Abstracts Details

This article reviews some unappreciated history about E=1mc^2, even before Einstein. In particular, we note Laplace's belief that likely when our Sun radiates off a particle of mass, 'm', at the speed of light, that the Sun's mass decreases by that mass, 'm'. And in an 1899 publication, Hertz refers to a long-standing belief that the total energy of a conservative system is TWICE its kinetic energy, presumably mc^2, instead of (1/2)mc^2. After further analysis, we conclude that Einstein's E = 1mc^2 conclusion for radiation was very praise-worthy because it concisely stated and advocated two less-popular proposals of the time. But actually not new proposals! And we offer other thoughts, hopefully helpful.

This article shows a drawing of a platonic-related pattern of spheres that generates a sphere volume Ratio nearly equaling the mass Ratio of the empirical Higgs boson to proton. (My older NPA article just included a precise word description of that drawing.) I also give the updated value for the empirically estimated Higgs boson mass, still quite near my drawing's estimate. And I also discuss the mass of a more recently discovered particle by the super-collider group, called the "Xi double-charm baryon". I note that its mass is near the average mass of two already known particles. And midway between two others, too. That 'Averaging Method' also worked well in my older journal articles. Further comments are made about all of the above.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) gives the mass of the simple Bohr Hydrogen atom (H-1) as less than the sum of NIST values for a free electron rest mass plus a free proton rest mass. NIST is likely correct, but that contradicts a few writings by this author and some other scientists too. When a distant electron travels very fast toward its orbit around a proton, one might think that causes a "relativistic" mass increase. While there are externally forced ways to increase mass with increased velocity, yet for isolated systems, their internal potential energies may act to increase the velocity of their parts without the systems mass increasing. We discuss that and a few of the many related and profound issues in this paper.

When nucleons fuse with neighbors, there is mass loss and great energy emitted. We discuss the great jump in fusion mass lost when four nucleons are fused together compared to three. About 4 times as much mass is lost, but we show how this is largely expected since 4 times as many triangular planes with ‘donut holes’ are formed vs. for 3 nucleons. Specifically, we show how after 3 Hydrogen-1 atoms fuse to form 1 Helium-3 atom, the mass lost equals twice the mass of a sphere sized to barely fit through the array’s donut hole, with an error of about 1 part in 5000. Finally, we discuss implications of all the above and related topics, including supplementing the present neutron-proton based ‘binding energy’ method with a more revealing electron-proton based one.

In previous papers, we addressed the proton and less massive major particles by correlating their mass ratios with volume ratios in simplest sphere patterns. Now we include particles of greater mass than the proton, the Hyperons, and compare those mass ratios to ratios in patterns slightly more advanced than previously. This approach is most effective for the most prominent particles; but also has some aspects useful for addressing some less-prominent particles.

In previous papers, we addressed the proton and less massive major particles by correlating their mass ratios with volume ratios in simplest sphere patterns. Now we include particles of greater mass than the proton, the Hyperons, and compare those mass ratios to ratios in patterns slightly more advanced than previously. This approach is most effective for the most prominent particles; but also has some aspects useful for addressing some less-prominent particles.

My previous articles mainly addressed very prominent particles, and showed that their major mass ratios nearly matched geometric ratios in patterns. The present article attempts to match mass ratios of less-prominent particles with, generally, less-simple pattern ratios. The matches seem sometimes not quite as close and impressive as previously, but still seem quite impressive enough to merit discussion and paper. And a few particles in author’s previous articles, whose prominences were not as understandable as others, surprisingly also receive better support, below.

To hopefully add more insight into topics previously addressed by the author and others, he now presents the following: One more way of constructing the 'pion-to-electron' mass ratio; Lord Kelvin's old ether density estimate and why it is still relevant; and Questioning Einstein's inference -- that one coordinate system can NOT be deemed closer to 'absolute rest' than another, when one passes by the other at high speed.

Although not obvious, there exists a volumetric ratio among big and small spheres in two basic __tetrahedrally__ arrayed patterns that equals a basic spheres ratio in a somewhat similar triangular pattern. We display the cases. We show how the average of two volumetric ratios, using the most basic tetrahedrally and triangularly structured concentric spheres, equals the proton-to-electron mass ratio rather precisely. We outline how some of the above relates to some chemistry and physics, and discuss implications.

This article discusses the muon to proton mass ratio and nearly equal volumetric ratios in simple patterns. Those volumetric ratios arise when equal small spheres are closely packed inside larger spheres. We compare that to other particle mass ratios and corresponding sphere volume ratios - where spheres are packed around smaller ones; not inside of them. We discuss several aspects of all above relationships, related realities and analogies for our key 'particle zoo creatures'. We explore some possible implications beyond analogies.

Many youngsters have likely tried to ?cut' or deflect one laser (pointer) beam with another; and noted that they could not detect any effect whatsoever. But what if that type of experiment was performed with very hi-tech, powerful, and sensitive equipment? Like is done with the high energy ?particle smashers ? except trying to get photon to side-swipe photon, instead of proton to hit proton? We discuss some very important implications depending on whether a ?photon-against-photon' deflection can be obtained. (If any reader already knows of any ?down-to-earth' experiment settling the issue; please provide answer with reference, and spare readers most of my article, below.)

