of them throughout our universe, and that they constitute the vast majority of the **“dark matter”** in our universe, and that, every once in a while, a **big** one will explode, producing a **“quasar”** — also called a “gamma-ray burster.”

Sternglass calls these explosions “delayed mini-Bangs” — and says that his model predicts them to be happening during all the time since the start of the “Big Bang.” He says that these delayed mini-Bangs are very similar to the Big Bang, but involve less matter and energy, and that, like the Big Bang, each delayed mini-Bang also produces many trillions of neutrons, most of which quickly “decay” — producing protons.

**IN OTHER WORDs: if Sternglass is right about this, then the standard model’s explanation for “quasars” is TOTALLY WRONG: because the standard model explains a “quasar” as the result of a very large “black hole” sucking in some surrounding ordinary matter, causing some of that matter’s energy to radiate outwardly, according to Einstein’s famous E = mc2. **

According to Sternglass, NOTHING GETS SUCKED IN, and large amounts of stuff come out, including high-energy gamma rays, and newly formed protons + neutrons. So these objects are more like **WHITE HOLES !!**

**{ Ever wonder why scientists say that many of the so-called “cosmic rays” which strike our planet’s upper atmosphere are actually high-speed protons, which have traveled to us from other galaxies ?? Bingo. These are, no doubt, newly-produced protons, from some quasar out there, from some other galaxy out there. Please note that these extremely relativistic objects need at least 10^15 eV or so of kinetic energy [i.e., no less than approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000 electron-volts] to avoid going around in endless circles between our galaxy and the one from which they originated, due to the presence of small magnetic fields [approx. 10^(-8) Gauss, = 10^(-12) Tesla] in those intergalactic spaces }**

Therefore, based on Sternglass’s model, I predict that astronomers and astrophysicists will eventually realize that the “gravity wave” signals which the folks at **LIGO **observed are from an object which contained the mass of approx. 60 of our suns, which divided in half, producing two objects with approx. 30 solar masses each.

If this be true, then one can use Sternglass’s theory to predict when the **next** signal from these two objects will arrive, as they divide in half again, producing four objects, each containing approx. 15 solar masses.

The formula is easy and simple:

**T = (4.9 x 10^20 seconds) x [the square root of (Mobject / Muniverse)], **where **“T” **is elapsed time until the next signal, **“Mobject”** is the mass of the object which divides in half, **“Muniverse”** is the mass of our universe, and “**10^20″ **means “ten to the 20th power” — i.e., a one with 20 zeros after it.

Using this formula, one can calculate that astronomers might receive the next gravity wave signals from the system after approx. 30 years. While this is a long time to wait for a signal, I’m predicting it, based on Sternglass’s theory.

Hopefully, as the folks at **LIGO **improve their techniques, they will eventually observe some gravity wave signals from an object whose mass is approx. that of our sun. If so, then one can predict that the next signal from that much smaller system might arrive approx. five years later.

Sincerely, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast), Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 2-March-2016

**########### << END OF CHAPTER 15 >> ###########**

**CHAPTER 16: TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR STERNGLASS’s MODEL**

On pages 159 + 161 in his book **[Ref.#1], **Sternglass describes the structure of the pi-meson and the mu-meson. {Hint: they have **very similar **structures}

**Note: While I know that the standard model does not consider the “muon” to be a “meson”, I write “mu-meson” instead of “muon” to emphasize my belief that the standard model is, (to say it politely), not quite right about how it explains the structure of the muon. Specifically, there is evidence that the muon is not a fundamental particle. **

Because the so called muons do not interact strongly with ordinary matter, like pi-mesons do, the folks who built the standard model decided, many years ago, **with no clue to its actual structure,** that it’s not a meson. However, one can easily explain why “muons” behave differently: it’s because they are **fermions, **while pi-mesons are **bosons.**

**STERNGLASS’s MODEL EXPLAINs WHAT MU-MESONs LOOK LIKE**

A quick look at the schematic diagrams on pages 159 and 161 in Sternglass’s book **[Ref.#1]** shows that, according to his model, the pi-meson and the mu-meson have almost exactly the same structure. Copies of the same schematic diagrams appear in Figures 2 and 3 (near the end of the paper) in one of Sternglass’s 1964-papers, available at:

**http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4885112**

{Note that if you input the link into your browser, a summary of the paper comes up, but if you input the link a second time, then you get the entire paper !! At least that’s how my computer works}

Regarding the mesons: one can use the image of a child riding on a “merry-go-round” in a play ground to describe Sternglass’s idea for the difference between a pi-meson and a mu-meson: if the child just simply sits on the merry-go-round as it spins, well, that’s a mu-meson. If he or she gets **“excited”** and stands up and runs, in a direction against the rotation of the merry-go-round, as I did many times as a child, well, that’s a pi-meson. Sternglass says that the pi-meson is an **“excited state”** of the mu-meson, and in fact calls the little rascal a “mu-meson” instead of a “muon.”

Physicists know that a pi-meson will, after approx. a hundred-millionth of a second, experience a process called “decay”, producing a mu-meson and a neutrino. The neutrino flies away at light-speed, carrying away some energy, and also carrying away some angular momentum. So the mu-meson’s angular momentum is half of a Planck-unit less than that of a pi-meson. {Note that one can **google **the term “Planck unit” if one needs to} It’s mass is also less, because the energy which the neutrino carried away is equivalent to mass, according to Einstein’s famous **E = mc2. **

Recently I became aware of the work of a gentleman who has taken Dr. Sternglass’s model as a starting-point to describe a possible structure for the so called “tau particle” — which the standard model also regards as a **fundamental** particle. Ray Fleming’s descriptions are so clear and articulate that I will quote him, below.

