The Physical Electron, The Neutron Inner Orbit Model and The Emergent Universe
The Physical Electron, The Neutron Inner Orbit Model and The Emergent Universe
The Emergent Universe- By Gene Callens C[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [179.8 KB]

The
Emergent Universe

Gene
Callens

Abstract

This is the third of three articles that present the
concept that all mechanisms of the universe have emerged from the interactions
of two fundamental massless particles under specific conditions. The first article3
identified properties of the massless particles and additional properties of
the electron and proton that, when combined with a geometric model, result in
equations that accurately compute the fundamental constants and electron and
proton properties. The second article4 developed a neutron inner
orbit model that accurately calculates the neutron excess mass equivalent
energy. The success of these models in reproducing the experimental data
implies that the universe has emerged from the interactions of two massless
particles that successively create new conditions and interactions resulting in
increasing complex systems. This article investigates some the implied emergent
mechanisms that underlie these systems. The mechanisms investigated are those
responsible for dynamic electrons and protons, the characteristics of light, space
as a flexible and responsive grid system, gravity, magnetism, particle-wave
duality, relativistic mass, mass equivalent energy and momentum, time dilation,
length contraction, and characteristics of the universe (cosmology). The
conclusion is that the implied mechanisms that stem from the successful models developed
in the first two articles result in a coherent and comprehensive depiction of
the emergent universe.

Introduction

The rationale for the views expressed in this
article is that there are unwarranted extensions of both quantum mechanics and
the theories of relativity that are based in part on the failure to recognize
or remember that mathematics is the servant of both reality and fantasy. Early
in the 20th century the scientific pendulum in atomic physics swung
heavily toward theoretical mathematical models. The failure to accept the
limited applicability of these models appears to have influenced the departure
from causality that was an aspect of what became known as the Copenhagen
interpretation. This resulted in the acceptance of calculated infinite values of
some physical properties such as density as reality although this defies all
observations. In fact, these mathematical singularities represent points of
zero knowledge and cannot be renormalized into reality as is the prevailing
delusion. I still regard causality as the appropriate foundation for all of
science. My engineering observations are that almost all mathematical models of
reality are valid only in well-defined domains. Aerodynamics is a good example
where subsonic models do not apply in transonic or supersonic regimes and
vice-versa. General applicability appears to be confined to general principles
such as the conservation principles. The result is that there are often
multiple interpretations of experimental data in cases where the actual physical
mechanisms are unknown or poorly understood. That is why subpopulations of our
species believed in astrology, flat earth, geocentric model with explanatory
epicycles, etc. Fortunately, the scientific method based on causality has
eventually led to the correct interpretation although the process has often
taken a long time.

I regard the historical treatment of quantum
mechanics and the theories of relativity as incomplete at best. In my view, the
common denominator for the incompleteness in most cases is the absence of
actual physical models. In fact, the most popular scientific opinion seems to
be that there are no physical models at the ultimate fundamental level. This
view appears to mandate that the physics principles that have served us so well
do not apply at this level. A recent exposition of the extent to which this philosophy
has developed is presented in Ref. 1 entitled “What is Real” (Scientific American, August 2013, pp.
40-47). Quoting from page 45, “Now the following question arises: What is the
reason that we can know only the relations among things and not the things
themselves? The straightforward answer is that relations are all there is. This
leap makes structural realism a more radical proposition, called ontic
structural realism.” The author goes on to explain the state of affairs that
has led to this position. Quoting from page 47, “How can there be so much
fundamental controversy about a theory that is as empirically successful as
quantum field theory? The answer is straightforward. Although the theory tells
us what we can measure, it speaks in riddles when it comes to the nature of
whatever entities give rise to our observations. The theory accounts for our
observations in terms of quarks, muons, photons and sundry quantum fields, but
it does not tell us what a photon or a quantum field really is. … For many
physicists, that is enough. They adopt a so-called instrumentalist attitude:
they deny that scientific theories are meant to represent the world in the
first place.”

Another description of the legacy of quantum
mechanics’ unwarranted extensions into the bizarre is presented in Ref. 2
entitled “Quantum Weirdness: It’s All in Your Mind” (Scientific American, June 2013, pp. 46-51). Quoting from page 47,
“Physicists have grappled with the quantum world’s apparent paradoxes for nine
decades, with little to show for their struggles.” In a refreshing analysis of
the famous paradox of Schrödinger’s cat being both alive and dead at the same
time, the author states on page 51, “Asserting that Schrödinger’s cat is truly
both alive and dead is an absurdity, a megalomaniac’s delusion that one’s
personal state of mind makes the world come into being.” However, the bold
author reviews a new version of quantum theory called Quantum Bayesianism (or
QBism) combining “quantum theory with probability theory in an effort to
eliminate the paradoxes or put them in a less troubling form.” In the summary
paragraphs entitled, “A New Reality” he states, “And proponents of QBism
embrace the notion that until an experiment is performed, its outcome simply
does not exist. Before the speed or position of an electron is measured, for
example, the electron does not have a speed or a position. The measurement
brings the property in question into being.” I respectfully suggest that
another refreshing and consistent analysis of this position might paraphrase
the previous quote, “Asserting that an electron’s speed or position does not
exist before it is measured is an absurdity, a megalomaniac’s delusion that
one’s personal actions makes the world come into being.”

My alternative response to this state of affairs is
that 1) reality does in fact consist of physical entities, 2) there are alternative
interpretations of scientific measurements and observations and 3) the correct
and complete interpretation of these measurements and observations will emerge
when the physical entities are identified and the physical mechanisms are
understood. The current article is the third in a three-part series and attempts
to further describe the implications of a physical model that accurately
calculates the fundamental constants and the well-founded properties of
electrons3, protons3 and neutrons4.
Specifically, in the previously reported work, I discovered that the
interactions between two
postulated fundamental massless
particles
provided possible mechanisms for a physical
electron with causal properties3 as contrasted to the currently
popular notion of intrinsic electron properties. Likewise, there were also
compatible mechanisms for the proton3. The second of these three
articles presents the neutron inner orbit model that is consistent with the
electron and proton models and accurately calculates the experimentally
determined neutron excess mass equivalent energy4. Therefore, the
outcome is that these compatible physical models, which are straight-forward
mathematical equations, do accurately calculate the accepted experimental data
as expressed in the fundamental constants and properties of electrons, protons
and neutrons.

