GRAVITATION

October 2012

Colophon

ISBN 978 90 8954 485 8

Copies can be ordered through the bookstore

through Internet: www.elikser.nl

or from:

Elikser B.V.

Ossekop 4

8911 LE Leeuwarden

The Netherlands

Tel. no: +31 58 2894857

Layout: Wypkje de Vries, Balk

© 2012 Reinier J. Van Meerten

This book or any part of it may not be reproduced without permission from the

author

A compendium of the invention of the MINIPARTICLES, MUCH SMALLER THAN THE ELECTRON by Reinier Van Meerten Ph.D. has been published in the Dutch book: Deeltjes kleiner dan het electron. ISBN 90-5179-054-6

© 2002 Dr. Ir. R.J. Van Meerten

GRAVITATION
by very small
’C particles

of 0.433 ×
10–50 kg

Reinier Van Meerten

October 2012

Page 143 in Zeitschrift fúr Physik 1905.

Chapter 1 

Summary of miniparticles 

In 2009 ⁴⁾ and 2010 ⁶⁾ publications appeared which can act as introductions into a specific not comprehended equation of Albert Einstein of 1905. This equation, with the suggested name “Physics’ Reveille” of 2010, equal to “Einstein’s Principle” of 2009, has the power for an innovation of theory in physics.

In 1905 Einstein revealed his main ideas about his “Energiequant”, later named “photon”, in three sentences (see photocopy on page 4) in the German “Zeitschrift fúr Physik” (1), which is known for its Editor-in-Chief Max Planck. The above mentioned 2010 publication, concerning the second and third of his sentences (including Physics Reveille), substantiates Einstein’s introduction into the general phenomenon of the photon in his first sentence of 1905, because the 2010 publication acts as an introduction into the concept of the “thrusting photon”.

A thrusting photon is a photon that pushes a moving gas molecule against its bow-wave of compressed medium.

The appearance of the word “medium” needs an explanation.

In 1887 MM (Michelson and Morley) concluded from their experiments that there is no medium, but we now know that they used a wrong experimental set-up. We can say that they committed a kind of “mediocide”, i.e. a murder on the medium, and that they put the whole physics’ community asleep.

It lasted till 1963 before the science of physics knew about the wrong MM set-up. Extremely small imperfections in the mirror cause a backscatter of a small fraction of the gradually altering direction of the incident light wave. It causes a coupling of the waves into a standing wave, with a dogged persistence of a node in the surface of the mirror. It is necessary that the “freezing” of the set-up is prevented by the use of a vigorous shaker, called “ditter”. The MM apparatus is not suited to ditters, and it doesn’t use them. It is therefore worthless. Moreover the conclusions leading to the MM-mediocide has later been overruled by the results of COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), which showed a movement of the solar system in the cosmic background.

When there is a drag-causing medium, a gas molecule or other moving body compresses the medium in a kind of “bow wave” that gives its main drag. The gas molecule can only proceed by being pushed forward by a “pusher”. Each gas molecule must have its own kind of pusher, and of all possibilities the choice of a relatively slow “thrusting photon” remains as the most probable one. The combination of photon + body + bow wave can be designated with the term “TRIO”. In contrast, the word MONO can be the name for a single body in the imaginary medium-less world.

The pushing photon causes a harmonic trembling of the body. Let the line of the x-axis be its average pathway. Its length is s, and the pertaining s/t is its speed v. This calculation is made during the concept of the “Common Innovation”, shortened to “COIN”.

In contrast to it, the value of the real pathway is s √2. Its pertaining s √2/t is the real velocity w, calculated during the general concept of the “Real Innovation” or “REIN”.

Let the Newtonian value of the kinetic energy of a moving body be 0.5 mw ², where w must represent the “real speed”. If always COIN is used, the kinetic energy is 0.5 mv ², but if the REIN represents the reality, the energy is mv ².

A method, to distinguish between COIN and REIN, exists by using the black-body radiation.

A metal cauldron is heated to a constant temperature T. A small peep hole is present that seems black through its much lower temperature. All gas molecules inside the cauldron, moving with temperature T, have a kinetic energy of average A’ × kT, with k = Boltzmann’s constant. In quantum theory it is an accepted fact, that each molecule can emit a photon of averagely A’ × kT when the molecule is suddenly stopped, for instance against another molecule. At constant T, equilibrium is present between emitting and absorbing of photons. In chemistry it is known that an absorbed particle remains only in the neighbourhood of the absorbing centre, where it has an easily reversible contact. Moreover at a high T the time between absorption and emission is ultra short, which also points to a nearly instantaneous reversible contact. All signs point to a loose contact of photon and molecule during the flight of the molecule. The molecule doesn’t move without a photon, which we therefore might name “thrusting photon”.

The necessity of the action of a thrusting photon for the motion of a gas molecule points to the presence of a medium that gives drag to any moving molecule. The strongest drag is always in the compressed medium in front, which can be indicated as “bow wave”. The combination photon + molecule + bow wave is again a TRIO. Photons can sometimes escape via the peep hole. Their average value is equal to the average value of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the cauldron. By measuring the energy of the photons, the kinetic energy of a moving gas molecule is known. Einstein used the results of the measurements of the energy of the black-body photons, and published his main conclusions in the three sentences.

Before we give the original text (see page 4 of this book), we might make a suggestion for a substitution. The letter v for “frequency” is difficult to discriminate against the letter v for “speed” along the x-axis; therefore I suggest substituting the v for “frequency” by the letter f.

The first sentence in the German language is:

Monochromatische Strahlung von geringer Dichte (inerhalb des Gültigkeitsbereiches der Wienschen Strahlungsformel) verhält sich in wärmetheoretischer Beziehung so, wie wenn sie aus voneinander unabhängigen Energiequanten von der Größe Rßf/N bestünde.

When we substitute R/N by k, the mentioned equation of Wien (the precursor of the Law of Planck) can be written as:

E f df = (h/c ²) f ³ [1/(e hf / kT)] df

The English translation of the first German sentence is:

Monochromatic radiation of a low density (within the range of Wien’s equation of radiation), having a relation to the theory of warmth, appears to posses the property as-if it consists of photons of the magnitude k β f, which are mutually independent.

The photons have the energy of k β f or hf with h = Planck’s constant, yielding β = h/k.

The second and third sentences in the German language are:

Wir wollen noch die mittlere Größe der Energiequanten der “schwarzen Strahlung” mit der mittleren lebendigen Kraft der Schwerpunktbewegung eines Moleküls bei der nämlichen Temperatur vergleichen. Letztere ist 1.5 kT, während man für die mittlere Größe des Energiequantums unter Zugrundelegung der Wienschen Formel erhält:

∫α f ³ e –βf /T df/ ∫ (1/k β f ) α f ³ e –βf /T df = 3 kT

The integrations are between 0 and ∞.

The translation of the second and third sentences is:

We also shall compare the average value of the photon of the black-body radiation with the average kinetic energy of a gas molecule at the same temperature T. The latter is 1.5 kT, and by applying Wien’s equation the average value of the photon is:

In the original publication of 1905, the words “The latter is 1.5 kT, and” should be discarded because they are no part of the calculation. The equation of the third sentence is the Physics Reveille ⁴).