Alternatively, you might want to look at his paper **[Ref.#41]** directly: here is a **link** to it: ** http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0078v1.pdf**

**“Summary** … Ernest Sternglass determined that a neutral meson, the π 0 [i.e., the uncharged pi-meson], could be modeled as a relativistic electron-positron pair, and later determined that the muon could be modeled as an electron rotating around a similar electron-positron pair. The author noticed that there is a second higher-energy orbital solution not previously published by Sternglass where the electron-positron pair orbits around the electron’s center. A simple computation shows that the mass-energy of this second solution is consistent with the tau particle. Based on these models the mu and tau leptons are not fundamental particles as described in currently popular theories but are instead two excited meta-stable states of an electron and an electron-positron pair.**“**

**“Background** … In 1961 Ernest Sternglass published a paper titled “Relativistic electron-pair systems and the structure of neutral mesons” **[Physical Review Journal, 1 July 1961]**** **in which he described a relativistic Bohr-Sommerfeld model of an electron-positron pair. He was able to show that when the pair was in a relativistic equilibrium condition, where the inertia pulling the two particles apart was equal to the electrostatic attraction, the pair had mass-energy and a half-life consistent with a neutral meson, the neutral pion (π 0 ) **[see Ref.1, below]. **In his book **Before the Big Bang: Origins of the Universe** Sternglass recounts how he performed his initial mathematical derivation in the presence of and with encouragement from Richard Feynman **[see Ref.2, below]. ** Sternglass went on to extend his theory and describe all the known particles of the day **[see Ref.3, below]. ** One of the more interesting is the muon, as today it is considered to be a fundamental particle classified as a lepton within the scope of the standard model. The other leptons, the electron and tauon, are also considered to be fundamental, rather than composed of other particles. Sternglass, however, published a rather compelling model for the muon in 1965 **[see Ref.3 below]. **Given the simplicity of the model it seems likely that the muon is not fundamental.”

At this point you might want to click-on a **link** to the paper, as there are some excellent schematic diagrams in it:

**http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0078v1.pdf **

“Figure 1 … The Sternglass model for the Muon. The solid arrows indicate the direction of each particle’s magnetic moment. The open arrows indicate the direction of the angular momenta. (Figure by Sternglass from **reference 3, [below]**).

“The mass calculation [for the muon-mass] required a sum of 6 contributions **[Ref.3, below]. ** The first two contributions are the mass of the excited pion, **275 x Me x c^2**, and the mass of the electron,** 1 x Me **… From that is subtracted [the mass equivalent to] the potential energy of the system **-274 x Me** … Next [the mass equivalent to] the kinetic energy of the orbiting electron, **(1/α -1) x Me = 136 x Me**, is added, with α being the fine structure constant. Additionally there is relativistic precession of the system as viewed from a laboratory frame of reference, which introduces an additional **68.75 x Me **… Lastly he considered the wave mechanical binding energy between the electron and pion leading to a small correction term of **–0.014 x Me** … This calculation yields the sum of **206.7 x Me.**”

**“Conclusion** … This paper shows that it is simple to model the tau particle using the Sternglass theory, and the mass calculated from this model is very close to the accepted value. The Sternglass theory can now account for both the mu and tau particles, so it seems that the standard model, in which they are both fundamental particles, is incorrect. The Sternglass theory also provides a simple physical model for the neutral pion, which is favorable when compared to the irrational quark π 0 model. Based on this result there should be more in-depth investigations made of the Sternglass theory.”

**Ref.1: Sternglass, E. J., “Relativistic electron-pair systems and the structure of neutral mesons”, Phys. Rev., 123, 391 (1961); **

**Ref.2: Sternglass,E.J., Before the Big Bang: Origins of the Universe, 1997, Four Walls Eight Windows Publishing (1997); **

**Ref.3: Sternglass, E. J., “Electron-positron model for the charged mesons and pion resonances”, Il Nuovo Cimento, 1 Gennaio, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 227-260 (1965); **

Many thanks to Ray Fleming for permission to quote from his paper.

Sincerely, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast), Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 3-March-2016

**AFTER-WORDs: WHY DOESN’T THE EPO-LATTICE (“EPOLA”) COLLAPSE ??**

**“‘A new scientific theory advances one death at a time'” —–Max Planck**

Well, I decided to put this part of my effort to explain the Sternglass-Simhony model, { as I’ve modified it }, near the end of this series of essays, rather than at the start, because I reckon that one needs to be familiar with the model to be able to understand this part. I’ll assume that, if you’re reading these words, then you already know the meaning of most of the many technical terms in this essay (or you can look in the **WORD-LIST**), and are also familiar with the basics of the models of Sternglass and Simhony, as well as with my modifications to their models. Please continue reading, if any of this interests you.

**BTW: the Max Planck paraphrase, above, was his way to say, essentially, that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. Because, what often happens is that the older, more respected, scientists just simply don’t “GET” a new theory when it comes along, and so the theory does not get accepted until enough of the old guys die !!**

**{Quoting Sternglass [Ref.#1, p.139]: Planck sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”}**

Re gravitation: anybody who actually **“gets”** Dr. Simhony’s model should realize that gravity is not a **fundamental **force, but (to quote Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde) gravity is **“emergent”.** What follows is from the internet-site at: http://bigthink.com/dangerous-ideas/18-gravity-doesnt-exist

**{ … where one can read that, “In a paper published in December 2009 on arXiv.org, Verlinde laid out his argument that gravity is not a ‘fundamental force,’ and is instead an ’emergent phenomenon’ “}**

BTW: I think that the statement “gravity doesn’t exist” (above, in the URL) is ridiculously misleading, and so do others, as it generated a **robust discussion** on the internet … Of course gravity exists: what Verlinde means is that there is no such thing as a gravitational “force”, but that what we experience as “gravity” is due to other, **more fundamental** “forces”. This is essentially the meaning of the word “emergent”. It’s also the meaning of Dr. Simhony’s model: the same forces which hold the lattice together also make gravity happen.

If gravity does in fact emerge from electromagnetic forces, as Simhony says, then this makes it possible to “unify” all of the physical forces which scientists study, which was Einstein’s fond hope. My understanding is that researchers have already “unified” all of the other known forces, and that gravity is the stubborn holdout in this context, and has until now refused to join the party.

**#################################################**

One can visualize the epo-lattice in Dr. Simhony’s model as consisting of zillions and zillions and zillions of very very very long lines of magnetic force, each one stretching from one end of our universe to the other, in which the lines of magnetic force lie along three mutually-perpendicular orientations, which forms the lattice which Simhony describes in his books and internet-sites **[Refs.#2 and #2a].**

Plus, one can easily visualize that there are random “grain boundaries” throughout the lattice, analogous to defects in crystals: places where the lattice is damaged, and slightly weaker than at other places. So one can account statistically for the actual life-time of a single unstable object (perhaps a lambda baryon ??), as opposed to the average lifetime of an average lambda baryon, by saying that perhaps it is more probable that an object will “decay” when it crosses a “grain boundary”.

**QUESTION:** **WHAT KEEPs THE EPO-LATTICE FROM COLLAPSING ??** This is an important question, because, in physics, **“Earnshaw’s theorem”** (1842) predicts that a lattice held together only by magnetic forces might not be stable, and might collapse. One can reckon that a collapsed epo-lattice might exist at a lower energy level, and therefore might be more stable, than a structure of bound epola-elements in a cubic lattice. So one can wonder: WHY DOESN’T THE LATTICE COLLAPSE ??