The success of these models in matching the
experimental data also results in important implications regarding the underlying
physical mechanisms.
The
current article addresses some of those implications relating to the emergence
of the multifaceted mechanisms of the universe such as gravity, magnetism, special
and general relativity, and flexible universal space. In order to lay the
foundation for further consideration of these implied underlying physical
mechanisms, the basic ideas of the previous work reported in Refs. 3 and 4 are
summarized. The development begins with the presentation of three primary
postulates as follows:

  1. All
    processes in the universe emerge from the interactions of two massless
    particles.
  2. The
    concepts of mass, force, and all resultant static and dynamic properties of
    matter result from the action of the two massless particles in the formation
    and function of the two stable structured particles, the electron and proton.
  3. All
    measured values of the traditional fundamental constants including the electron
    and proton properties are the result of actual physical mechanisms.

 

The basic premise for the physical model
as seen in the postulates is that the entire universe of mass and energy is
solely the result of collisions between the only existent foundational entities
in the universe, designated as characteristic one (C1) and characteristic two
(C2) particles. Both the C1 and C2 particles are regarded as smooth, rigid,
massless spheres. Their collisions are accurately represented by a billiard
ball model with purely kinematic responses due to the massless property. An
immediate implication of this approach is a physical origin for the observed
constant speed of light.

Origin
of the Speed of Light

The massless C1 and C2 particles have the same
equilibrium isotropic speed distribution and, therefore, the same average
speed, VC1avg = VC2avg. Since the interaction of the C1
and C2 particles is the cause of all forces and actions, no object with mass
can exceed this average speed, consistent with special relativity5.
This result suggests an
important extension to the theory of special relativity which is that the
average speed of the massless C1 and C2 particles is the speed of light in a
vacuum, c. That is, VC1avg = VC2avg = c = 299,792,458
m/s. This condition is analogous to the speed of sound in a gas which is the
appropriate average speed of the individual molecules. In this context, the
speed of light becomes both a fundamental constant and a measured property of
the massless particles. This
average speed is also the propagation speed of any disturbance to the C2 grid
system, which includes all electromagnetic radiation. While the average
speed of the fundamental particles is the speed of light in a vacuum, the speed
distribution includes instantaneous speeds from zero to hyperluminal.

Constancy
of the Speed of Light Relative to Any Moving Body

The physical model for the electron is a pulsating
shell of C2 particles, one C2 particle thick. Specifically, a precise number of
captive C2 particles maintain a dynamically stable, fully contracted rotating
electron shell for an exact and brief period of time. The number of C2 particles in the electron shell is
determined as one of the emergent properties from the model and fundamental
constants3. When there is a higher C1 collision rate on one
side of a pulsating electron, all the captive C2 particles acquire an
additional velocity increment in the direction opposite to the higher collision
rate during the electron expansion and contraction phases. Upon full
contraction, the electron center will have moved in that same direction. Also
this velocity increment will be acquired by all of the C1 particles that
interact with the C2’s during the accumulation phase. During the next
expansion, the expanded C1’s and C2’s retain this velocity increment so that
the electron center retains the increased velocity.

An important consequence of the acquisition of the
velocity increments by the interacting C1 and C2 particles is that the time average
velocity of the C1’s in the vicinity of the electron is always equal to the
speed of light relative to the electron. This means that the C1’s moving forward
from the electron have added the electron’s velocity increments while the C1’s
moving rearward from the electron have subtracted the increments. The result is
that any electromagnetic disturbance produced by the electron will be
transmitted at the speed of light relative to the electron. This same effect
happens with the proton whose outer shell pulsates in the same manner as the
electron but 180 degrees out of phase. 
Since all stable matter in the universe is composed of electrons and
protons or their anti-particles, the speed of light is always constant relative
to any moving body.

Motion
of Structured Bodies through the C2 Particle Grid System

It is also this effect of the addition of velocity
increments that allows any structured body to maintain its acquired velocity in
this C1 and C2 particle laden environment in the absence of external forces
(Newton’s first law of motion). It means that the centers of the fully
compressed electrons and protons which appear and disappear in phase with the
vibrational frequency move through the C2 grid system because they retain any
acquired velocity increments. It is also the absence of this effect that keeps
the free C2’s localized. The result is that the free C2’s form a flexible
three-dimensional localized grid system as discussed below.

During the expansion phases of the electrons and
protons, the captive C2 particles respond kinematically to the C1 particle
collisions as contrasted to the dynamic responses of the pulsating composite
structures. Therefore, the electron and proton may be viewed as conditions in
which kinematic properties of the C1 particles are repetitively transferred to
and from two unique collections of captive C2 particles to repeatedly assemble
and disassemble these dynamic universal structures.

Space
as a Flexible and Responsive C2 Grid System

The C1 particle is small with a large number
density, and it is the activator for all forces (gravity, electromagnetic,
strong and weak nuclear) and actions in the universe. The C2 particles are much
larger and less numerous than the C1 particles. As a result, under equilibrium
conditions, the net movement of any C2 particle is small compared to its
diameter. This is due to the high collision rate with the C1 particles, which
have an exceptionally large number density.3 The result is that the
C2’s form a flexible and responsive grid system which suggests the concept of
space as the three-dimensional region between adjacent C2 particles in the
grid. This flexible grid system is shaped by the contour of objects such as
stars and planets because of the attraction of the C2’s to the objects. In
addition, the number density of the C2 particles in the grid system increases
as the distance from the objects decreases, analogous to the mass density of
gases in planetary atmospheres. Therefore, as expected, space is curved,
consistent with general relativity. It is the interaction of the moving
electron or proton with this flexible grid system that results in the
relativistic effects as the speed approaches the speed of light as discussed
below.

