I WRITE ESSAYs
CHAPTER 3: A NEW PROTON MODEL ??
“space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there … would be no propagatiion of light” —–Einstein, 1920 …
For many months I’ve worked on a new proton model, based on the work of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Refs.#1, 1a] and Dr. Menahem Simhony [Refs.#2, 2a, 2b, 2c], with some of my own ideas [Refs.#4, 5, 6], and those of a fellow truth-seeker [Ref.#3], to explain clearly and realistically how protons work, and what they look like, with no reference to “quarks” —– which have never been observed in a physics-lab [Ref.#17, pp.322-324]. In this new proton-model, the proton (i.e., every proton in our universe) interacts intimately with the stuff which composes the epo-lattice (“epola”) in Dr. Simhony’s model, which is quite different from the “ether” [“aether”] which 19th-century scientists believed in.
HOW DIFFERENT IS IT ??
The main difference between Simhony’s epola and Faraday’s aether is this: each of the many zillions of zillions of epola-elements in the epo-lattice is strongly bound to its place in the lattice, which permeates our universe, inter-penetrating all the ordinary matter in it. So epola-elements are not free to swirl, or to trail along behind moving objects, as some 19th-century scientists speculated. Instead, each and every proton and neutron in the nucleus of each and every atom of “ordinary” matter, (moons, planets, stars, comets, etc.), is always interacting with the epola-elements nearest to it, in a way which allows one to explain both inertia and gravity !!
With a slight modification to Sternglass’s proton-model [p.250, Ref.#1], one can visualize the proton as a tetrahedron-shaped object [Figure 1, at the end of the book], consisting of four  electron-positron pairs [ep-pairs], which contain most of the proton’s mass, plus an unpaired positron at the center, which carries all of the proton’s net electric charge, but only approx. 1/33 of its mass. Sternglass never says that he visualizes the proton as a tetrahedron-shaped object: this is my idea, which I arrived at after several years of intense study of Sternglass and Simhony. Sternglass does say that there are four ep-pairs in every proton, plus an unpaired positron at the proton’s center.
And he says that each of the four ep-pairs (also called “dipoles”) carries a strong magnetic field, analogous to planet earth’s magnetic field.
Plus, he suggests that the mysterious “rho meson” might be composed of four ep-pairs, (with no unpaired positron at their center), arranged in the shape of a tetrahedron, forming an “excited state” [Ref.#42d].
In this essay I call these electrically-neutral, magnetic-field-carrying, ep-pairs “proton-elements” —– to distinguish them from “epola-elements”, which figure prominently in Simhony’s model. If my visualization is correct, then each of these “epola-elements” also carries a magnetic field, which is how they interact with “proton-elements”. I.e., the little rascals interact through their magnetic fields. I visualize these proton-elements, four  per proton, arranged in the shape of a tetrahedron, with a positron at their common center.
As I detail in CHAPTER 12, I visualize magnetic forces associated with the four proton-elements as holding the positron in its place at the center, similar to how researchers in physics-labs use magnetic forces to hold charged objects in place, a little trick known as “magnetic trapping” [Refs. #21, #22, #23].
PERHAPs OUR MOTHER-NATURE HAS BEEN USING THIS LITTLE TRICK TO HOLD PROTONs TOGETHER ALL THE WHILE DURING THE PAST 13 BILLION YEARs ??
I visualize the proton as being always inside an epola-cell, moving from cell to cell, as Simhony [Ref.#2] describes in his “electron-positron lattice model of space.” I visualize the proton as always “plucking at the corners” of the epola-cell in which it’s located, as one of Simhony’s supporters [Ref.#3] suggested to me several years ago by e-mail. As already mentioned, I visualize this “plucking” as due to magnetic interactions between proton-elements and epola-elements.
One can use Sternglass’s model and some angular-momentum considerations to calculate the mass and size of each of the four electron-positron pairs [i.e., proton-elements] which contain most of the proton’s mass [details of this calculation are in CHAPTER 4]. By this method I calculate a mass of approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram and a radius of approx. 8.677 x 10^(-14) cm for each of the little rascals.
NOTE1: the above mass is almost exactly 1/4 of the known mass of the proton.
NOTE2: the above radius is almost exactly that of the experimentally measured “proton radius”, and was calculated from Sternglass’s theory, with no reference to any of the fiendishly difficult maths associated with quantum field theory.
Einstein said, many times, that one’s theory or model should be simple enough to explain to a bright 10-year-old, and I’ve made a strong effort to do this. Following is a verbal description, which I hope is simple enough for a non-scientist to understand. If not, then please send feedback, with any questions and/or comments and/or suggestions: MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com
THE TETRAHEDRON IS A VERY SPECIAL SHAPE
Because I visualize the proton (and the neutron, too) as being shaped like a TETRAHEDRON, I want to say some kind words re this particular (pun intended) geometrical shape.
The tetrahedron is the most simple of the five so-called “regular solids” —– and, no doubt, also the strongest. Four points totally define a tetrahedron. These four points define four faces, and six edges. Each face is an equilateral triangle, three of which merge at each of the four points. Two of the four points define each of the tetrahedron’s six edges, an edge being the straight line between two points. Each edge is of equal length, because each of the four points is equally-distant from each of the other three. And four is the largest number of points in 3-dimensional space for which this is possible: one just simply cannot insert a 5th point which is the same distance from each of the other points as they are from each other.
Sternglass uses the concept of “local gravity” in his model [pp. 222 + 223 + 249, Ref.#1]. He says that there are gravitational forces inside tiny objects, which are much stronger than the gravity between moons + planets + stars. Simhony [Ref.#2a] says that the epo-lattice itself is responsible for the existence of gravity in the first place: i.e., in physics-jargon, gravity is “emergent” from the forces which hold the epo-lattice together.
“In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon” [ http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html ].
If that link doesn’t work, then try this one: http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html#jCp
… To make a long story shorter, ordinary matter causes the epo-lattice in its immediate vicinity to expand slightly, and the “push-back” from the expanded epo-lattice is what we feel as gravity. So gravity doesn’t pull — it pushes !!
Applying this concept to a tiny object like the nucleus of an atom, one can visualize the possibility that the push-back force of local gravity, much stronger than Newton’s gravity, might be what holds together the protons + neutrons which compose an atom’s nucleus.
Mathematically, one can treat these forces as ELASTIC forces, because, as already mentioned, the epo-lattice is an elastic substance. The maths are analogous to the maths which describe the “harmonic motion” of a spring with a weight on it; i.e., “Hooke’s Law” —– which appears in every physics-101 textbook in the entire known universe.
I know that some might think it naive to try to model the proton in this way, but it seems to “work.” Specifically, due to attractive magnetic forces between them, a proton-element and an epola-element seem to interact weakly if they are less than approx. 10^(-13) cm apart, and almost totally ignore each other if they are greater than that distance apart. But, if one attempts to pull the four proton-elements apart, it seems that magnetic-trapping forces resist this attempt, very strongly. Perhaps this is why protons are so stable ??
Please, if any of this is unclear, or seems unbelievable to you, send feedback: I guarantee that I can defend this model: MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com.
Sincerely, Mark “Truth-lover” Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics enthusiast, Newark, Delaware, USA, 16-December-2014
$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 3 >> $$$$$$$$$$$