The Physics Reveille has been forgotten a very long time. Jeremy Bernstein revived the interest in the equation in a Letter One thing Einstein didn’t do in 1905 in Physics Today, June 2006, page 11. He complained that Einstein didn’t give an explanation and according to this letter the physics’ community cannot solve Einstein’s Reveille. The solution came in 2009 ⁴) and 2010 ⁶): The integrated formula in the numerator (repeated in the denominator) shows the Law of Planck of black-body radiation:

E f df = (h/c ²) f ³ [1/(e hf / kT – 1)] df

but the last mentioned term –1 fails in the numerator and in the denominator of Physics Reveille. Thus code α = h/c ². Einstein’s Reveille (but with the term –1) applies the Law of Planck to spectrum’s energy in the numerator, yielding A. The denominator shows the same procedure on spectrum’s energy divided by pertaining photon’s energy, i.e. the total number of photons, yielding B. The quotient A/B reveals “Einstein’s average energy” per average photon. In reality the numerator is A × y %, and the denominator is B × z %, with y practically equal to z. Moreover Editor Planck, with his famous knowledge of the complete experimental results of black-body radiation, accepted that A/B, thus hf, is indistinguishable from (A × y %)/(B × z %) within the error of measurement. Thus Physics’ Reveille yields hf = 3kT. We can now explain the equation in the following words:

The energy of the pushing photon is equal to the kinetic energy of the pushed gas molecule or other pushed body.

The Physics’ Reveille gives the evidence for the existence of the thrusting photon. It also proves that the kinetic energy of a gas molecule is equal to mv ² and that, in the genuine reality, the REIN must be used.

The Physics Reveille is the same as hf = mv ² or mv ² = hf. In a rearranged form it is v/f = h/mv or λ = h/mv which is exactly the Rule of Louis De Broglie of 1924, which equation is the important main base of the quantum mechanics. The many experimental confirmations of De Broglie’s equation give the evidence of the oscillations of the pushed body.

We now have three proofs, I, II, III, for the TRIO model, and thus for REIN:

I.   COBE has proved the existence of a medium.

II.  Physics Reveille proves the existence of the pushing photon.

III. De Broglie’s Rule proves the contact between pushing photon and pushed body, furnishing it with a wavelength.

The REIN must always be used when there is an h factor in the equation, like in the Reveille equation and in the Rule of De Broglie.

So there are two “modes” (systems) of calculation, COIN and REIN, with tags © and ®, respectively, in order to prevent confusion. A sign that precedes an equation can be used as a tag. The letters © and ® are the only circled ones present in every personal computer. Only one of the modes need always to be tagged, which might be the REIN mode. The COIN mode needs extremely seldom its tag, only for instance when must be chosen between © E = mc ² and ® E = 2mc 2 4) ⁶). When a calculation must be made from first principles, always the COIN mode has been used. The REIN mode appears not to be of practical importance.

Let us return to Einstein’s philosophy. He published his famous number of innovations of physics in 1905, which he achieved by a pursuit of his “Principle” of conservative classical reality that has an imaginable model to describe an event in physics in a geometric mechanic sense. In order to try to enlarge his number of innovations, we can try to follow his “Principle”, which presented the TRIO, which consists of a photon that pushes a moving electron or other body against the drag of its “bow wave” of compressed gas-like medium.

The idea of the drag-causing particles of a gas represents also an imaginable model. In the same way the drag of a medium can be exerted by its particles. All bodies, including electrons, move in that medium that therefore must exist of particles, much smaller than the electron, which can be called: “sub-electronic particles”. The question arises: “How can we investigate a brand new kind of particles, which mass has an absolute ‘ceiling’ of the one of the electron?” A first approach might be that we ask for the “bottom” of the values of the mass, for which we need to know which one is the simplest of these particles. This can only to be found from a survey of all simple particles in the Universe. How can one manage to fulfil such a large, seemingly impossible, task, for which we have to look through all known models of contents of the Universe? An answer might be that we should try, as a first approach, to select the simplest of all these models.

Such a model appears to have been presented in five publications, viz. in 2007 ³⁾, 2009 4) 5) and in 2010 6) 7). The simplest model might probably be:

VOID AND PARTICLES

In full words: The Universe consists of the quantum mechanical VOID and particles only.

The first part of the suggested simplest model is “VOID”. It is generally accepted that the VOID, has the power of creating all kind of particles, which exist for some time before they are annihilated, and “returned into the VOID”. The second part of the model is “PARTICLES” that neatly fits into Einstein’s “Principle”. We can quote the whole model as the “all-particles cosmos”. The model is in accordance with the fact that the VOID and its particles fill the cosmos, together with permanent particles like electrons and protons. The model has advantages, because it can make theory simpler, e.g. the concept of “force”. Force can be exerted by a stream of particles, big or small, which is again according to the “Principle” of Einstein. An example is the bending of a tree by the force exerted by a stream of particles of the wind. Because this model of the Universe is probably the simplest of all models, we might follow it in a first approach.

The five publications also presented the consequences of the “all-particles cosmos”. A part of their summary follows now.

Before we start we will look for the translation of the word ”particle” in other languages, e.g. in German, the language of Einstein in 1905. In German it is “Teilchen”. Word part “Teil” comes back in the verb “teilen””, which means “splitting a bigger thing into smaller ones”. In Dutch it is “deeltje” from the verb “delen”, with the same meaning as “teilen”. In French the word “particule” resembles “particle”. In all languages the word “particle” says that it is part of a “bigger thing”. In the “all-particles cosmos” this “bigger thing” can only be another particle. This has an important consequence, because it also means that each particle consists of smaller ones, except the smallest particle, or the smallest kind of particles, that both can be designated as ’A. In its turn this means that particles can only originate from smaller ones, in “pedigrees” like for instance:

VOID ⇒ ’A (acon) → ’B (belton) → ’C (cosmon) → ’D (discon) → ’E (elon) → ’F (fellyon) → Electron and Neutron.

VOID ⇒ ’A → ’B → ’C → ’D → ’E → ’ σ (sigmon) → γ (Photon).

VOID ⇒ ’A → ’B → ’C → ’D → ’E → ’ ∆ (delton) → eN (e-neutrino).

Each pedigree has room for intermediate particles. The creation “from nothing to something” is restricted to: VOID ⇒’A. Call a self-propelled particle, like a photon, a “propellon”. Its model can consist of four “sails”, each consisting of a ring of simpler propellons. A special propellon is the “roton”, which is equal to a left-spinning or a right-spinning “circular propellon”.

The photon and e-neutrino pedigrees can probably be read as: ’A = a roton propellon

’B = a ring of 24 ’A’s = sail of ’C

’C = a roton propellon of four ’B-sails

’D = a ring of 24 ’C’s = sail of ’E)

’E = a roton propellon of four ’D-sails

’ σ = a ring of 24 or more ’E’s = general sign of a sail of γ

γ = general sign of a photon = a propellon of four ’σ-sails

’ ∆ = a ring of 24 ’E’s = sail of eN.

eN = a roton propellon of four ’∆-sails. The sign eN has been chosen, because the commonly used v for “e-neutrino” is difficult to discriminate against v for “speed”.

The “electron and neutron” pedigree has the same ’A, ’B, ’C, ’D, ’E sequence. The ’F (fellyon) is a “higher” form of ’E, because it is one ’E in the smallest possible circular path (called ’E orbon). Two fellyons can directly make a pion, which immediately alters itself (via a muon) into an electron. The mixture of fellyons also spontaneously makes the neutron. Somewhat less than half of the number of neutrons might spontaneously be changed into protons and electrons, which collection is perfectly able to form all matter.