Well, one can imagine, and hypothesize, that there might be a large **“energy hump”** between the two energy-levels, similar to the “energy humps” which one reads about in chemistry textbooks.

The transformation of water to ice is a simple example of the confusing concept of binding energy. When water freezes, it releases binding energy, the same amount needed to melt the resulting ice. Likewise, burning gasoline is a **chemical** process which releases enough binding energy to power a car or truck), and the two main by-products of burning gasoline, carbon dioxide and water, exist at a lower energy level than the gasoline and free oxygen which existed before the stuff burned. **But** **one needs a** **spark** to over come the energy hump between the two energy levels, to persuade the stuff to burn, or to explode; i.e., to initiate the tranformation. Likewise, with an H-bomb: the helium atoms which result from the fusion of hydrogen atoms contain less energy than the hydrogen atoms, and the immense energy which the explosion releases represents this energy difference. But a hydrogen fusion event happens “naturally” only inside a star, or in some other kind of high energy environment, never “naturally” on planet earth, because of the huge **energy hump** between the two energy levels.

{One more example: starting a campfire: as a scientist, one knows that the by-products of burning wood, mainly water vapor and carbon dioxide, have a lower energy content than the unburned firewood, because burning it releases some of the energy: but anybody who has ever started a campfire knows that some times it’s extremely difficult to make that firewood burn !!}

**Perhaps its even more difficult to initiate a portion of the epo-lattice (epola) to collapse than it is to start a campfire ??**

My idea for a possible way to explain why the epo-lattice does not collapse, in spite of Earnshaw’s theorem (1842), is this: perhaps the epo-lattice’s present structure of interlocking, mutually-perpendicular, mag’ic-[magnetic]-field lines is so stable that there is a large energy hump which one would need to overcome to persuade even a small portion of the epo-lattice to collapse, i.e., to initiate the collapse.

In fact, {hahaha and lol — I thought of this as I was writing the essay}, one can visualize a tiny bit of the lattice actually collapsing, and releasing a tiny bit of “binding energy” as it collapses. Where would this binding energy go ?? Well, it might travel away from the point where the collapse occurred, at the speed of light, as an energy pulse: i.e., as a **photon.** And the fact that the energy travels away so quickly might effectively prevent the build-up of enough energy to initiate a wholesale collapse of the lattice. Like the heat from the fires on 11 Sept 2001 flowed thru structural steel, away from the fires, so that the temperature did never get high enough to melt enough structural steel to collapse the buildings. In spite of the NIST-report (they should be ashamed of themselves for preparing such a bad report), which neglected to include the coefficient of heat-transfer in the calculation, not because they are stupid, but because they wanted to try to mislead the public !!

**In fact, if a high school student wrote a physics term paper re this, and neglected to include the COEFFICIENT OF HEAT-TRANSFER in the calculation, then he or she would surely receive an “F”. So I give to NIST [National Institute of Standards and Testing of the USA] a big fat “F” for their seriously flawed report !! Kin U sayn “false-flagg” ??**

One can carry this thoughtful analysis regarding the epo-lattice a bit farther: perhaps, because of the large amount of energy needed to initiate even a small collapse, some of this energy might actually repair the collapse, as soon as it happens: as if one were to design a bullet, with some superglue inside it: if one were to then shoot some of these bullets at a brick wall, trying to make a hole in it, then one might find that, though one is able to knock off some pieces of brick, the superglue might immediately replace the missing pieces of brick, and so prevent a hole from forming. There is **hint** of this possibility in Dr. Sternglass’s descriptions re what **protons** can do:

Does this seem to make sense ?? Why or why not ?? Please send feed-back to MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com …

Alternatively, one might hypothesize a simpler explanation. Perhaps there might be some kind of natural, inherent, outwardly directed “energy-pressure gradient” associated with the elements which compose the lattice, which balances the inwardly-directed magnetic attractions which hold the lattice together. One might call this outwardly-directed energy-pressure a **“scalar field”** —– which is an actual, accepted, term in the “standard model”: one might propose that some kind of “scalar field” exists in the region around every bit of “stuff” in our universe, including the “stuff” which composes the epo-lattice. This hypothesized **energy pressure** throughout the lattice might effectively prevent the lattice from collapsing.

Sincerely, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics enthusiast, Newark, Delaware, USA, 26 December 2014; mark.creekwater@gmail.com

**$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF AFTER-WORDs >> $$$$$$$$$$$**

**REFERENCEs**

#1) Sternglass, Ernest; book: **Before the Big Bang** (1997);

#1a) Sternglass, Ernest; paper: “Relativistic Electron-pair Systems and the Structure of Neutral Mesons”; **Physical Review,** v.123, pp. 391-398 (1-JULY-1961);

#2) Simhony, Menahem; internet-site: http://www.EPOLA.org, http://www.EPOLA.co.uk;

#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);

3) Grathman, Roy; quote: “the proton is always plucking at the corners of the epola-cell in-side-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 PhD-holders whom I have inform’d re Dr.STERNGLASS’s model;

(4) Dorazio, Mark Creek-water; essay: “A Semi-classical Calculation Regard-ing Proton-radius” (2013); **https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/a-semi-classical-calculation-re-proton-radius/**

(5) ibid.; essay: “A Semi-classical Calculation re the Mass-density of so-call’d ‘Neutron-stars’ ” (2013); ** https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/semi-classical-calculation-re-the-mass-density-of-so-calld-neutron-stars/**

(6) ibid.; essay: “Lattice-Length of the Epola-cell” (2014); ** https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/lattice-length-of-the-epola-cell/**

(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”;

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

(10) Pinnow, Douglas; internet-site: **http://www.DARKMATTERPHYSICS.info**;

(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; paper: “Supernovae and Cosmic Rays”, **Phys Rev,** (15-JANUARY-1934);

(15) Demorest, P.B., + others; paper: “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; paper: “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), http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtrap2.html

(22) Paul, Wolfgang; paper: “Electromagnetic Traps for Charged and Neutral Particles”, **Rev.Mod.Phys.,** v62, n3, July 1990; http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/iontraps/RMP.pdf

(23) Gomer, V., et al; paper: “Magnetostatic Traps for Charged and Neutral Particles”, **Hyperfine Interactions, **109 (1997) 281-292; http://www.ask.com/web?q=magnetic+trapping+charged&qsrc=364&o=0&l=dir&qo=homepageSearchBox