Gravity

The motion of a C2 particle in free space changes
the random incoming directional distribution of the interacting C1’s to an
outgoing directional distribution that has a deficit in the number of C1
particles traveling normal to the C2 directional movement. One simplified model
that helps to visualize this effect is a cube representing the C2 particle
placed such that the six faces are perpendicular to idealized streams of
equally spaced C1 particles. The C1 particles are sufficiently small that they
do not impact each other upon reflection from the cube surfaces. If the cube is
always stationary, the C1 particles reflecting normally from one surface appear
like they are the continuation of the C1 particle stream from the opposite
surface. The reflecting streams are continuous so there is no observable gap
due to the presence of the cube. However, if the cube is in motion in a
direction parallel to one of the rectangular coordinates, streams perpendicular
to the motion will have gaps equal to the cube width as the rearward face
passes their locations. These gaps would be detectable to any C2 particle at a
distant location.

If instead of a single rearward surface, the surface
contains two steps, there will be two smaller gaps in the non-reflecting
streams corresponding to the passage of each step. Likewise, for any number of
steps, there will a corresponding equal number of smaller gaps in the
non-reflecting streams. In all cases, the sum of the gap widths will equal the cube
width. The realistic case of the sphere corresponds to a number of gaps
approaching infinity with a total gap width equal to the sphere diameter. Since
the C2 particle is continuously changing direction in response to the C1
impacts, a free C2 particle continuously transmits C1 particle streams that
contain less particles normal to its average location than those streams that
are being transmitted randomly. The total number of outgoing particles remains
unchanged from the number of incoming particles but the directional
distribution of the particles has changed.

It can be shown that this C1 particle normal deficit
is propagated across space, persisting through all kinematic collisions with C2
particles including those with captive C2 particles in electrons and protons. This
means that the gravitational attraction between bodies is not blocked by
intervening bodies. This also means that there is an attraction between all C2
particles in the universe so that the gravitational force experienced by any
mass is the appropriate sum of the contributions from all existent C2
particles. When this attraction is between electrons and/or protons, their
captive C2 particles experience this average C1 deficit and retain the ensuing velocity
increments for each pulsation cycle resulting in an acceleration3.
The difference in the C1 collision rate across the electron and/or proton which
causes the acceleration is the attractive force known as universal gravitation.
The concept of mass emerges from this process through the defining relationship
F = ma. In this context, mass is seen as the ratio of the cause (difference in
C1-C2 collision rates) and effect (acceleration) under specific conditions
(pulsating stable groups of C2 particles). The massless particles are always
massless, and the concept of mass arises solely from their participation in the
structures of the electron and proton.

Magnetism

The flexible C2 grid system also gives rise to an
important effect associated with the motion of the grid’s C2 particles in
response to properly aligned rotating electrons. This effect known as magnetism
is illustrated in a well-known physics demonstration that allows visualization
of the magnetic field lines between the ends of a permanent magnet by observing
the orientation of iron filings placed on a rigid paper above the magnet. The
shape of the magnetic field lines appear like a graphic of the flow lines
between a source and a sink in a hydrodynamic flow. This visual analog suggests
that the flow of particles in the magnetic case corresponds to the flow of the
fluid molecules in the hydrodynamic case. The magnetic particles are in fact
the C2 particles in the ubiquitous C2 grid system responding to the
characteristic rotation of the properly aligned electrons in the permanent
magnet. There are no monopole magnets because the C2 particle grid system is
continuous and the flowing C2 particles are immediately replaced by their
adjacent C2 neighbors. This continuity requirement results in a continuous
circulating flow of C2 particles that completes a circuit around the outside
and through the interior of the magnet. There is no friction associated with
the motion of these free massless C2 particles.

The magnetic field that accompanies the electric
field of moving electrons also results from the alignment of the spin axes of
the electrons because of their motion. The alignment of the spin axes produces
magnetic field lines that lie in planes perpendicular to the direction of
motion. The electric field results from
the electrostatic effects of the pulsating electrons. When the electrons are
stationary, the magnetic field is not present because the spin axes of the
electrons are randomly oriented canceling their cumulative effect on the C2
grid system. However, there is still an electric field associated with the
unaligned stationary electrons because the pulsations of the electrons are all
in phase independent of their alignment.

Elementary
Particles

The only entities in the universe that are not
composites of other entities are C1 and C2 particles. In this sense, these two
massless entities are the only truly elementary or fundamental particles.
Likewise, they alone correspond to the original definition of the atom as “any
of the indivisible particles postulated by philosophers as the basic component
of all matter”. For example, electrons and protons are not single particles but
rather they are specific collections of C2 particles responding to collisions
with C1 particles as discussed above. However, under certain conditions, electrons
and protons can exhibit properties like those of a single particle, giving rise
to the first half of the particle-wave phenomenon.

I have observed from my calculations of the
properties of the two elementary particles3 that emerge from the
fundamental constants and the appropriate physical model, that structured
matter cannot exist with only a single basic component. It is the kinematic
interactions of the two particles under particular conditions that give rise to
the diversity of mechanisms that characterize the universe.

These mechanisms obey the same conservation
principles of physics at all levels from the subatomic to the cosmological.
This includes quantum mechanics and special and general relativity. The
foundational basis for quantization begins with the two massless particles that
exist in two quantized sizes. The kinematic interactions of these two particles
can produce specific temporary groupings of C2 particles that constitute
specific levels of mass and corresponding levels of mass equivalent energy as
in E = mc2. For orbiting electrons these levels of mass and energy
result in specific levels of angular momentum as utilized in the mathematical
development of the Bohr atom. Likewise, the magnitude of the disturbance of the
C2 particle grid system that accompanies the arrival of an electromagnetic wave
at the boundary of a pulsating electron or proton affects a specific number of
boundary C2 particles resulting in the quantum concept of energy transfer as a
function of electromagnetic wave frequency.

Other temporary groupings of the C2 particles result
from the collision of protons, electrons, or their combinations at high energy
levels in colliders such as the Large Hadron Collider. As the accelerating
particles approach relativistic speeds, the C2 particle grid system in the
forefront of the particles becomes more and more compressed as discussed below.
When the counter-flowing particles collide, the interaction of the ubiquitous
C1 particles with the concentrated C2 particles in the grid system results in
the production of an array of temporary particles which are the most numerous
in the so-called particle zoo. These temporary particles are pulsating at a
high frequency and exhibit exceptionally short lifetimes as they do not possess
stable structures and therefore give up their C2 particles as a function of
their frequency. The only stable particles that result from these collisions
are electrons, protons, neutrinos and their anti-particles.