The “sub-electronic” particles must be present in the lower stages, immediately before “electron and neutron”, thus in ’A, ’B, ’C, ’D, ’E, ’F, with ’A as simplest particle of the Universe, which is the goal of our deduction.

The electron has either a negative or a positive electric charge. In Maxwell’s famous description, the electric charge is the “divergence” of the electric force. In the all-particles cosmos the “divergence” is a kind of “fundamental fount” of lower particles.

The nearest lower particles in the pedigree are the ’F = (“higher” form of ’E) and ’E particles (elons). The electric force must be a stream of elons, which each must be self-propelled like a circular polarized photon. Here ends the summary of the five publications.

Two kinds of charge should produce two kinds of elons, e.g. left-spinning and right-spinning elons. Its collection, must have gas-like properties, and can be indicated as “gasoid”, possessing a pressure, as in a gas. The Latin suffix “oid” means “alike to”. Between a negative charge and a positive one, the elons can collide frontally, and annihilate each other, which happens less in the surrounding space. The gasoid pressure in the centre between the charges must therefore be lower than in their surroundings. This must cause a stream of elons, from the surroundings towards the centre, which will push the charges towards each other. The elon gasoid must be present everywhere on Earth around us, thus in the GB (Geo Background) and also in the CB (Cosmic Background).

We now shall return to our start. The light ether transmitted light waves and electromagnetic waves, in accordance with Maxwell’s conclusions that light waves are electromagnetic waves. The light waves are waves of the ether itself and are formed out of it. Light waves consist of photons, thus the photons are formed out of the ether and photons are particles with a structure. A pushing photon, just like a free moving one, is self propelled, and moves through the ether. It moves together with the “body” in the TRIO. This means that the ether also formed the “bow wave” of the medium, producing drag, which proves that both media are identical ones.

The forces between electric charges can only be exerted by elons, thus the waves in the elon gasoid must be electromagnetically waves, just like the waves in the ether. The conclusion must be that the elon gasoid is identically to the ether, and further:

The elon gasoid is identical to the drag-causing medium.

A force like the attracting electric one, but smaller, is also known between particles with mass that each probably simultaneously send out two opposite kinds of ’C propellons, forming the ’C gasoid, which mostly have a negligible drag on a moving body.

The number of ’C and ’E particles in the medium diminishes, because of the continuous occurring collisions, of which a part leads to annihilation. Without continuous creation the medium would vanish. Therefore the mere fact of the permanent existence of the medium is proof of the existence of continuous creation.

Now we know that the medium mainly consists of one kind of particles, e.g. the elon, we can zero in on the top priority of the safety of human lives. The mediocide of 1887, coupled to today’s innocence about the existence of the medium, hovers like Nemesis above our heads, especially for those who dare to travel high above the surface of the Earth in airplanes that are momentarily not yet equipped with adequately constructed guiding instruments. Until now we trusted that empty space here is the same as empty space on some distance, because we thought that “empty” = “empty”, but now we know that unevenness of the space filling gasoid of elon particles (like the unevenness of distribution of air), especially on long distances, is always possible. Although we do not have a complete list of all airborne accidents without known cause, we might a priori describe not noticeable aberrations, to be caused through an unevenness of distribution of the elon gasoid.

A first aberration could be that there is a slight elon wind perpendicular to the direction of the flying airplane.

The straight course of the airplane can principally be controlled by optical gyroscopes. When only has been flown through the automatic pilot, the optical gyroscopes can guide the airplane in perpendicular elon side wind some hundreds of metres besides the landing strip, although the plane had arrived at the right distance. This kind of accident will possible already happen at relatively short distance. Indeed there have been occurred this kind of unresolved disasters. To avoid a disaster by elon side wind, it must be compulsory to do a satellite guided localisation of the airplane, immediately prior to the procedure of the landing.

It might be asked, what can happen when 1000 km in the elon gasoid is in reality, 999 km in geographic distance, e.g. by a slight “elon head wind”.

Such an airplane would land one km before the airstrip, without warning. Recently a large airplane, after a trans-African flight from Cape Town (South Africa), landed about one km before the airstrip in Tripoli (Libya) in the mist, although the weather was further very good. Only one small boy survived.

When the weather is bad, the weather in the elon gasoid also might be bad, fooling the height meters. This might also be a major cause of catastrophes.

These three examples might be enough to start precise construction of instruments in the airplanes to monitor elon gasoid aberrations. A general first warning must be given:

All airborne traffic must be warned that “empty space” is no longer empty, but is filled with a sometimes uneven medium.

There remains a research into the exact values of the energy or equivalent mass of the particles of the medium. Such an impact in such a critical area requires an unprecedented synergy among scientific disciplines, i.e. a directly cross-disciplinary science. The research yielded a separate branch of physics of the medium, with the provisionally name: “Void physics”, which shows to be interdisciplinary. Its “body” might have two scientific “legs”. One “leg” is physics, with the pedigrees, but the other “leg” is found in the wealth of fine data of the science of astronomy, shown in the next example:

The first mass of a sub-electronic particle has been obtained by a calculation, which concerns the radii of the orbits of the inner solar planets that are approached as circles, with the number n of their sequence. I devised a mathematical “search engine”, in columns, for a GCD (= greatest common divisor). The mean distances from the Sun (in units of 10⁹ m) are factorized with k ², i.e. with the squares of fancied successive integers. The surplus of digits in a number serves as reference marks to identify the method. In the first column the orbit of Mercury has a k ² = 1², followed in the same column by Venus and Earth, with k ² = 2² and 3², respectively. The second column begins with k ² = 2². The series continues in this manner. Under each column µ (= the mean), SD (= standard deviation), and SD% (= 100% × SD/ µ ) are given. The magnitude of the SD% in the table shows a minimum of 6.11 % in the third column, which demonstrates that the average GCD is equal to 6.3937 (rounded off to 6.4) × 10⁹ m.

Table 1 Factorizing the mean distance from the sun.

With the use of the GCD it appeared, independently of the theory of Nottale ⁸), that the magnitude of a planetary orbit is on average proportional to n ². A similar n ² rule also occurs in the H (hydrogen) model of Niels Bohr (Chapter 2). Rutherford and Bohr equated to a certain extend the models of the orbits of the electron of the H atom to the orbits of the planets. I followed them and put, in thoughts, the Sun on the place of H⁺, and on the place of the electron I put a “tiny particle” that can exist at rest. Of all possibilities the choice of ’D for “tiny particle” remains the most probable one, because it is the direct remnant of the eternal annihilation in the elon gasoid in GB and CB. In Bohr’s model the “centrifugal force” is counterbalanced by the Coulomb attracting force, and the n times wavelength’s of De Broglie fits in the orbits, with radius R. In my model the Coulomb force is replaced by the mass-attracting force, yielding: n R = 84.262104 × 10–90 × n ²/m ², with m ’D = 11.464 (SD = 0.04) × 10–50 kg for the combination of the two giant planets Jupiter and Saturn (Chapter 2). It can be imagined that in the primordial disk around the Sun, preferentially, each orbiting dense ring of ’D’s, sucked in material that accreted into a planet.