(24) Wheeler, J.A.; book: **Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam **(1998);

ibid., “Geons,” **Phys.Rev. 97, **511-536 (1955);

(25) Black, Adam (editor-in-chief); book: **The Feynamn Lectures on Physics, definitive edition** (2006);

(26) Kuhn, Thomas; book: **The Structure of Scientific Revolutions **(1962);

(27) Ford, Kenneth W.; book: **The Quantum World **(2004);

(28) Cartwright, John, internet-site: **http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jan/15/**

(29a) Motz, Lloyd; paper: “Gravity and the nature of fundamental particles”, **Nuovo Cimento, 26, **1 (1962);

(29b) Motz, Lloyd; paper: “The Unit Gravitational Charge Solves the Cosmological Problem Without Inflation” (1983), bulletin, **Columbia University Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics;**

(29c) ibid., paper: “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: (41) Fleming, Ray; paper: “A tau particle model based on the Sternglass theory” (2014), http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0078v1.pdf

(42a) Sternglass, Ernest; paper: “NEW EVIDENCE FOR A MOLECULAR STRUCTURE OF MESON AND BARYON RESONANCE STATES”, from the **Proceedings of the 2nd Resonance Particles Conference **(1965);

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

(42b) Sternglass, Ernest; paper: “Electron-pair theory of meson structure and the interactions of nuclear particles, **Proceedings of the American Physical Society** (1964), ** http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4885112 **

(42c) Sternglass, Ernest; chapter in the book **Nucleon Structure**** **(1964), edited by Robert Hofstadter + Leonard Schiff: **“Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Heavy Mesons”, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964nust.conf..340S**** **

(42d) Sternglass, Ernest; paper: “Electron-positron model for the charged mesons and pion resonances”, **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 **

(42e) ibid., Evidence for a Relativistic Electron-pair Model of Nuclear Particles,” **Int’l.J.Theoretical Physics 17: **347 (1978);

(43) Hall, Jonathan, M., *et al; paper: “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.; paper: “Lattice QCD Evidence that the Lambda(1405) Resonance Is a K-Nucleon Molecule”, **Phys.Rev.Lttrs., 114, **132002, (2015);

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.

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 inside the neutron, 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.

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, whose work one can learn about at **http://www.google.com**]. 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 **(ang.mom.) 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.**

**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,

Using the mathematical identity ** (permeability) = 1 / [ 4x(pi) x K ],** one sees that

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

**{ 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

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

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

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

{ 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-

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

**NOTE:** *“c” “Me” and “(K x Qe x *** Qe)” **are known quantities, while, as already mentioned, in Sternglass’s model,

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) gram.cm.cm.cm / sec.sec, Ru = 2.35 x 10^(30) cm, and Mu = 1.58 x 10^(58) grams], **one calculates a value of approx.

**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’s model **[Ref.#1]** as **a very large capacitor** might turn out to be sensible and rational and do-able.

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

**APPENDIX 3: DIRAC’s “LARGE-NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS”**

Paul Dirac was one of the 20th century’s greatest physics and math geniuses. He lived until 1984, and was still quite active during Sternglass’s career. In his book **[Ref.#1], **Sternglass tells about how he used a slight modification of Dirac’s **“large-numbers hypothesis”,** which enabled him to calculate, very elegantly, a theoretical numeric value for the mass of our universe.

Richard Feynman, who lived until 1988, was also one of the 20th century’s greatest physics and math geniuses, and in fact was one of Sternglass’s professors at Cornell University, where Sternglass earned his PhD. In his famous lecture notes from 1962-1963, now published in a “definitive edition” for our reading pleasure **[Ref.#25]**, Feynman also tried to use Dirac’s large-numbers hypothesis, but without much success.

It might be interesting, and illuminating, to analyse their different approaches, and why I say that Feynman’s use of this idea was not very successful.

One can go to **http://www.GOOGLE.com **for details re Dirac’s famous idea, but a quick description is as follows: Dirac called attention to two [2] very large numbers: 10^(39) and 10^(79): i.e., a one with 39 zeros after it and a one with 79 zeros after it. One immediately notices that 39 + 39 = 78, i.e., almost 79: i.e., that 10^39 x 10^39 = almost 10^79 … In fact, one can get a better understanding regarding what Dirac’s idea is about, if one makes a slight adjustment to one of the numbers, to make the square of the smaller number exactly equal the larger number. This is very easy, because [**(sq.rt. 10) x 10^(39)], squared, equals exactly 10^79.**

**I.e.: [ 3.162 x (10^(39)) ]^2 = [10^(79)]; **

Why was Dirac looking at these particular large numbers ?? Because the ratio (mass of our universe) / (mass of proton) is approx. 10^(79): i.e., (**Mu) / (Mproton) = approx. 10^(79) …**

**“Dirac argued that these and other simple relationships involving cosmological quantities were unlikely to be pure coincidences, and that somehow these relations had to be explained in terms of a model for the evolution of an expanding universe” [Sternglass, p.210, Ref.#1].**

The mass of the proton is known to be approx. 1.67 x 10^(-24) gram. Multiplying this by 10^(79) gives 1.67 x 10^(55) grams, which is a good estimate for the total mass of our universe, based on what astronomers can see.

Other interesting ratios involve the square root of this large number; i.e., [(sq.rt. 10) x 10^(39)], which equals approx. 3.16 x 10^(39). One can calculate the ratio **(strength of electrical attraction) / (strength of gravitational attraction) **between a proton and an electron: **[ K x Qe x Qpr ] / [ G x Me x Mpr ], ** where “K” is Coulombs electrostatic constant, “Qe” is the electric charge of an electron, “Qpr” is the electric charge of a proton, “G” is Newton’s gravitational constant, “Me” is the mass of an electron, and “Mpr” is the mass of a proton. Looking up the numeric values of all this stuff, and then doing the math, reveals that this ratio is approx. 2.23 x 10^(39) — very close !!

In volume 1 of the lecture notes from 1962-1963 **[Ref.#25],** in section 7-7, titled **“What Is Gravity ?” **Feynman gives a large number which is also in Sternglass’s book:

**4.17 x 10^(42) is the ratio (electric attraction) / (gravitational attraction) for an electron-positron pair, which is different from the previously calculated ratio, which applies to electrons –vs– protons, not electrons –vs– positrons. Sternglass notes, in his book, that this ratio is very close to the square root of the ratio (mass of universe) / (mass of electron), which is, of course, also the ratio (mass of universe) / (mass of positron), because the 2 little rascals (electron and positron) carry equivalent masses.**

In HIS book, Feynman mentions that that large number represents a ratio between forces (electrical vs gravitational), without mentioning the ( Mu / Me )-connection. Perhaps he didn’t notice it ??