Elementary
Waves

As in the case for quantization, the foundation for
the observed wave nature of matter comes from the type of mechanism associated
with interactions of the C1 and C2 particles under specific conditions. In this
case, the foundational mechanism for the formation and maintenance of a stable
electron and proton is a pulsation frequency that repeatedly assembles and
disassembles these stable structures as discussed above. These pulsations
propagate at the speed of light through the ubiquitous C2 particle grid system
which, under certain conditions, can cause wave-like interactions with their
surroundings giving rise to the second half of the particle-wave phenomenon.

All chemical and physical reactions involving
electrons and protons are due to the transfer of C2 particles during the
pulsation cycles. This transfer can only occur for atomic and molecular
processes at harmonic frequencies of the electron and proton frequency. That
is, the motion of the merging groups of C2 particles must be compatible at
specific intervals. Some reactions such as oxidation can occur over a large
range of harmonic frequencies which corresponds to a large range of
temperatures. Other reactions such as the formation of carbon atoms from helium
atoms only occur over a small range of harmonic frequencies.

This requirement for a harmonic frequency match
sometimes reveals surprising results. An example is the discovery of a molecule
called methoxy, or CH3O in an interstellar gas cloud6. It
forms when hydroxyl (OH) and methanol (CH3OH) react. Yet that
reaction requires more energy than is available in space, where temperatures
hover just above absolute zero. However, in a laboratory setting, researchers
found that this same reaction took place 50 times faster at -210º Celsius than
at room temperature, even though the chilled molecules have far less energy to
work with. The explanation given was “a quirky property of quantum physics”
called quantum tunneling6. As usual there is no physical basis
given for the existence of such a property. An alternative explanation from the
emergent universe is that the reaction temperature corresponds to an
appropriate harmonic frequency for that reaction.

In another example, it was discovered that the shock
wave conditions associated with ballistic impact into a target made of ice
mixtures having a similar composition to a comet can generate molecules and
transform these molecules into amino acids7.
The research team made
their discovery by recreating the impact of a comet by firing projectiles
through a large high speed gun. The resulting impact created amino acids such
as glycine and D-and L-alanine.
In the recent past, these impact
conditions were considered to be too severe to create fragile complex
molecules. However, in the context of required harmonic frequencies for
chemical reactions, the pressure and temperature profiles associated with the
shock wave generation and decay may have produced the correct frequencies for a
period of time. The time for the shock wave passage is long, being of the order
of microseconds, compared to the electron and proton frequencies of the order
of 1029 Hz3. This means that the electrons and protons
will have approximately 1023 cycles to sample the conditions associated
with the shock wave passage.

This concept of the occurrence of all reactions as
functions of electron and proton harmonic frequencies implies the possibility
of practical transmutation of elements, designer isotopes, and fusion. However,
the technology is daunting as the electron and proton frequency is of the order
of 1029 Hz corresponding to a period of the order of 10-30s.
Reactions requiring a single or a small range of harmonic frequencies will be
difficult to achieve but the emergent capabilities for nearly unlimited energy
and generous quantities of rare elements may produce an unparalleled upsurge in
available resources for humanity.

Relativistic
Mass

As discussed above, the moving electron has higher
speed C1 particles in the forward direction compared to a stationary electron.
These C1 particles move the free C2’s in the grid system around the moving electron
while inducing compression in the grid system in the path of the electron. The
compressed C2 grid system is manifest as additional mass since the compressed
grid has a higher C2 number density than the local free-space grid. This
additional mass is not an increase in the electron mass which is a universal
constant. This is because the number of captive C2’s in an electron is fixed by
a precise dynamic force balance requirement. Instead, the additional mass is
due to the additional C2 particles in the compressed C2 particle grid system in
the forefront of the electron. This additional mass is called relativistic mass
herein, and it accompanies the electron without being a component of it. This
approach presents a physical basis for an understanding of the concept of an
unchanging electron mass and a variable relativistic mass that accompanies an
electron in motion.

This same process is at work in the proton. However,
the C2 particles in the expanding and contracting proton core causes a
proportional additional compression of the C2 grid system compared to the
electron. Therefore, the ratio of the electron and proton relativistic masses
is equal to the ratio of their constant particle masses.

The notion that the relativistic mass accompanies
the electron or proton without being a structural component of it implies that
all effects of motion are not relative. For example, a body that is stationary
relative to the local C2 grid system does not have an associated relativistic
mass because the grid system is not compressed. A second body that is moving
relative to the local C2 grid system does have an associated relativistic mass
because the grid system is compressed. The relativistic mass is sufficiently
small for normal velocities of bodies above the atomic level and this effect
can be safely ignored. However, for velocities approaching the speed of light,
there is a measureable physically-based relativistic condition that identifies
the moving body, and this relativistic condition is not a characteristic of the
stationary body when the reference frame is exchanged.

Einstein recognized that the concept of the mass of
a body actually changing with speed presented a dilemma in the absence of an
understanding of the physical basis for relativistic mass. His position on this
dilemma was presented in a letter he wrote to Lincoln Barnett on 19 June 1948 as
follows:

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the
mass m = M/(1-(v/c)2)½ of a moving body for which no
clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept
than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the
expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."8

Also, some older physics textbooks failed to
recognize this point and therefore did not differentiate between particle mass
and relativistic mass. For example, in Ref. 9 a plot of electron mass as a
function of speed is presented. Also, in this reference the statement
introducing “Einstein’s statement for the variation of mass with velocity” is
given as “The mass of a particle is not a constant but increases with
increasing speed in such a way as to approach infinity as the speed of the
particle approaches that of light, according to the relation”

m
= mo/
(1-(v/c)2)½

More modern textbooks5 in keeping with
Einstein’s 1948 concern about mass and relativity, limit the presentation to
the recommended “expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion”.

In reality, Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2
suggests
that there should exist a clear relationship between mass and energy, even in
the relativistic case, if the correct physical relationship is delineated.