Now we shall try to find the mass of ’E, situated between ’D and ’F. The ’F consists of π –, π ⁺, π ⁰, µ –, µ ⁺, e–, and e⁺, with a harmonic average of: (139.6² × 135.0 × 105.7² × 0.511²)1/7 MeV = 25.8319 MeV = 46.049 × 10–30 kg. When there is a regular (harmonic) increase in the mass of the particles in the series ’D→’E→’F, a possible prognosis for m ’E (mass of ’E) is that it would require an order of magnitude of about (46.049 × 1–30 × 11.464 × 10–50)1/2 kg = 22.976 × 10–40 kg. The energy (in the ’E-gasoid) of the mass of ’E (during its flight) would, upon annihilation, convert in a photon, with a λ of 961.97 microns. These photons would be absorbed by tiny particles, which event would lead to a “black radiation” with T = about 3 K, in the GMB (Geo Microwave Background). Here ends the prognosis for a first experimental observation on Earth.

During research for telephony on earth, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias observed in 1962 a strong “hiss” in the demodulated electromagnetic signals in the GMB, of about 3 K. The “hiss” was later also found outside the Earth. Then GMB/CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) existed together, equivalent to physics/astronomy, with physics having first priority for giving an explanation of the 3 K background.

In order to eradicate any doubt about tiny particles being the origin of the GMB/CMB radiation, we have to find a second method leading to the 3K background. This method exists indeed by determining the M*, the “Magic quotient”, present in the equations m D = M* × m C and in m ∆ = M* × m E. When we seek for stars that produce left spinning e-neutrinos and right spinning neutrinos in large amounts, we would use their annihilation products, thus ’∆ (= sail of a neutrino), to calculate the mass of the ’E particle, using the equation m E = m ∆ / M*. A realistic possibility for the production of ’∆ is hidden in the “Red Giants”, which produce a radiation around a wavelength of 20.1 micron.

It can be calculated that m ∆ = 549.8070 × 10–40 kg. The calculation of M* is possible via M* = m D / m C when we know m C, for which we can use two methods.

The first one is a calculation from first principles (Chapter 7), yielding that m C is equal to 0.433 or, more precisely, 0.433468 × 10–50 kg.

The second calculation has its source from an astronomical observation, namely the radius of the orbit of planet Neptune, yielding that m C is equal to 0.433 or, more precisely, 0.4328063 × 10–50 kg. The mean is 0.4331372 (SD = 0.000468) × 10–50 kg.

With this result the M* can be calculated. It appears that the found value for the mass of ’E fits, another time, with the cosmic 3K radiation.

The above result of 3K, calculated along two independent pathways, cannot be the product of chance, and forms the foundation of the physical explanation of the GMB/CMB radiation, namely that it is caused by the elon gasoid.

The precise GMB/CMB temperature is found in literature to b 2.728 ± 0.002 K ⁹). The accompanying λ max is 2898/2.728 µ = 1062.3167µ. From this, one can calculate the equivalent mass m ’E during the flight of ’E. The m ’E = m γ (equivalent mass of the photon γ) = 20.8057 (SD = 0.02) × 10–40 kg during its flight.

This completes the survey of the properties of the drag-causing medium, i.e. the nature, origin, and the exact mean value of the mass of its particles.

The COIN method of calculation had to be followed, in order to compare a newly calculated value to an already existing one.

With the above mentioned calculations the exceptional importance of astronomy, especially for physics, has been proven.

Einstein erroneously suggested in 1905 that v > c is impossible.

There is a concern of the physics community about the super high speed of neutrinos (10), from Cern Geneva to Opera Gran Sasso in Italy. This concern has been aroused by the idea that the neutrino speed (v) seems to contradict the “maximum speed postulate” of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity of 1905. That postulate states that the speed (c) of free moving light is the highest speed in the universe, but the Cern neutrinos showed that v > c. In reality the postulate can be discarded, which can be proved as follows:

A body, moving in uniform motion in its own rest frame, is dynamically characterized by its mass m ₀ at rest, its mass during its motion and its velocity v. The dynamic properties of a moving body in the Theory of Special Relativity of Albert Einstein can be derived from one “central equation”: mv = m ₀ v / (1 – v ²/c ²)1/2.

In order to prove it Einstein had to use assumptions, which contain three postulates (2), of which one can be described as the “maximum speed postulate”.

The “central equation” is in de COIN mode, and is thus not correct. The correct form must use the REIN mode:

mv √2 = m ₀ v √2 / (1 – v ²/c ²)1/2

(1)

When this equation can be proved, the theory of Special Relativity is true. It appears that there is a solution of the correct central equation without postulates as follows:

In the calculation of the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame we shall tentatively apply the central equation of the Theory of Special Relativity for speeds, lower than c, the speed of light. Eq. (1) can be simplified for calculations:

m = m ₀ / (1–v ²/c ²)1/2

(2)

When the resulting equation for the energy of a body appears to be true, the Eq. (1) also is true.

We shall start with the definition of the true kinetic energy W of a moving body as the work done in bringing it from rest to its state of motion. That is:

W = ₀ ∫ s√2 F d(s √2)

(3)

with F being the component of the applied force in the direction of the displacement d(s √2) and s √2 is the distance over which the force acts. Using the right form of the second law of motion F = d(mv √2)/dt, Eq. (3) becomes

W = ₀ ∫ s√2 [d(mv √2)/dt] × ds √2

W = ₀ ∫ mv√2 v √2 d(mv √2)

W = ₀ ∫ v√2 v √2 d[m ₀ v √2 / (1–v ²/c ²)1/2]

Note that ∫ x dy = xy – ∫ y dx, thus

W = 2m ₀ v ² / (1–v ²/c ²)1/2 – m ₀ × 0 ∫ v√2 v √2 dv √2/ (1–v ²/c ²) 1/2

W = 2m ₀ v ² / (1–v ²/c ²)1/2 + 2m ₀ c ² (1–v ²/c ²)1/2 – 2m ₀ c ²

W = 2m ₀ c ² (v ²/c ²) / (1–v ²/c ²)1/2 + 2m ₀ c ² (1–v ²/c ²) / (1–v ²/c ²) 1/2– 2m ₀ c ²

W = 2m ₀ c ² / (1–v ²/c ²)1/2 – 2m ₀ c ²

W = 2mc ² – 2m ₀ c ²

(4)

Eq. (4) states that the kinetic energy of a body is equal to the increase of two times its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. Eq. (4) can be rewritten

2mc ² = W – 2m ₀ c ²

(5)

If one interprets 2mc ² as the total energy E of the body, it follows that, when W = 0 (= the body is at rest), it nevertheless possesses the energy 2m ₀ c ², which we may call the rest energy E ₀ whose mass at rest is m ₀. Consequently we may write

E = E ₀ + W

(6)

where

E = 2mc ²

(7)

and

E ₀ = 2m ₀ c ² Nm

(8)

Energy can manifest itself as mass. One kg of matter has an energy content of about 18 × 10¹⁶ Nm, with 1 Nm = 1 joule.

We can check whether Eq. (8) is true. In case that the relative speed v is small compared with c, the equation for kinetic energy E ₀ = 2m ₀ c ² must reduce to E kin = m ₀ v ². Use is made of a binomial theorem (1 ± x)n ≈ 1 ± nx of algebra in case a quantity x is much smaller than 1. The quotient v ²/c ² will be in the role of x, because v << c. The relativistic formula for kinetic energy, according to Eq. (4), is W = 2mc ² – 2m ₀ c ² = 2m ₀ c ² / (1– v ²/c ²)0.5 – 2m ₀ c ² = 2m ₀ c ² × ((1+(v ²/c ²)/2) – 2m ₀ c ² = m ₀ v ². Thus Eq. (8) is true. Consequently Eq. (1), the central equation of the Theory of Special Relativity is also true, without the use of the three postulates.