**After noticing that (Mu / Me) = approximately [ (electrical force) / (gravitional force) ]^2, Sternglass takes this idea and runs with it, to develop an elegant way to calculate, theoretically, the mass of our universe. This idea appears on p.265, Ref.#1. Plus: he uses a more accurate version of this number [4.167 x 10^(42)] in several of his published papers, calling it “the Dirac number”. [He calls its square, 1.736 x 10^(85), “the Eddington number” — to honor Sir Arthur Eddington (a colleague of Einstein), who loved to play with large numbers]. Feynman does nothing similar with these numbers, which is why I say that he did not find a very good way to use Dirac’s large-numbers hypothesis.**

In the following link:

one can hear Feynman give “black holes” as the possible explanation for “quasars”, with no mention of Sternglass’s model, which features objects which are more like white holes: nothing gets sucked in, and large amounts of stuff come out.

Perhaps Feynman was not aware of this aspect of Sternglass’s work, though he had been Sternglass’s professor at Cornell.

**$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX3 >> $$$$$$$$$$$**

Simhony and Sternglass have different explanations for the phenomenon of “pair production”.

Simhony says that pair production does not really involve anything being produced; instead, he says that a photon which contains a certain amount of energy** **will knock an electron-positron pair loose from the pair’s location in the epo-lattice. He mentions Carl Anderson’s 1932 experimental discovery re this. He says that the energy content of the photon must be at least as much as the “binding energy” of the ep-pair to the lattice, approx. 1.022 x 10^(6) eV, which is equivalent to the energy content of an electron and a positron, “at rest”.

Sternglass, by contrast, explains “pair production” as follows: **“It happens all the time, when energetic gamma-rays coming from outer space strike the particles in our atmosphere … the photons produce electrons and positrons with high energy, in a process called pair production” [p.182 Ref.#1]. **According to this way of thinking, “energy” (photons) becomes “matter” (ep-pairs) by some unexplained process.

However, there is a **hint** of an explanation elsewhere in his book, where he talks about how protons behave: ** ****“the proton … can absorb energy from its environment, and turn this energy into other forms such as massive electron[-positron] pairs emerging as mesons, returning to its normal state in the process. And when given enough internal excitation energy, it can reproduce itself, giving birth to a proton / anti-proton pair” [p.253, Ref.#1].**

Perhaps epola-elements are similar: perhaps, being ep-pairs, the little rascals might have the capability to produce an electron-positron pair as a response to being hit by a large jolt of photon energy, i.e., a “gamma-ray”. Perhaps an epola-element can somehow condense the energy content of a photon to produce “particles” of ordinary matter.

Dr. David Lapoint has posted a series of youtube videos, titled “The Primer Fields” which are quite good: to view them, just simply go to http://www.YOUTUBE.com and input “primer fields” into the search box.

These youtube videos are all about magnetics: I reckon that there are still some big lots of stuff which the average physicist just simply doesn’t know re how things behave under the influence of magnetic forces.

Please view at least one of these videos, because (1) they are, in my opinion, excellent, and (2) they might help make my hypothesis re “magnetic flow currents” (below) seem more believable.

**HYPOTHESIS RE “ALTERNATING MAGNETIC CURRENTS”**

{Please note that, in this section, the abbreviation “mag’ic” means “magnetic”}

Similarly to how Faraday and Maxwell hypothesized the existence of “mag’ic field lines” going through their theoretical “aether”, one can hypothesize (for the “epo-lattice” in Dr. Simhony’s model) the existence of “alternating mag’ic currents”, oscillating at a high frequency, and very energetically, thru the very narrow, very long mag’ic field lines which constitute the epo-lattice.

One can visualize this stuff as analogous to the alternating electric currents which power our homes, offices, schools, hospitals, factories, and street lights.

One can supposed, (for the sake of this essay), the possibility that these alternating mag’ic currents form a cubical pattern, aligned in three [3] mutually-perpendicular orientations, forming the epo-lattice as Dr. Simhony describes it. One can hypothesize that the mag’ic currents in adjacent field lines flux in opposite directions, so that when one is going “up” the other is going “down” — and when one is going “left” the other is going “right” — and when one is going “in” the other is going “out”. Plus, one can also suppose that they reverse direction at the same frequency, so that they stay in phase with each other, always moving in opposite directions when not stopped.

Because these are magnetic currents rather than electric, one can suppose that adjacent field lines would attract each other, like bar magnets of opposite polarity attract each other. One can hypothesize that these alternating mag’ic currents, if they exist, have done so EVER SINCE THE “BIG BANG” — because there is no friction to slow them down.

**One needs a bit of creative imagination to visualize this: I’ve never seen this hypothesis in any book or published paper or article or science story. So it’s definitely not a part of the “standard model”.**

How long would these hypothetical mag’ic AC currents be ?? As long as the diameter of our universe. But because nothing in this world is perfect, one can reckon that, if they exist, there are structural defects in the mag’ic field lines which compose the epo-lattice, similar to structural defects in a crystal. Simhony calls these defects “grain boundaries”.

How near to each other would these hypothetical lines of mag’ic force be ?? So near to each other that one would need > 10,000 of them, all parallel and lined up side-by-side, to cover the distance from a sodium atom’s nucleus to the nearest chlorine atom’s nucleus, in a salt-crystal.

**{Dr. Simhony had the !!AHA!!-moment which inspired him to develop his “Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space” while working with salt crystals in a physics-lab. One can google his “SIMHONY TRIBUTE” internet-site for details}**

HYPOTHESIS: at some time in the remote past, there was a very very highly energetic and powerful event, (perhaps a “big crunch” — the opposite of a “big bang”), whose effect was to create these hypothetical AC magnetic currents, in a cubical pattern, because this might be the most efficient way to store energy in a 3-dimensional space. Perhaps this hypothesis might explain the origin of the mutually-perpendicular lines of Dr. Simhony’s model ??