In the context of the physical relationship
explained above, the relativistic mass meR accompanying the constant
mass electron is given by an extension of the special relativity equations as

                                             meR
= me/(1-(ve/c)2)½ - me
(½)me(ve/c)2
                                  (1)

The constant electron mass is me
the electron speed is ve, and c is the speed of light. The last term
in the equation is the mass equivalent for the electron kinetic energy.
The
relativistic mass approaches zero as the electron speed approaches zero. This
is illustrated by using the binomial expansion for the square root term

                                             (1-(ve/c)2)
= 1 + ½(ve/c)2 + ⅜(ve/c)4 + ···                               (2)

As the electron speed approaches zero, the third and additional
terms in the expansion can be neglected in comparison with the first and second
terms. Substituting the first two terms into Equation (1) gives

                                
           meR = me
[1 + ½(ve/c)2 – 1] – (½)me(ve/c)2
= 0                             (3)

The concept of “rest mass” for an electron is
superfluous, as the mass of an electron is the result of a specific number of
C2 particles in a shell configuration expanding and contracting in response to
their dynamic interaction with the exceptionally small and exceptionally
numerous C1 particles. The appropriate concept is total mass meT
which is the sum of the electron mass and the relativistic mass

                                         meT
= me + meR = me/(1-(ve/c)2)½
- (½)me(ve/c)2
                             (4)

The same comments apply to a proton since, like the
electron, its mass is independent of speed. 
Since all matter is composed of electrons and protons or their
anti-particles, the mass of any body m is independent of speed v so the general
equation for relativistic mass is

                                               mR
= m/(1-(v/c)2)½ - m – (½)m(v/c)2
                                         (5)

The appropriate definition of the relativistic mass
associated with an electron or proton is “the equivalent mass of a higher C2
number density region that forms in the forefront of a moving electron or
proton”. It is analogous to the higher
molecule number density region, called the forward stagnation region, which
forms in the forefront of a body moving in the atmosphere.

Relativistic
Mass Equivalent Energy (mee)

The relationship for the relativistic mass
equivalent energy (mee) associated with a moving electron is

                           EeR = meRc2
= mec2/(1-(ve/c)2)½ - mec2
– (½)me(ve)2
               (6)

It is noted that this equation is equal to Equation
(1) for the relativistic mass multiplied by c2
which
is consistent with the general concept of E = mc2.
Unlike
electron mass for which the concept of “rest mass’ is superfluous, the electron
does have a “rest energy” which again in accordance with Einstein’s equation is

                                                                   
Eeo = mec2
                                                            (7)

The total energy of an electron is the sum of its
rest energy and kinetic energy at all speeds,

                                                          
Ee = mec2 + (½)me(ve)2
                                                  (8)

The total energy of the electron and its
accompanying relativistic energy is the sum of Equations (6) and (8),

                       EeT = Ee
+
EeR = mec2/(1-(ve/c)2)½
- mec2 – (½)me(ve)2 + mec2
+ (½)me(ve)2

Canceling like terms,

                                                 
EeT = Ee + EeR = mec2/(1-(ve/c)2)½                                          (9)

The electron relativistic mee given by Equation (6)
approaches zero as the electron speed approaches zero. This is illustrated by
using the binomial expansion for the square root term, Equation (2), and
substituting the first two terms into Equation (6) to obtain

                                 EeR
= meRc2 = mec2[1 + ½(ve/c)2-
1] – (½)me(ve)2 = 0
                             (10)

This shows that the electron relativistic mee has
zero rest energy as expected. It also has zero kinetic energy because the
compressed C2 particle grid that accompanies the moving electron flows around
the electron. Therefore, the equivalent mass increase associated with the
increased C2 number density of the compressed grid is not a fixed mass that
travels with the electron.

Relativistic
Momentum

The relationship for the relativistic linear
momentum associated with a moving electron is

                                                     
peR = meve/(1-(ve/c)2)½
- meve
                                              (11)

The linear momentum of an electron at all speeds is

                                                                
pe = meve
                                                                 (12)

The total of the linear momentum of the electron and
its accompanying relativistic linear momentum is the sum of Equations (11) and
(12),

                    
peT = peR + pe = meve/(1-(ve/c)2)½
- meve + meve = meve/(1-(ve/c)2)½

                     (13)

Canceling like terms,

                                                  
peT = peR + pe = meve/(1-(ve/c)2)½                                           (14)

The relativistic momentum associated with the
electron is therefore the difference between the total momentum and the
electron momentum as expressed by Equation (11).

Time
and Relativity

The passage of time is relative as demonstrated in
the required Global Positioning System (GPS) corrections. My view is that the
correct physical model of the universe presents an alternative explanation of
the cause of this relativity. In order to provide the context for this
explanation, it is first proposed that all entities in the universe experience
each moment in time simultaneously. The use of the word simultaneous is
qualified here to mean practically simultaneous as absolute simultaneity does
not exist. With that qualification, consider the possibility that there is a
translatable signal (not light) that emanates from a sudden event such as a
supernova that has a practically infinite transmission speed, perhaps the
“spooky action at a distance” as referred to by Einstein10. Under
this condition, the signal reaches all receivers simultaneously regardless of
their location or speed relative to the source. Likewise, the signal from a
second such event also reaches all receivers simultaneously regardless of their
location or speed relative to the source. Each of these events occur at a
different moment in time, but all receivers receive each signal simultaneously.
Given some sequence of such events, all receivers experience the same
sequential array of these moments in time.

Regarding the possibility of such a hyperluminal
signal, t
he hyperluminal subpopulation
of the C1 particles in Ref. 3 provides a possible explanation for an apparently
instantaneous transfer rate associated with quantum entanglement11.
The
calculated average hyperluminal speed of the segregated C1 particles in the
electron interior in Ref. 3 (Equation 91) is sufficiently high to approximate
instantaneous transfer. The growing number of demonstrations of quantum
entanglement does suggest the possibility of transfer of information at
hyperluminal speeds, in spite of protestations to the contrary.