The three postulates have no significance. The super high speed of neutrinos from Cern Geneva to Opera Gran Sasso in Italy is therefore not contradicting to the Theory of Special Relativity, and there is no further reason for any concern.

References 

1.   Albert Einstein, Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden Gesichtspunkt, Zeitschrift für Physik 1905, p. 143

2.   Albert Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, Zeitschrift für Physik 1905, p. 894, 895.

3.   Reinier J. Van Meerten, Dedication, p. cccl in Great Minds in the 21st Century, American Biographical Institute (2007).

4.   Reinier J. Van Meerten, Albert Einstein Genius Dedication p. CXXXI – CXXXVI in 500 Greatest Geniuses of the 21st Century, American Biographical Institute (2009).

5.   Reinier J. Van Meerten, Dedications, p. 94 – 98 in 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st century, International Biographical Centre, U.K.(2009).

6.   Reinier J. Van Meerten, Greatest Minds, p. clix – clxv, in Great Minds in the 21st Century, American Biographical Institute (2010).

7.   Reinier J. Van Meerten, p. 548 – 555 in Top Two Hundred of the IBC, International Biographical Centre, U.K. (2010).

8.   L. Nottale, Astron. and Astrophys. 315, L12 (1996).

9.   C.J. Hogan, Science 288, 281 (2000).

10. Adrian Cho, From Geneva to Italy faster than a speeding photon?, Science 333, 30 September 2011, p. 1809.

Chapter 2 

The mass of a sub-electronic particle, the Discon

The common idea in scientific literature is that the orbits of the solar planets are formed chaotically by chance, and that they do not fit together like the cogwheels of a big clock. The search for some regularity in their radii seems a priori to be doomed to be unsuccessful. Through the use of a kind of a “mathematical search engine”, the opposite appears to be true. The most important result of the use of the search engine appears to be that the solar planetary orbits have the property of a greatest common divisor (GCD). One can calculate this by dividing the mean distance (a) from the sun of each of the three planets closest to the sun by the square of the sequential number (n) of the orbit.

We call this method of calculation: mini-SD%. For the time being we assume here a priori, that the sequential numbers of the three planetary orbits belong to an uninterrupted part of a series. This “a priori assumption” will eventually need to be confirmed by the result of the mini-SD% method, which is demonstrated in Table I, where the mean distances from the sun (expressed in units of 10⁹ m) are factorized with k ², i.e. with the squares of successive integers.

The surplus of digits in a number serves as reference marks to identify the method by which the amount is calculated and its check, and the much-used symbol ≡ means “identical to”. The symbol = means (in calculations) “its value is equal to”.

The calculation is done in columns. In the first column the orbit of Mercury has a k ² = 1², followed in the same column by Venus and Earth, with k ² = 2² and 3², respectively. The second column begins with k ² = 2². The series continues in this manner. Under each column µ (≡ the mean), SD (≡ standard deviation), and SD% (≡ 100% × SD/ µ ) are given. The magnitude of the SD% in the table shows a clear minimum in the third column, which demonstrates that the average GCD is equal to 6.3937 (rounded off to 6.4) × 10⁹ m, with a SD% of 6.11%.

Table 2A Factorizing of the mean distance from the sun (expressed in units of 10 ⁹ m) of the present three innermost planetary orbits. This is followed by calculations with the addition of the Mars orbit. µ (of 4) ≡ mean of 4 orbits; SD ≡ standard deviation; SD% ≡ 100% × SD/ µ ; the minimum of the SD% marks the average GCD.

The table indicates that the actual order of the sequential numbers of the planetary orbits (where 1 AU = 149.5979 × 10⁹ m) is: Mercury, at 0.3871 AU from the sun (6), has n = 3, Venus at 0.7233 AU has n = 4, and Earth has n = 5, which confirms the “a priori assumption”. It also follows from this table that the planetary orbits with n = 1 and n = 2 are not occupied, which likewise was found by Nottale (7). He used his own mathematical formula, by adding a non-existent imaginary part to a much-used formula, without any trace of the mini-SD% method.

If 6.4 × 10⁹ m is the right value for the GCD, the fourth planet (Mars) would have to exhibit an n that is close to an integer. Its mean distance (1.5237 AU from the sun), is divided by 6.4 × 10⁹ m, and its square root is extracted, yielding: n is 5.9679, or about 6. As it is now clear that, since not every planetary orbit needs to be occupied, planets can also be counted as part of this GCD system, if they are not among the uninterrupted part of the planetary series. The next place for a planetary orbit lies in the Asteroid belt. Taking the largest asteroid, (Ceres, at 2.77 AU) we have the greatest chance of selecting an asteroid what is still moving in its original orbit. The n is 8.0466, close to 8. The next planetary orbit is that of Jupiter, at 5.203 AU. The n is 11.0281, close to 11. It is possible to calculate the extent these figures can be ascribed to coincidence. If the probability of their occurrence is less than once in a 1000 times, which provisionally can be denoted as P < 0.001, the result must be considered highly significant and it cannot be seen as coincidence. All numbers obtained by division and the extraction of square roots lie within 1/21.4 of an integer unit. The likelihood that this occurs simultaneously for Mars, Ceres and Jupiter is on average one in 10.7³ cases, hence P < 0.001. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that a physical law obtains here. The results given below obtained by dividing by 6.4 × 10⁹ m and then taking the square root (added to the foregoing) for Saturn (9.537 AU) 14.9307, Uranus (19.191 AU) 21.1799, Neptune (30.069 AU) 26.5115 and Pluto (39.48 AU) 30.3783, show an average GCD equal to 6.41 (SD = 0.22) × 10⁹ m. One can conclude from the table that the magnitude of a planetary orbit is on average proportional to n ²; the same proportionality that Nottale (8) found when applying his personal calculator method , in which he applied a number of non-existent imaginary factors. Since most orbits exhibit a limited eccentricity, we can assume for the sake of simplicity that the orbits can be approximate represented by circles. Let n R denote the n th radius of such an orbit according to the rule: n R = n ² × ¹ R, where ¹ R is the radius of the smallest possible orbit. We shall call this the (measured) n ² rule, which we can consider to be quantization. In using the word, “quantization” for circular orbits, a physicist often thinks of the fundamental model of the H (hydrogen) atom of Niels Bohr. His assumption, that the electron occurs in H only in certain stable orbits, is still completely valid in current quantum mechanical formulas. As a result, the n ² rule also obtains in the H model: n R = n ² × ¹ r, with ¹ r equal to the radius of the basic orbit (“ground state”) of the electron. Rutherford and Bohr equated to a certain extent the models of the orbits of the electrons of the H atom to the orbits of the planets. The Bohr model of 1913 can be inferred in the rule of De Broglie ( λ = h/mv, with λ , m and v, the wavelength, mass and velocity of the particle, respectively, and h the Planck’s constant: 0.66260755 × 10–33 Js) of 1924 if one assumes that 2π × n r = n × n λ , where n is a positive integer. By the same token, the solar model can be inferred in the H model if one replaces its nucleus by the sun and the electron by a particle that is even smaller, which could also exist at rest. We designate this particle with the provisional symbol ’d, i.e. “apostrophe d” (9) and pronounced as “de-on”. For the solar model one can posit as the first rule the following: in every planetary orbit, for a particle the centripetal force of mv ² /R must be equal to the gravitational force GMm/R ², with G ≡ the gravitational constant (66.7259 × 10–12 Nm²/kg²) and M ≡ the mass of the sun of 1.978 (± 0.6%) × 10³⁰ kg. Solar rule no. 2 is: n λ = h/(m × n v). Suppose that 2π × n R = n × n λ . In this formula we substitute rule 2, so that 2π × n R = nh/(m × n v). If from this and from rule 1 we eliminate the n v, we obtain n R = (h ²/4π ² GM ) × n ²/m ². This is the “n R-formula”, in meter:

n R = 84.262104 × 10–90 × n ²/m ².