**Perhaps one can demonstrate that a cubic lattice is the most efficient way to store energy in 3-dimensional space ??**

Perhaps one can imagine this as a problem for an engineer designing a heating system to heat the inside of a very large box-like structure ?? Perhaps this heating system might consist of a set of pipes, with hot air blowing thru them ?? If one wants to know what arrangement of pipes would transfer heat most efficiently, perhaps the only two contenders for this honor would be the cubical pattern described above, and a hexagonal and/or tetrahedral pattern ?? If one arranges the pipes in a hexagonal pattern, perhaps by imagining that tetrahedrons instead of cubes fill the space, or by visualizing oranges stacked up on a shelf in a grocery store, then can one calculate the length of pipe needed to serve a given volume of space. **When I did this, I found that it’s more than that needed to serve a given volume of space if the pipes are arranged in a cubical pattern.**

That is why I say that the cubical pattern might be the most efficient pattern for storing energy. Perhaps, in the remote past, there was some kind of “big crunch” —(the opposite of a “big bang”)— in which all the stuff in our universe, [(including epola-stuff)], collapsed down into a very tiny volume ?? Perhaps this hypothetical “big crunch” created the presently existing epo-lattice, as a way to absorb the very very large energy surge which such an event would surely cause ??

Perhaps the hypothesized alternating [AC] magnetic currents are the primary energy sources in our universe ?? Perhaps everything else exists because of them ?? For example: if one assumes that they form a cubic lattice, then one can wonder what might happen at the place where three [3] of the mutually perpendicular “AC currents” intersect. Perhaps they might twist in a way which stabilizes, (or even “creates” ??), the electron-positron pair which one finds at the intersection ?? Like a 3-dimensional freeway interchange, where, instead of cars + trucks, one finds these mag’ic AC currents ?? Perhaps the ep-pair at the intersection is what keeps the three mutually-perpendicular lines of mag’ic force from mixing ?? I can visualize that — can you ??

Following Sternglass, one can visualize each epola-element as consisting of an ep-pair, whose e and p rotate (i.e., “orbit”) around each other at almost the speed of light, and also “SPIN” as they “rotate” or “orbit”. **One can visualize “spins” teaming up with “rotations” to produce twisted “vortexes” of mag’ic energy, which one might interpret as electrons and positrons.**

Sternglass is very specific re the nature of the “spins” of the electrons and positrons which form pairs: he says that the electron and positron spin in **opposite** directions, so that** **the two magnetic fields associated with them point in the **same** direction, and in fact ADD. {Actually, because the little rascals spin at a slant, so that their spin axes are not perpendicular to the plane of their orbit, it’s a bit more complicated than that}

Instead of hypothesizing that these magnetic fields are what hold the lattice together, one can hypothesize the CONVERSE: perhaps the ep-pairs are what prevent the hypothesized alternating magnetic currents from flowing together and collapsing the lattice ?? Similar to how the complex arrangements of on-ramps + off-ramps at a freeway interchange prevent speeding cars + trucks from crashing into each other ?? Perhaps, in this way, one can do an “end run” around “Earnshaw’s theorem” ??

**$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX5 >> $$$$$$$$$$$**

Dear physics-enthusiasts: warm greetings + many blessings !!

The link below is to an obituary of Dr. Ernest Sternglass, who died Thursday, 12 February 2015, at age-91. Sternglass lived in Ithaca, NY, USA, [home of Cornell University], for many years, after retiring from a very productive career as a physicist.

file:///home/chronos/u-f177067aa5c170bfb5db7ad8f878037f3428a68c/Downloads/ernest_

sternglass_information_021315%20(1).pdf

Though some considered him a —(to quote Dr. Freeman Dyson, of the **IAS **[Institute for Advanced Study])— a “heretic”, others consider him to be possibly a 21st-century “Galileo.”

After I discovered his book, **Before the Big Bang** (1997, 2001),** **almost 6 years ago, in the main library, downtown, in Berkeley, California, USA, Dr. Sternglass became my main physics mentor: I’ve studied his model of our universe very intensely; along with, of course, many other books + papers + essays by PhD-holders. As a result, I have developed the capability to discern, with absolute certainty, that Sternglass’s model is more clear and more realistic than the so called “standard model.”

Below are some biographical details re Dr. Sternglass, which appear in the obituary (link is above), plus more details re this amazing man:

Sincerely, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics enthusiast, Ithaca [Cornell University], New York, USA, 5 March 2015

Only the first six typos in the list are significantly confusing, enough to cause one to misunderstand details re the science: the others are minor inconveniences.

***On page 152, in the diagram (part c), one of the arrows points the wrong way:

the one which indicates the direction of the orbit;

***P.213, line (-8): change “1.703” to “1.581”;

***P.234: [“Table 1: Masses, sizes, and rotational periods of cosmological systems … “]: At the bottom, it says that one megaparsec is equal to “9.46 trillion

kilometers.” In fact, that is a lightyear. A megaparsec is 3.261 million lightyears;

***P.242, line 4: should say “2^100” —not “2100”;

***P.257, first full paragraph: seems to be a math-error: [speed of light] x [0.001 second] = 300 km, not 10 km as Sternglass says;

***On page 152, in the diagram (part c), one of the arrows points the wrong way:

the one which indicates the direction of the orbit;

***P.213, line (-8): change “1.703” to “1.581”;

***P.234: [“Table 1: Masses, sizes, and rotational periods of cosmological systems … “]: At the bottom, it says that one megaparsec is equal to “9.46 trillion

kilometers.” In fact, that is a lightyear. A megaparsec is 3.261 million lightyears;

***P.242, line 4: should say “2^100” —not “2100”;

***P.257, first full paragraph: seems to be a math-error: [speed of light] x [0.001 second] = 300 km, not 10 km as Sternglass says;

***P.265, #1: formula should say: Mu = e^4 / (m0^3 x G^2) … i.e.,

the “e” in the formula should have “4” —(not “2”)— as exponent;

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

the “e” in the formula should have “4” —(not “2”)— as exponent;

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

***P.43, L.(-14): add “of the” after “opposite”;

***P. 73, L.(-4): change “affect” to “effect”;

***P. 117, L. 11: add “is” after “that”;

***P.118, L.17: add “equal” before “magnitude”;

***P.118, L.26: add “if” after “even”;

***P.133, L. 11+12: move “the” from before “electrons” to before “proton”;

***P.133: at the end of the 3rd full paragraph, add a “1” as a superfix, to refer to the END-NOTE at the top of p.264;

***P.152: in the schematic-diagram, one of the arrows points the wrong way: for details, see above, near the top;

***P.153, L.1+2: change “the same” to “opposite” …

omit “but are … motion”;