If time is defined as the dimensional entity that occurs between
moments in time, it is the measurement of this entity, the passage of time,
which is relative. There are two relativity effects that depend on two
properties of the clock’s environment. One of these environmental properties is
the number density of the static C2 grid system which is directly related to
the strength of the gravitational field. The second property is the number
density of the compressed C2 grid system due to the speed with which the clock
is moving relative to the static C2 grid system. Therefore, the total time
correction for the GPS system relative to a clock on earth is the sum of these
two corrections, one due to a static effect and the second due to a kinematic
effect. A simple analogy is the total pressure for steady, incompressible,
frictionless flow of a gas which is the sum of the static pressure and the
dynamic pressure as expressed in the simple form of the Bernoulli equation

                                                               
p + (½)ρV2 = pt                                                       (15)

The first term is the static pressure, the second term is the
dynamic pressure and the right hand side is the total or stagnation pressure.
The analogous form for the total time correction is

                                                                 
Δts + Δtk = Δtt                                                       (16)

The first term is the static or gravitational time correction,
the second term is the kinematic or relativistic time correction, both relative
to a clock on earth, and the right hand side is the total correction. The
purpose in highlighting this analogy is to emphasize that the relativity of the
passage of time has a physical basis which is the number density and relative
speed of the massless C2 particles. This is analogous to the effect of number
density and relative speed of gaseous molecules on the gas total pressure.

This postulated physical mechanism means that an atomic clock
aboard a GPS satellite actually vibrates at a higher frequency due to the lower
C2 particle number density in the static grid system at the satellite altitude
compared to the higher number density and lower vibrational frequency on the
earth’s surface. The lower C2 particle number density results in less blockage
of the penetrating C1 particles and therefore less time in reaching the
critical C1 particle interference number density in the C2 particle shell
peripheral space, resulting in a higher electron and proton pulsation
frequency. The atomic clock vibrational frequency is a harmonic of this
pulsation frequency. Therefore, the unadjusted clock in orbit actually runs
faster than the same clock would run on earth due to the higher static C2
particle number density on earth. These physical effects correlate with the
difference in the gravitational fields as given by a common expression for the
gravitational time dilation

                                                        Δt
= ΔtG /[1-(2GM/Rc2)]½                                          (17)

The Δt is the time interval recorded by a stationary
clock located sufficiently far from earth (R → ∞), the ΔtG is the
time interval due to the finite R recorded by an unadjusted clock, G is the
universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the earth, R is
approximately the radial coordinate (actually a Schwarzschild coordinate), and
c is the speed of light. The gravitational time correction is the difference in
the ΔtG calculated for the ground radial coordinate and for the
orbital radial coordinate.

In addition, the postulated physical mechanism also means that
an atomic clock aboard a GPS satellite actually vibrates at a lower frequency
due to the higher C2 particle number density around the moving (orbiting)
satellite compared to the lower number density and higher vibrational frequency
of the stationary ground clock. The higher C2 particle number density results
in more blockage of the penetrating C1 particles and therefore more time in
reaching the critical C1 particle interference number density in the C2
particle shell peripheral space, resulting in a lower electron and proton
pulsation frequency. As in the gravitational effect case, the atomic clock
vibrational frequency is a harmonic of this pulsation frequency. Therefore, the
unadjusted clock in orbit runs slower than the same clock would run on earth
due to the compression of the C2 particle grid system in orbit, resulting in a
locally higher kinematic C2 particle number density in orbit. These physical
effects correlate with the difference in the speeds at which the orbiting and
ground clocks are traveling relative to the C2 particle grid system as given by
the standard expression for the relativistic time dilation5

                                                              
Δte = ΔtR /(1-(v/c)2)½                                               (18)

The


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





time interval recorded by a stationary
ground clock is Δte, the time interval recorded by an unadjusted
satellite clock is ΔtR, the satellite orbital speed is v, and c is
the speed of light. The relativistic time correction is the difference between Δte
and ΔtR evaluated at the average orbital speed. The total time
correction is the sum of the two corrections as indicated above.

In reality, the GPS clocks are adjusted before
launch as discussed in Ref. 12. The direct quote is “For GPS satellites, General
Relativity (GR) predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will
tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational
field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts
that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200
ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large
rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to
compensate for these predicted effects.”9

The alternative view expressed in this article is
that all processes in the universe are actually physical in nature. This means
that all time measurement systems actually run faster or slower in response to
the electron and proton pulsation frequency change caused by changes in the
local number density of C2 particles. Since all atomic and molecular processes
occur at distinct harmonic frequencies of the electron and proton pulsation
frequency as discussed above, these processes thereby occur at faster or slower
rates depending on the local number density of C2 particles. Therefore, all
systems, living and non-living, are affected. The aging processes actually slow
down in environments with higher C2 particle number densities such as stronger
gravitational fields and higher speeds relative to the C2 particle grid system.
Likewise, the non-living systems such as those that are mechanical, electronic,
or chemical also slow down under these same conditions. Therefore, it is the passage
of time that is relative.

Relativistic
Length Contraction

The concept of relativistic length contraction also follows from
the perspective that the C2 particle grid system is compressed in the forefront
of a body as a function of the speed of the body relative to the grid system.
This
flexible
and responsive grid system suggests the concept of space as the
three-dimensional region between adjacent C2 particles in the grid as discussed
above. In this context, the compressed grid system means that space is
compressed in the forward direction. The standard expression for the relation
between the length L measured by an observer traveling at speed v and the
length Lo measured by a stationary observer is5

                                                                
L = Lo (1-(v/c)2)½
                                                   (19)

It is important to note that this length contraction occurs only
along the direction of the motion. Those dimensions that are perpendicular to
the motion are not shortened. Consistent with the approach taken here, space is
only compressed in the direction of motion.

Cosmology

The concept that all processes in the universe, inclusive
of the subatomic to the cosmological, are the result of the kinematic
interactions of two massless particles under specific conditions invites an
expanded interpretation of the history and destiny of the universe. An
immediate implication is that the three-dimensional flexible C2 particle grid
system created by the collisions of the highly numerous C1 particles with the
C2 particles may be of infinite extent. As discussed above, this concept gives
rise to the physical definition of space as the three-dimensional region
between adjacent C2 particles in the grid system that allows for expansion,
contraction, and curvature in response to initial and boundary conditions. Our
universe may occupy only a finite portion of this infinite expanse.