(Title partly borrowed from Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner) There are many good ideas that I don't have time to develop or to turn into well-written and well-researched papers. I?m sure many other NPAers find that too. Other NPAers might even have already wisely addressed some topics and ideas that I outline below. But if anything below seem new; readers are welcome to heist and develop it. Below, I sometimes propose only a Title for a paper; sometimes even the Abstract also; and sometimes even the Introduction. (This "paper" will not be verbally presented. Nor many copies mailed to any conference. Some topics may even roam slightly outside the realm that NPA was founded to address.) Text clarification: Paper also gives ball-volume-ratios arising when a 4-big ball array surrounds a 4-small ball array for the Efficient packing case and the Inefficient packing case.

Some volume ratios, in simple geometric patterns, are nearly equal to some important particle mass ratios in physics -- such as the proton to electron ratio. Those correlations were detailed by me in a widely read journal in 1995. However, I did not then suggest why such correlations arise. Unless the correlations are merely coincidental, an explanation is desirable; and now I attempt it! It involves these notions: Low density aether votices or spheres in space having a Planck's quantum of angular momentum; maximum nuclear densities (as in Bohr's liquid-drop model); some aether-related speed-of-light limitations imposed on nuclear densities ; and those small and large aether balls in space containing small and large energies, respectively. Those ethereal spheres are determined by what fits into neat, close-packed sphere patterns in space, and they share some energies and angular momentum with gross particles.

Helium is unique among elements. Even at 0 Deg. K., it does not completely solidify until a 26 atm Pressure is applied. We perform the obvious, compelling calculation: (26 atm Pressure) times (the jurisdictional Volume of a solidified helium atom); and we explore implications. That strange squeezed product, (P x V) implies an equivalent ?stealth' energy and also a stealth temperature times Boltzmann's constant. We note that a weak 2.72 Deg. K ?CMB' photon would seem to knock a zero-viscosity liquid helium atom, i.e., at 2.18 Deg. K or less, into its warmer viscous state. We consider the reverse; and contemplate helium as a microcosm of the world. Zero- viscosity helium flow is difficult to detect -- somewhat like the aether wind and drag. But a Superflu-id is not superflu-ous! (i.e., it is not ?suPERfluous' ? as Einstein wrongly termed ?aether'). We crudely explore the implications of all the above.

A Chinese saying goes, ?He who is good at laying foundations, can build to a great height without the danger of collapse.? My article advocates the great importance of logic, maintaining clear concepts and using such concepts when defining terms. That often requires great work, discipline, and farsighted circumspection. But the reward is the removal of many paradoxes! At present, mainstream physics and cosmology sadly contain many unnecessary paradoxes, ambiguities and ineffective communications -- often caused by ignoring or marginalizing the importance of logic, clear concepts and definitions. We give a sad example; suggest how to fix it; and give some analogies. (Some NPA members have already addressed much of the above commendably; but perhaps my article can still add something.)

We note in our Universe vastly different strength forces, ranging from the strong nuclear forces to the weak gravitational. We theorize that in each case the material density involved determines the limiting steady force. Thus, nuclear forces are stronger than gravitational by a factor (10^+38) because nuclear densities are roughly (10^+38) times denser than the 'thin' aether in space! We assume that a great gas-like ethereal pressure exists to hold the spinning proton together, and we calculate it, i.e., about 10^+33 (newt/sq. m). We postulate a 'spinning aether ball' with a circumference equal to the Bohr hydrogen atom, and with a spin angular momentum roughly equal to the proton's. From all that, we calculate aether's very low density, about 10^-20 (kgm/cu.m). That is roughly equal to the vacuum in space between planets. That is, indeed, about (10^-38) less dense than a proton's nuclear density. We speculate that elementary particles wiggle at roughly the velocity of light. And that causes a moving Bernoulli equation-related 'aether-space constriction'; and suction to arise between them, (i.e., Gravity)!

Einstein wisely predicted that when the Sun loses a given mass, m, the sun radiates an amount of energy, mc^2. A purer case occurs when an electron and a positron mass interact and annihilate, and energy radiation occurs. But it is wrong and inconsistent to assume that only photon energy results and flies away from the scene, since that assumption disregards ?gravity' (or ?graviton' generation). Despite the fact that the ?gravitational effect' is extremely small, it exists; and some high-energy photons have given up some of their energy (and mass) to create something (i.e., gravitons) even before the photons have completely left the scene. That is what Mossbauer experiments imply, and also what consistent application of E=mc^2 requires; even though gravity is classified as a ?very weak force' and associated energy. When ?inconsistent Einstein Theorists' neglected or lost those SMALL ?gravitons'; they also lost a LARGE Concept; and also lost their chance for a fine Grand Unification Theory. In this paper, we retrieve both; and we calculate an effective 'gravitonic' ethereal density, and a typical graviton's energy and mass. Addendum to Abstract (4-15-2009): The *following two sentences* replace one that previously speculated about gravitons' second or third order effects. *"Gravitons contribute to an aether, which easily also produces the pressure required for the 'nuclear force paradigm'." "Some other comments about this Abstract are found on page 1 of my article."*