***P.153, L(-11): add a comma after “molecules”;

***P.159, L.(-2): change “muons” to “pions”;

***P.160, L.4: switch “only” and “produced” (for clarity); L.5: add “produced” after “never” (for clarity);

***P.172, L.12: move comma to “them”;

***P.185, L.18: omit the second “and”;

***P.187, L(-11): add parentheses around “but not anti-protons” — (for clarity);

***P.192, L. 15: add a comma after “electron”;

***P.205, last line: add a comma after “otherwise”;

***P.210, L.21: add: “and the gravitational force between them” after “electron”;

***P.211, L.(18): add comma after “muon”;

***P.213, L.(-8): SEE ABOVE, near the top; L.(-3): change “that” to “than”;

***P.222, L.3: remove comma;

***P.223, last line: add “which” after the comma;

***P.234: see above, near the top;

***P.242, L.4: should say “2^100”, not “2100”; {or perhaps it should say “2^50”};

***P.243, L.26: change “quarter” to “half”;

***P.244, L.11: the second numeric value should be “1.94 x 10^30 grams;

***P.249, L.(-3); add a comma after “pion”;

***P.257, see above;

***P.258, L.(-3): add “which are” after the comma (for clarity);

***P.262, L.2: change “superclusters” to “complexes”;

***P.263, ENDNOTE #3: L.3: change “masses” to “energies”;

L.3, L.4: the “a” should be a GREEK-a;

L.5: need a comma + a space after “1/137.036”;

***P.263, ENDNOTE #4: L.(-11): change “valve” to “value”;

***P.265: SEE ABOVE, near the top;

P.266, ENDNOTE #7: omit “that” after “J/psi”; add a comma after “m0”;

***P.266, L.(-4): formula should say: [e^2/m0^2] / {2 x [ 2^(2/alpha) x (2/alpha – 2) ] }^(1/2) ; the denominator of all this is equivalent to: {2 x [ 2^(274.072) x (272.072) ] }^(1/2), which is equivalent to: {2 x [ 3.20 x 10^(82) x (272.072) ] }^(1/2), equivalent to: { 2 x 8.68 x 10^(84) }^(1/2) = { 1.736 x 10^85 }^(1/2) = 4.167 x 10^(42);

**########### << END OF APPENDIX 7 >> ###########**

**APPENDIX8: RE “QUARKs” — WHAT DID THEIR “INVENTOR” SAY ??**

**“Even after the New York Times had [featured] quarks in [a] 1967 article, Gell-Mann was quoted as saying [that] the quark was likely to turn out to be merely a useful mathematical figment’ ” [p.292, Ref.#39].**

Murray Gell-Mann, whose office at Caltech was next to Richard Feynman’s office **[p.167, Ref.#1],** first proposed the “quark” model, during the early 1960s. At that time, he said that:** “It is fun to speculate about the way quarks would behave if they were … real” and “A search for stable quarks … at the highest energy [particle-]accelerators would help to reassure us of the non-existence of real quarks” [p.323, book: ***Quantum Generations *(1999) by Helge Kragh (Ref.#17); p.88, Ref.#30].

**On p.324, Kragh continues “The less-than-enthusiastic response [to the quark model] did not prevent experimentalists from attempting to disprove Gell-Mann, that is, to show that quarks existed, rather than to show that they did not exist. A 1977 survey of quark search experiments listed about 80 such searches.” **These are highly educated, highly paid, teams of scientists: if “quarks” really exist, then one would think that they would have found some, hey ??

**“The most interesting [quark search experiment] was undertaken by William Fairbank [we’re naming names here, folks !!] and collaborators at Stanford University … In 1977, after several years of work, the Stanford group reported [embarrassingly, as it turned out] that it had found [evidence for “quarks” — in the form of] fractional charges in Milikan-like experiments {please google “Milikan electron” if you need to} … The claim was not confirmed by other experiments and … was, after much discussion, rejected by the elementary particle physics community” [p.324, Ref.#17].**

**HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE**

{please note that this historical perspective appears also in the **GENERAL INTRODUCTION **section of these essays, and that I repeat it here, as I feel that it’s important}

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, New Jersey, where they talked re physics and philosophy in their first language, German. Einstein and Bohr, for many years, famously debated the merits and 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.

**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 standard model’s view of quantum theory.”**

Today many physicists are realizing 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 … It gives no explanation for why there are three levels of quarks and light particles … It can’t predict the masses of all the particles” **[Ref.#12].**

**—{NOTE: **“quarks” have never been observed in a physics lab **[Ref.#17, pp.323+324]}—**

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 and 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, and realizing at some point in each book that I didn’t understand what the author was talking about, I found Sternglass’s book: like a breath of fresh air, it made sense to me all the way to its end. Since then I’ve never looked back.

In these essays, my hope is to persuade 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 found 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.

Please read more if any of this interests you !!

**$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX8 >> $$$$$$$$$$$**

**APPENDIX9: SIZE OF THE EPOLA-ELEMENTs (re the discussion in CHAPTER 2)**

In my re-visualization of Sternglass’s and Simhony’s models, there is a numeric value re the epo-lattice which I need to explain: the **size** of the elements which compose the epola; i.e., the size of the epola-elementss. In **CHAPTER 2,** I mention that epola-elements are much smaller than proton-elements, and more dense: here are some details re why I say this.

Using only easy maths, (i.e., “high-school algebra”), one can derive the size and mass and mass density of an epola-element from Dr. Sternglass’s **“Table 1” **— which appears on **p.234** of his book **[Ref.#1]. ** **In my opinion, “Table 1” might be one of Sternglass’s most important and significant contributions to our knowledge + understanding re how our universe works: this is because in Table 1 Sternglass details mass and size data of a kind of substance which other theorists only HINT at.**

For example, many years ago, the creative + far ranging imagination of Dr. John Archibald Wheeler enabled him to come up with the concept of a kind of object which contains **“matter without matter”** as he stated it. He called these rascals **“geons”** — and described them as follows: “in the geon paper, published during 1955** [Ref.#24b]** … I concluded that the smallest ‘purely classical’ geon (a geon for which quantum effects could be ignored) was a donut the size of the sun with a mass of about a million suns … the equivalent mass of the electromagnetic energy coursing around the donut racetrack … ‘matter without matter’ in the sense that it relies on no material particles … larger geons were in principle possible, I found, up to the size of the universe” **[p.237, Ref.#24a].**