A consequence of the concept of the gravitational
force between C2 particles as being caused by a net deficit in the outgoing C1
particle streams normal to the C2 particle random motion addresses the possible
history and future state of a physically finite universe. It means that the C2
particles located at the outer extremities of the expanding universe receive
more impacts from the ubiquitous C1 particles coming toward the universe than
those coming from the interior. The electrons and protons which are composed of
C2 particles cannot have reached an escape velocity when they approach the
outer boundary because the attraction is inward and increasing in strength. These
large-scale kinematic and dynamic processes suggest that the universe will
begin a contraction phase that will eventually compress a large portion of the
mass in the universe to the maximum C2 particle number density. This spherical region
is herein called the compressed region to distinguish it from the currently
popular concept of a black hole.

The maximum C2 particle number density exists
because the C2 particles are incompressible and possess a finite size. During
the contraction phase the C1 particles would continue their interaction with
this enlarging compressed region resulting in periodic pulsations. This process is actually the
separation and transfer of a hyperluminal subpopulation of the C1 particles
into the open spaces of the pulsating compressed region. These partitioned
hyperluminal particles are the actuating source for the kinematic
properties of the compressed region analogous to the processes that create the
pulsating electron and proton3. Eventually the growing compressed
region reaches an unstable condition in which the partitioned hyperluminal
subpopulation initiates a rapid and extensive expansion that presents a physical
basis for the concept of hyperluminal inflation as the first phase of
the so-called big bang.

A major difference between the compressed region
concept and the black hole/big bang concept is that the initial conditions for
the compressed region are a finite size and a specific number density of C2
particles. The infinitesimal size and infinite density initial conditions of
the black hole/big bang concept defy all observations of objective reality.
During and following the initial inflation, the interactions of the C1 and C2
particles during the early expansion phase would encounter the required C2
particle motion and number density conditions to form stable electrons and
protons in addition to other C2 groups of unstable particles. Further expansion
would bring these electrons and protons together under the right conditions to
form hydrogen atoms, neutrons and helium atoms. This entire process illustrates
how complexity emerges from the interactions of two massless particles obeying
simple kinematic conservation principles under specific conditions.

This process of the emergence of complexity
continues through many stages from the formation of large stars due to the universal
gravitational attraction described above to the production of the elements of
the periodic table during the life cycles of these stars. All of this comes
into existence from the interaction of the two massless particles with the
systems formed by these same particles in previous stages of emergence.
Likewise, smaller stars and their planetary systems utilize the new elements and
follow the same patterns and principles of their predecessors like emerging designs
in fractal geometry.

The elements also combine to form molecules in
response to the electronic force fields produced by their diverse structures of
pulsating electrons and protons. These combinations like all processes in the
universe are in harmonic synchronization with the electron and proton pulsation
frequency. For planets orbiting their stars under the right conditions, these
simple molecules can combine into more complex molecules, again due to the
attraction and repulsion of the electronic force fields. Given the right conditions
including synchronized harmonic frequencies, these molecules can employ the
emergence process to develop advanced molecular structures that satisfy the requirements
for primitive life systems7.

These same patterns and principles are employed
repeatedly under the newest conditions to bring more complex systems and
corresponding new conditions into existence. The diverse complex life forms
that constitute our current condition have emerged from these same processes. Complexity
in the universe has developed to the point where the emergent intelligence can
provide new conditions to continue and even accelerate the emergence process. For
example, it may be possible to accomplish the practical transmutation of
elements, development of designer isotopes, and controlled fusion in ways that
are more manageable than the corresponding processes in stars. It is important to
emphasize that if this becomes possible as I believe that it will, these
emergent achievements will be as natural as those in the stars because like the
galaxies, stars, and planets, we are the naturally emergent universe.

Another consequence of this concept of the universe
is that the cycle of expansion and contraction may have been the case for a
time span approaching infinity and will continue indefinitely. This view is in
contrast to the view that the generally accepted age of 13.8 billion years for
the current cycle of the universe represents the totality of existence. This shortsighted
view is consistent with humanity’s record of assuming all that we see is all
that there is. It is also probable that each universe cycle has proceeded
utilizing the same emergence principles that ultimately produces highly complex
systems including consciousness and intelligence. These logical concepts open
the door for numerous possibilities relating to the current state and future of
the emergent universe.

Summary

All of the effects described above resulted from the
interactions of the massless C1 and C2 particles under the various prescribed
conditions. It is remarkable that the highly complex mechanisms of the universe
may emerge from the straightforward kinematic interactions of two massless
particles under the conditions that characterize the universe. It appears to be
analogous to the intricate shapes that emerge from simple equations in fractal
geometry. The equations from which the universal mechanisms arise are not
arbitrary but rather they are the simple relations that describe the collisions
of these two massless particles. These simple relations are the kinematic
analogs of the dynamic equations for the conservation of mass, energy, and
momentum.

A foundational mechanism that is described herein is
the interactions of the massless particles to maintain the pulsating stable
structures of electrons and protons. Two other important observations are that
the constant speed of light is the average speed of the massless particles, and
the interactions of the massless particles with electrons and protons cause the
speed of light to be constant relative to any moving body. These same
interactions cause the motion of any body to be constant in the absence of
external forces. The concept of space as a flexible and responsive grid system composed
of nodes of C2 particles also emerges from the collisions of these particles. The
C2 particles in this grid system will flow in response to the rotation of
electrons with their spin axes aligned in a permanent magnet or aligned by
electron motion. These flowing C2 particles represent the magnetic field lines
associated with these two cases and are an integral part of the mechanism for
magnetism.

Additionally, the collisions between C1 and C2
particles create an attraction between all of the C2 particles in the universe.
When this attraction is between electrons and/or protons the resulting force is
universal gravitation. This analysis has also addressed the potential
mechanisms for the so-called particle-wave duality. It has shown that electrons
and protons are not single particles but rather they are specific collections
of C2 particles responding to collisions with C1 particles. Under certain
conditions, these dynamic structured collections of C2’s exhibit properties
like those of a single particle. In addition, these structured collections are
pulsating at a high frequency, and these pulsations propagate at the speed of
light through the ubiquitous C2 particle grid system which, under certain
conditions, can cause wave-like interactions with their surroundings.