This is in accordance with the rule n R = n ² × ¹ R. In the solar system rule no. 3 apparently applies: 2π × n R = n × n λ , analogous to the H model. This n (denoting the number of λ’s in any orbit) precedes the relevant symbol. The ’d particles with their “λ trajectories” played a crucial role in the planetary orbits. For each of them we can determine the mass m by means of the n R-formula. For all 10 planetary orbits the mass of ’d, which we may code with m D, is on the average: m D = 11.478 (SD = 0.2) × 10–50 kg. This means that 95% of all values of the mass of ’D is situated between 11.478 + 1.96 × 0.2 and 11.478 – 1.96 × 0.2 times 10–50 kg, which is simplified into: between 11.9 and 11.1 times 10 –50 kg.

For the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, with statistical weights (proportional to each mass) of 3.34 and 1.00, respectively, the average m D = 11.464 (SD = 0.04) × 10 –50 kg; this “Jupiter-Saturn m D ” is the best value.

It is universally known that the cosmos is dotted with a gigantic number of particles, like electrons and protons. Is it allowed to assume that the universe, apart from the Quantum Mechanical VOID (in earlier literature called VACCUUM), totally consists of particles? The answer may be positive, because it describes the simplest main axiom that one can design. A universe, consisting of VOID and particles, may be called an ‘all-particles cosmos’.

The symbol ’d also represents a kind of ‘species’ of particles.

The word ‘particle’ says that it is a part of a ‘bigger thing’. In an all-particles cosmos that ‘bigger thing’ cannot be anything else than a particle, which therefore consists of smaller particles. This applies to any particle. The general rule therefore is:

Each particle consists of smaller particles.

The rule does of course not apply to the smallest possible particle itself. This means that there is a sequence in the origin, thus a kind of evolution of mass-carrying particles.

Owing to its small mass, we may consider ’d a “mini-particle”. The crucial question then arises: do the ’d-mini-particles originate by coincidence or not? In the former case, the uncertainty principle of Werner Heisenberg applies, which may be written

∆ E × ∆ t ≈ h /2π.

According to this fundamental equation, an event in which an amount of energy ∆ E is not conserved is not prohibited for the duration ∆ t of the event, if ∆ t does not exceed approximately h/2 π∆ E (10).

Let us consider the imaginary case that a particle (in the later part of the fictitious example denoted e–, and called ‘electron’) with rest mass 0.91 × 10–30 kg, but with unknown mean life span, would have been discovered. Had it arisen spontaneously from the Quantum VOID, its mean life span (∆ t) would have been about 0.65 × 10–21 s (second). The same applies also to its antiparticle e⁺. Had e– not originated directly from the VOID but from ‘lower’ (i.e. simpler) particles, these consisting in turn of the still lower ’d particles, and had the latter arisen directly from the VOID, then the e– (or its parts) could have had the same life span as the one of the ’d-particles, i.e. 0.01 s, some 10¹⁹ times as long (here ends the imaginary case). A life span of 0.01 s for ’d is obviously much too short to cover a planetary orbit even once. For a longer life span it would have to consist of still smaller particles, e.g. of ’C-particles, and these of still lower particles, e.g. ’B-particles, and so on from ’A, °Vs₂, °Vs, °Vr, to °Vo, where once a very long time ago a single °Vs₂ (= ’Ai.s.n. = ’A in statu nascendi) could have arisen spontaneously (through an extreme rare Coincicidence) from the VOID and then must have multiplied auto-catalytically, otherwise there could not have been no ’d. Each °V is an entity of the VOID, but °Vs₂ is just outside the VOID and is the just born ’A-particle. The ’A-particle then starts moving and from that moment on has a much larger inertial mass (and also a much larger auto-catalytic activity) through this movement. To play a complete cosmic role, ’d, and hence ’C, ’B and ’A, must have evolved from °Vs₂ which has a life span of ∆ t, longer than the life span of the universe, and a proportionally smaller ∆ E.

The accompanying series (without coefficients) is VOID ⇒ ’A → ’B → ’C, where each symbol is a particle or group of particles, and where ’A < ’d. The symbol ⇒ means that the “continuous Creation” is active. In order to continue existence during the life of the universe, the particles, such as the nucleons n⁰ and ¹H, ultimately have to arise from ’A. The same applies to all the shorterlived particles that are related to them, hence all particles. As a result, the VOID ⇒ ’A → ’B → ’C chain must be continued in one of the nucleons, i.e. the n⁰, since an isolated n⁰ converts to ¹H spontaneously and not vice versa. Space is then reserved for the intermediate particles or groups of particles. The full series, which can be termed, “pedigree of the neutron” or the “production process of n⁰” then becomes in principle (without coefficients):

VOID ⇒ ’A → ’B → ’C → ’D → ’E → ’F → n⁰

After a solitary n⁰, ¹H usually follows as a result of beta decay, but mostly the new n⁰ remains attached to an adjacent proton (p⁺), for instance in the reaction of continuous creation:

p⁺ ⇒ p⁺ – n⁰

with p⁺ – n⁰ identical to the nucleus of ²H.

This reaction can also occur in the sun. In that case the share of the reaction ¹H + ¹H → ²H + e⁺ + ν in the production of deuterons (and in this way, in the production of energy through ⁴He) of the sun is less extensive than has hitherto been thought. One can maintain that the number of neutrinos calculated (from the total produced energy of the sun) is too high, a situation that would explain the “missing primary sun neutrinos”.

The tiny ’d is part of the pedigree, thus ’d < n⁰.