Similarly, in his “Table 1”, Sternglass lists masses and sizes, (and rotational periods, too), of “cosmological-systems” [“cosmo.systs”] which contain no protons or neutrons, i.e. “no material particles.” Instead, each consists of nothing but the electromagnetic field energy of a single electron-positron pair, which can be of **any** size, and **any** mass, up to that of our universe [“the primeval-atom”] **[p.175, Ref.#1].**

**One of my first (!!AHA!!)-moments after I started studying Sternglass’s book came to me when I noticed that, if one extend “Table 1” a bit farther than it appears in the book, down into the part which Sternglass would call “stage 28”, then one finds there a place for a cosmo.syst whose mass is that of a single electron, and whose radius would be approx. 5.6 x 10^(-13) cm, that “special” numeric value, already mentioned near the end of CHAPTER 6. Except that Sternglass says that the tiny systems in this part of Table 1 experience a “relativistic shrinkage” (by a factor of approx. 137; i.e., “the inverse of the fine-structure constant”), which reduces the theoretical size of the radius to the very tiny size of only approx. 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm (i.e., to approx. 4.11 x 10^(-17) meter). This is much smaller than a proton …**

But the **“!!AHA!!” **did not come immediately: in fact, for several years I puzzled re what might be the significance of this, during which time I “discovered” the work of Dr. Simhony **[Refs.#2, 2a, 2b, 2c]. ** The **“AHA” **came when I realized that this particular (pun intended) “cosmo.syst” in Sternglass’s model, and the individual “epola-element” in Simhony’s model, might be one and the same object. **I.e., that these 2 gentlemen, who never collaborated with each other, might have independently identified the most common kind of object in our universe: because, as already mentioned, epola-elements are everywhere in our universe, while “ordinary” objects (mainly protons + neutrons) are, by comparison, very few and far between.**

**So, if I’m correct in my interpretation of Sternglass + Simhony, the epola-element, with the mass of an electron, is, by far, the most common kind of object in our universe.**

**DETAILS OF THE CALCULATION**

From data in Sternglass’s “Table 1” **[p.234, Ref.#1]** one can derive a math-formula for the radius of a small “cosmological system” (cosmo.syst) in terms of the system’s mass:

**R = {2 x G x [Ms x Mu]^(1/2)} / {c^2 x 137.036}, **where “R” is the system’s radius, “G” is Newton’s gravitational constant, “Ms” is the mass of the system, “Mu” is the mass of our universe, and “c” is the speed of light.

Note1: this is a modified “Schwarzschild formula”, in which one uses the “local gravity” which prevails inside a cosmo.syst, which is much stronger than Newton’s gravity. A full discussion and explanation of this idea appears in **Ref. #1. **

Note2: the **“^(1.2)” **in the formula means that one calculates the square-root of [Ms x Mu].

Note3: Sternglass says that the tiny cosmo.systs experience a “relativistic shrinkage” by a factor of approx. 137, (the so called “inverse of the fine-structure constant”), which accounts for the presence of that number in the formula.

{[ In his book [**Ref.#1]** Sternglass describes how he derived an elegant way to calculate a theoretical numeric value for the mass of our universe. According to this, he calculates that our universe weighs in at approximately 1.58 x 10^(58) grams, which is approximately 100 times the numeric value which appears in some of the books and papers which address this subject, reflecting the idea that approximately 99% of our universe’s mass might be in the form of so called “dark matter” ]}

Using that numeric value for “Mu”, and the mass of the electron [9.11 x 10^(-28) gram] for “Ms”, and 6.67 x 10^(-8) cm.cm.cm/gram.sec for “G”, and 3.0 x 10^(10) cm/sec for “c”, the formula gives, ** 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm** [i.e., 4.11 x 10^(-17) meter] as the radius of the cosmo.syst in Sternglass’s model whose mass is the rest-mass of an electron. This is how I calculated a theoretical numeric value for the size of the epola-elements in Simhony’s model, on the assumptions (1) that epola-elements are in fact tiny Sternglass cosmo.systs, and (2) that their mass is that of an electron, as Simhony says.

**$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX9 >> $$$$$$$$$$$**

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**

**APPENDIX10: IF PHOTONs ARE WAVEs, THEN WHY DO THEY NOT SPREAD OUT ??**

I once saw a demonstration of how a large smoke-ring can knock a hat off of somebody’s head. A pretty young woman stood on a stage-platform wearing a large paper hat, and approx. 8 meters away was a large drum, with only one drum-head, with smoke inside the drum’s hollow space. A young man used a large drum-stick to strike the drum-head, a large smoke-ring emerged, traveled to the large hat, and knocked it off of her head. As the smoke-ring was moving through the air, one could see that it did not spread out, but maintained the same size which it had when it emerged from the drum. This is analogous to a photon moving through the medium of space [“epola”] without spreading out, a known fact which is considered a mystery.

This discussion, the very last in this series of essays, refers back to two little details, one in the **INTRODUCTIONs** section, and one in the** AFTER-WORDs **section.

In the **INTRODUCTIONs **section I suggest that photons are waves, (i.e., vibrations of the elements which compose the epo-lattice), but waves of a very special kind, because (as is already known, yet still considered a mystery) they travel from place to place without spreading out, like little bullets. In the **AFTER-WORDs **section I say that one can visualize the epo-lattice as if it be composed of very very long and very very narrow, **bar-magnets,** each of which represents a line of magnetic force, and that these align in three [3] mutually-perpendicular orientations. Plus: I say that, if this is true, then one would expect perpendicular lines of magnetic force to **ignore** each other, like 2 bar magnets ignore each other when one holds them perpendicular to each other.

{ Actually, perpendicular bar magnets experience a **torque** force, which makes them try to rotate 90 degrees (i.e., 1/4 of a full circle) to align with each other, but they do not experience any attraction **toward** each other. One can verify this by playing with little toy bar magnets }

Visualizing the epola in Simhony’s model as a collection of very long and very narrow mutually-perpendicular bar magnets, I have a feeling that this interesting set of mag’ical [magnetical] circumstances might be the source of an explanation for why the energy content of a photon does not spread out as it travels thru space; but, alas, this is **only a feeling.** I’m almost ashamed to include it in this essay, but feel, intuitively, that it might be true. So I include it here as only a suggestion, and admit that it’s a very speculative suggestion, and might be not true.

However, it it turns out to be true, then I hope to receive a nomination for a Nobel prize in physics. If I live long-enough, that is. As one can say: “OY-VEH: I SHOULD LIVE SO LONG.”

Sincerely, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur physics enthusiast), age-67, 12-APRIL-2015, Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, email: MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com …..

**$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF BOOK >> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$**

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this:

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