The collisions of the C1 and C2 particles under the
conditions accompanying a mass moving through the C2 particle grid system
result in equations that account for the compression of the grid system in the
forefront of the mass. Specifically for the case of a moving electron, the
expressions for mass, energy, and momentum are summarized below in terms of a
relativistic component, a separate particle component, and the total of the
components as follows:

The relativistic mass is

                                             meR
= me/(1-(ve/c)2)½ - me
(½)me(ve/c)2                                     (1)

The constant electron mass is me. Therefore, the
total mass is

                                       meT = me + meR
= me/(1-(ve/c)2)½ - (½)me(ve/c)2
                                (4)

The
relativistic mass equivalent energy (mee) is

                                    EeR = meRc2
= mec2/(1-(ve/c)2)½ - mec2
– (½)me(ve)2                              (6)

The electron total particle energy is

                                                          
Ee = mec2 + (½)me(ve)2                                                  (8)

Therefore, the total energy is

                                                  
EeT = Ee + EeR = mec2/(1-(ve/c)2)½                                          (9)

The relativistic linear momentum is

                                                     
peR = meve/(1-(ve/c)2)½
- meve                                              (11)

The electron linear momentum is

                                                                
pe = meve                                                                 (12)

Therefore, the total momentum is

                                                  
peT = peR + pe = meve/(1-(ve/c)2)½                                           (14)

Relating to the relativity of time, it is concluded that all
moments in time occur simultaneously in the universe. It is the measurement of
the passage of time between those moments that is relative. The relativity
effects are produced solely by the effects of the number density of C2
particles in the local static and compressed grid systems. These effects are
shown to be qualitatively consistent with the known time corrections for the
clocks in the Global Positioning System (GPS). Similarly, the relativity-based
length contraction is a function of the compression of the C2 particle grid
system in the forefront of a moving mass.

The emergence of increasing complexity resulting from C1-C2
particle interactions under continuously developing new conditions has profound
implications for cosmology. At the boundaries of the expanding universe, the
net attraction will always be inward. This means that the universe is
characterized by expansion and contraction cycles utilizing mechanisms
analogous to electrons and protons. These cycles may have been occurring for a
period of time approaching infinity and may continue indefinitely. The
implication of two finite sized, incompressible fundamental particles is that
the initial conditions for the initiation of a new cycle are a finite sized
compressed region with a finite number of C2 particles. When the critical
condition in the interior of the compressed region is reached, the initial
hyperluminal expansion may be extensive, resulting in an exceptionally large
universe. It is also implied that all processes in the universe occur at
specific harmonics of the pulsating electrons and protons. This is because all
interactions have to be synchronized with these pulsations in order to
accommodate the transfer of the C2 particles from photon encounters at the
boundaries of the electrons and protons. These photon-electron and
photon-proton interactions represent mass and mass equivalent energy transfer
as in E = mc2 as well as momentum transfer.

The implied mechanisms discussed in this article have emerged
from the simple rules for kinematic collisions of two massless particles3,
4
. The emergent processes of the universe based on these simple rules are
consistent with concepts expressed in the colossal work of Stephen Wolfram published
in his seminal volume entitled A New Kind
of Science
13. On the subject of the potential simplicity of the
underlying rules for the universe, he says "But what we have now seen over
and over again in this book is that in fact it is perfectly possible to get
phenomena of great complexity even with a remarkably simple underlying setup.
And I suspect that particles in physics – with all their various properties and
interactions – are just yet another example of this very general phenomenon.”
On the subject of the universality of the underlying rules, he says “So this
means that one cannot reasonably expect to use some kind of incremental
procedure to find the ultimate rule for the universe. But it also means that if
one once discovers a rule that reproduces sufficiently many features of the
universe, then it becomes extremely likely that this rule is indeed the final
and correct one for the whole universe.”

These emergent processes that lead to ever increasing complexity
may be the genesis mechanisms for the entire universe. Therefore, it is
expected that the emergence of complex molecules and life systems is
commonplace in any area of the universe where the necessary elements and
conditions are present.
As these emergent mechanisms are
quantified and understood, it may be possible to identify and produce the
required conditions and harmonic frequencies for the practical transmutation of
elements, development of designer isotopes, and controlled fusion in ways that
are more manageable than the corresponding processes in stars. The conclusion
is that these implied mechanisms have produced a coherent and comprehensive
depiction of the emergent universe.

References

1. Kuhlmann, M. What
is Real? Scientific American 309 No.2, 40-47 (August 2013).

2. von Baeyer, H.C.
Quantum Weirdness? It’s All in Your Mind. Scientific
American
308 No.6,          46-51 (June 2013).

3. Callens
G. The Physical Electron.
http://genecallens.net
(2013).

4. Callens
G. The Emergent Universe.
http://genecallens.net
(2013).

5.
Cutnell, J.D. & Johnson, K.W. Physics
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998).

6. Grant, A. How molecules hook up in space. Science News, p. 9 (August 10, 2013).

7. Martins, Z. et al. Shock synthesis of
amino acids from impacting cometary and icy planet    surface analogues. Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1930 (2013)

8.
Barnett, L. The Universe and Doctor
Einstein
(William Sloane Associates, 1948).

9.
Shortley, G. & Williams, D. Elements
of Physics
(Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955)

10.
Born, M. & Einstein, A.
Letter
from Einstein to Max Born, 3 March 1947.
The Born - Einstein Letters 1916-1955: Friendship,
Politics and Physics in Uncertain Times
(Macmillan, 2005).

11. Bub, J. Quantum
entanglement and information. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E,N.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/qt-entangle/
(2010).

12. Flandern, T.V. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp and Open Questions in Relativistic Physics,
81-90, ed. Selleri F. (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998).

13. Wolfram, S. A New Kind of Science, pp. 469, 528
(Wolfram Media, Inc., 2002).

 

September 20, 2013

©2013 Gene Callens All Right Reserved

Where to Find Us:

Gene Callens
204 Lilinda Dr 204

Ruston, LA 71270


Phone: 318 2512928

What's New

Extended business hours

To accomodate our customers' busy schedules, we have extended our hours and are now open later.

 



Special Facebook Promotion!
Like us on Facebook and get 10% off your next order.

Print Print | Sitemap
© 2013 Gene Callens All Rights Reserved