The ’d particles in the pre-planetary disk surrounding the sun would have had to collect in rings, resembling those around a planet. A planetary ring (e.g. the α ring of Uranus) consists of an invisible and an optically perceptible part. The particles of the former, which may be called “webbons”, give this part the name “webbonring”. Their jet collects every larger particle in its vicinity. The resulting product may be called a “webring”, superficially resembling a circular thread of a spider’s web, covered with dust. In an analogous way the ’d will have gathered in solar webbonrings, from which webrings originated in which later the planets agglomerated. To a solar webbonring belongs the structural formula nO’dw i.e. a (very large) O-ring with a circumference of n λ , consisting of w times one ’d. Reconstruction of original solar webbonrings is possible only through the knowledge of the production, structure and deterioration of ’d, which can be obtained from the planetary webbonrings with their particles, (probably) larger than ’d, e.g. ’dz. The many ’d could have originated in an evolution from lower to higher mini-particles (or vice versa) in the pedigree of the neutron. From this it follows that the lower and/or higher particles must have previously occurred in extremely large numbers by a production process that quickly worked catalytically on the production of particles, which ultimately would have had to originate with ’A. Catalysis requires catalysts. The only catalysts that could occur in the dust disk surrounding the sun are bodies, such as gas molecules and dust particles. The obvious course would be to look for this catalytic genesis in physical processes – bound to a body – such as “electrical charge” and “gravitational mass,” usually described as properties of a body. It is in such a process that physical “events” take place. In an “event” a situation of movement arises, which did not exist previously. As an example, take what is virtually an unalterable particle, represented by the provisional symbol ’x, at rest. If this is suddenly moved (or if its movement suddenly changes) there is an “event”. It is possible to imagine that a particle ’x can only move (or the course of its movement change) and accelerate through collision with, or a push from other (usually smaller) fast particles, so that the resulting flow of particles against a larger particle ’x, functions as a “force”. The stream of particles must consist of the longest-lived particles, otherwise they will not reach the ’x, or the force will suddenly cease. The consequence of the origin of the neutron pedigree is that only the VACUUM and particles affect “events”. One can sum up all (usually divisible) particles and their interactions, along with the VACUUM, as an “all-particles cosmos”, where all “events” (including at least one crucial kind of “Bang”) take place and where all physical properties are manifest, including the aforementioned “electrical charge”. The Scottish physicist and mathematician Maxwell describes each of the charges as the “divergence of the electric force”, in shorthand (11): div F. The phenomenon of “divergence” is a kind of “fundamental fount”. In the all-particles cosmos particles must flow from such a fount. Every fast flow or sub-stream of these particles may be considered an “electric force” (F). The aforementioned particles are long-lived and apparently have an extremely high velocity. For the time being we shall call them ’e-particles. It is plausible that the proton can catalyze the ’e, because it contains a template of ’e. Together with the neutron, it will have originated (entirely or partially) from ’e, possibly through other particles (e.g. in ’F), which for the most part must be charged. Thus, ’e will be located between ’A and n⁰. We have at present a free choice and opt for ’e ≡ ’E.

Since we know that ’A < ’d < n⁰, and that ’A < ’E < n⁰, there is a chance of understanding the structure of ’d by first establishing the structure of ’E. We can then determine the position of ’d with respect to ’E. Mini-particle ’E has the following properties – (a) long-lived and (b) continuously moving at (c) an extremely high velocity. These are properties that the photon also has, so the obvious course is to compare the model of ’E with that of the photon, which is usually designated by γ. The best-known manifestations of γ are the counterclockwise γ l (as seen from behind), the clockwise γ r and the linear one. Cosmology assumes that a collection of photons has the property of a photon gas. This can best be compared to an ideal, almost frictionless gas. The photon gas, however, is not a true gas and we therefore designate this collection as a “gasoid”. Since ’E closely resembles γ, it is plausible that a gaseous collection of ’E particles is likewise a gasoid.

As a dynamic model for γ one can take a model which resembles the movement pattern of gas molecules, as is present in a moving “smoke ring” blown into the air by a smoker, which we designate as ’W, and call it a “vorticity”. We designate a similar model as ’P, and call it “propellon” when it moves with maximum speed (with respect to a medium) and possesses an active torus. ’V (which we call “vortexon”) inside, which has an internal “drive”, and passes its energy to a wrap around ’V. This wrap we designate as ’U (resembling the smoke ring), and call it “undulon”.

The structures of ’E and γ resemble each other so it may be expected that, in the pedigree of the neutron (or a branching of it), ’E and γ are located close together. There are thus two possibilities: ’E comes from γ, or vice versa. In the former case ’E would need three (or more) manifestations because γ already has at least three. Since only two types of charge exist, only two forms of ’E can exist, so the first option is ruled out and γ must therefore arise from ’E. Since γ often arises from moving electric charges, and these, according to the foregoing are supported by ’E particles, γ indeed cannot but consist of ’E. The conclusion must therefore follow that γ is a ’P, moving in a gasoid, probably the ’E-gasoid. We designate this ’P by EP (with the E in Italics). Since ’E resembles γ, the model for ’E would likewise have to be a ’P and is arguably the simplest one, to be designated as ’K, with the name “King propellon” in another (lower) gasoid.

The models with drawings of the structures of ’P, ’V, ’U and ’K, will be shown in the next chapter. First we need some broad survey: As a tangible model for the ’W let us take a long, straight sided, transparent balloon filled with smoke, slide close-fitting O-rings over it at equal intervals, bend the balloon into a doughnut shape and stick the ends together to form a torus. Streams of particles moving in the same direction attract each other; this balling-up of flows is represented by the O-rings, which may be denoted as “sails” of a windmill. These sails, however, are loose, and located at varying distances from the sail-axle. The structure is in balance when, opposite to a sail on one side of the doughnut, there is another sail; together they form an antipodal couple of sails. The simplest strong stability is achieved, if there are couples present in the x- and in the y-direction. Its (mostly) high production rate requires the smallest number of sails, i.e. four. Each sail in γ designates a trajectory along which the ’E particles fly at almost maximum velocity after one another in a circle. A sail effectuates a “wheel” (around the sail) which is a part of the ’U (around the ’V). In this way the ’U can be compared with four “wheels”, arranged on an iron wire, the “hoop”, in the shape of a doughnut. In the sub-electronic particles the ‘hoop’ is squarely built, with each side of the square acting as the axis of a ‘wheel’. In this way the combination of rotating ‘wheels’ can be named a ‘wheel-square’. In this way they function as paddlewheels to propel the doughnut. Each sail (≡ O-ring ≡ ’O) would have to consist of ’K-particles, that fly around in a ring and mutually attract one another. A ’K that comes too close to the next particle ahead of it would be attracted less from the front than from behind by the next ’K, by which relationship the sequence of the O-ring is maintained. In the formula, γ ≡ ’P’σ ₄, where ’σ is a sail; ’σ ≡ ’O’Ex, where ’E is a ’K and x an integer; ’E ≡ ’P’D₄, where ’D is a sail; ’D ≡ ’O’Cy where y is an integer.

According to the ‘random/gasoid idea’ of Einstein (Chapter 1), we may assume that the VOID consists of point like ‘entities’, which move in all directions. These chaotic movements produce permanently all kinds of circular movements. In the most occurring circular movement is indicated as °Vo. It produces °Vq, which has the appearance of a small barrel with two staves (two times a °Vo). Experience learns (Fig. 5P(e)) that such a barrel is automatically enlarged to a ‘big’ barrel by addition of a third stave (°Vo); in short: °Vq + °Vo → °Vr (Fig. 5V2).

Fig. 5W demonstrates that the ’A-particle consists of four big barrels, each of them functioning as a ‘wheel’. The four ‘wheels’ are united in a ‘wheel-square’. From the moment of its birth the barrels in ’A have some motion. Any movement compresses the VOID between the barrels and produces a higher ‘temperature’ of the gasoid’, which means that the average speed of the entities (of the VOID) is enlarged drastically. Its consequence is a strong enlargement of the speed of Creation, with an accordingly much higher inertial mass of the moving ’A. The enhanced production of the °Vq + °Vo → °Vr enlargement, expands rapidly the part of the compressed VOID that just had passed the centre of the ’A. This causes the barrels to rotate more vehemently, which compresses still more VOID. This is like a chain-reaction. The ultimate result is a flash like motion of ’A. The ’A’s form together an ’A-gasoid. The °Vq + °Vo → °Vr drive of ’A is also the ultimate drive of ’C. In the formula: ’C ≡ ’P’B₄, where ’B is a sail, and ’B ≡ ’O’Ay, where y is an integer. The ’C’s moving forward at maximal speed will be the ’C-gasoid. The linear displacement of ’C functions as the drive of ’D, ’E, ’σ and γ. As a result, ’E moves in relation to the ’C-gasoid, and γ in relation to the ’E-gasoid, both in a straight line at their maximum velocity.

Particles ’σ and γ have dimensions much greater than the elements of the neutron pedigree; they probably only form a branch of it. The mini-particle ’d remains to be identified. Since ’d can be at rest, ’d cannot be one of the constantly moving particles, such as ’C, ’E or γ; thus ’d can be either ’D or ’σ. A gigantic number of ’d’s was needed to bring each molecule from the disc (around the sun) into the solar webbonring. Because of this circumstance, the ’d cannot be any kind of ’σ, since during the astronomically long time in question, no gigantic numbers of (’σ-yielding) γ are present with always the same frequency; thus ’d ≡ ’D.

The “housing” of the fundamental fount of ’E can be a particle at rest, e.g. a proton. In addition to “charge” a particle at rest may have the property of “gravitational mass”. “Mass” is different from “charge” but in certain respects strongly resembles it. Analogous to the notion that “charge” is a plentiful fundamental fount of long-lived, constantly-moving particles, “gravitational mass” may well be another fundamental fount of long-lived, constantly-moving particles: the (so far unknown) ’y particles. The structure of ’y must resemble that of ’E and its place in the pedigree of the neutron (or a ramification) should be near ’E, thus ’y must be ’F or ’C, and the ’y’s must exist in two forms, which are antiparticles. If ’y would be higher than ’E, it should have two types (or more) of founts, because ’E already has two. Because ’y has only one type of fount (the “gravitational mass”) it cannot be higher but can only be lower in the pedigree of the neutron. Thus ’y ≡ ’C, and ’C ≡ ’Cl or ’Cr. The production (in pions and nucleons) must then exclusively happen in pairs of ’Cl and Cr which will always cause attraction between any two (not electrically charged) bodies with mass. The general formula for the structure of ’D is therefore ’O’Cw, where in this case w = y.

Let us return for a moment to “charge” One may assume for the time being that a negative charge emits ’El, and a positive ’Er. Like the γ l and γ r, which are in some ways comparable, ’El and ’Er rotate in opposite directions. In the case of head-on collisions they will often break apart into their paddlewheels (≡ ’E-annihilation). These ’E’s disappear as a result and an “under-pressure” forms in the ’E-gasoid between two bodies with opposite charges. The ’E particles flowing from the periphery will sweep along the bodies so that a force obtains, being the electrostatic force of attraction. The analogy for gravitation is that between two bodies with gravitational mass, the ’C particles sometimes breakdown into ’B-particles, in the case of a head-on collision (≡ ’C-annihilation), i.e. ’Cl + ’Cr → 8’B. As a result, a local under-pressure arises in the ’C-gasoid, with a flow of ’C’s (from the periphery) which sweeps the bodies along with it. The force thus exercised can be called the gravitational mass force of attraction.

These models describe together with quantum mechanical formulas, what and how much happens, respectively. Here is an example about one free moving photon EP, which passes one of two slits and thereafter preferable follows an “interference path”. In this two-slit experiment, which Feinman called “the mother of all quantum-effects” the rapid moving photon dents and displaces rhythmically the ’C-gasoid and causes ’C ripples in front of it. The ripples arrive much earlier than the photon at the wall with two slits and is reflected, making a standing wave and an oscillating line of the ’C gasoid along the wall. The oscillating line dents rhythmically the ’E gasoid which makes the definitive early interference paths behind the slits. The reflected ’C wave synchronizes the phase of the approaching photon and leads it to and through one slit, where after it follows preferably an interference path. See Ch. 7, Section 7 for one body in the two-slit experiment. Thus no customary “particle/wave” paradox of the time of Einstein arises. He was convinced that some factors remained hidden from Quantum Mechanics.

Several vortexons exist, from tiny to very big. A small vortexon has a tendency for circular sails, especially if it freely moves in a linear path, and can be called to be a balloon-model. If we screen the form of vortexons on a gradually larger scale, the sails will gradually become slacker and therefore more flat like the outside form of a track of a bulldozer. A big vortexon will then have the similarity of a long thin caterpillar. During the transition of the sails, from small to big, both models are in equilibrium with each other, which means that the results of the calculations concerning the stability of the balloon-model also are applicable to the caterpillar-model. This means that we only need the calculations for one model. I opt for the balloon-model.

The De Broglie wave, which accompanies the ’D-particle in a planetary ring, is extremely long. We can imagine each ’D as being “pushed” and directly followed by the De Broglie wave in a certain phase α. The ’D will sometimes be present outside and sometimes inside of the planetary orbit, and then have a higher speed or a lower one than the bulk of the ’D’s in the orbit. This goes on till it finds another ’D, that has a phase, just prior to α. It then fits in a stable place in the “orbital train of ’D’s”. All ’D’s will follow another ’D which has a phase just prior to theirs. This conclusion is also valid, if we take another imaginary structural configuration of the ’D with the accompanying De Broglie wave. In this way the De Broglie waves fit to the train of ’D’s like in an endless belt. Their structures cooperates mutual and enforces the overall structure of the planetary orbit before the planet was born.

One can sum up the foregoing as the “concept of the all-particles cosmos”. The names of the particles could be: ’A ≡ Acon, ’B ≡ Belton, ’C ≡ Cosmon, ’D ≡ Discon, ’E ≡ Elon, ’F ≡ Fellyon. The ’A, ’B, ’C, ’E, have only inertial mass, expressed in the unit of gravitational mass: kg. The ’A, ’C, and ’E particles are “rotons”, which are either “leftons”, i.e. rotate like a left handed screw, like a neutrino, or are “rightons”, i.e. rotate like antineutrinos. About the mass units:

If (in chemistry) the hydrogen-ion concentration is 10–5, this is simply expressed as pH5. Thus if the mass of e– is 0.91 × 10–30 kg, this can be noted as 0.91kg30. The names of kg30, kg40, kg50, kg60 and kg70, can be: kilotria, kilotetra, kilopenta, kilohexa and kilohepta, respectively.

About the equations: In order to keep all introductions as simple as possible, I have used the practical equations, designated as COIN in the previous chapter, sometimes with reference mark ©: Force F = m × a; Moment p = m × v; Gravitational constant = G; Centripetal force = m × v ² /R; © E = mc ². I should have used my later arising REIN updates, with reference mark ® , but in this case the calculated results of both groups of equations are the same. The updates are: Force ® F = 21/2 × m × a; Moment ® p = 21/2 × m × v; ® Gravitational constant = 21/2 × G; ® Centripetal force = 21/2 × m × v ² /R; ® E = 2mc ².

References

6    E. D. Miner, Uranus (Wiley, New York, 1998) p. 22.

7    L. Nottale, Astron. and Astrophys. 315, L11 (1996).

8    L. Nottale, (supra 7) L12

9    The notation ’y (of a y particle) is not on the keyboard (in Window’s Word) but can be typed with ctrl + ’(apostrophe), ’(apostrophe), y.

10  A. Beiser, Concepts of Modern Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967) p. 309.

11  J. E. Marsden and A. J. Tromba, Vector Calculus (Freeman, New York, 1988) p. 225 and p. 537.

12  T.J.R. Hughes and J.E. Marsden, A short course in fluid mechanics (Publish or Perish, Boston, Mass, 1976) p. 61 and p. 67.