WHAT IS MASS
                 by
            Vernon Brown



According to the theory of relativity and 
according to observations, adding movement to any 
massive object makes it more massive.  Some 
portion of the massiveness of any moving object 
must therefore be due only to movement.
All the components of mass are in a jumble 
of related motion.  Protons, neutrons, electrons, 
atoms, and molecules comprise mass; they all vibrate 
and orbit and whiz around inside of mass.  So rest 
mass can only be imagined, never really measured, 
but most scientists assume that there is a 
fundamental kind of massiveness called rest mass.  
So, now we have massiveness which is due only to 
movement, and another fundamental kind of mass 
called rest mass.

It is not reasonable in nature that there could 
be two fundamentally different kinds of massiveness.  
Rejecting that notion, we are left with an obvious 
conclusion.  All of massiveness is really due only to 
the movement of some fundamental thing in nature. 
Since the most fundamental thing in nature is the 
photon, massiveness must be due in some way to 
photon movement, or more exactly, mass must 
actually be the rate of change of electromagnetic 
fields.

Everything in nature points to this. The 
equation that Henri Poincare wrote down in 1900 
said it first. Poincare wrote, E = mc^2 to show how 
much acceleration a pulse of light gave to particles 
of mass and Albert Einstein showed several years 
later that this equation described the fundamental 
relationship between energy and mass.

Gamma-ray photons of a certain frequency 
become electrons and positrons when they interfere 
with each other in just the right way.  Scientists in 
the past thought this happened when the energy of 
the photons separated virtual electron-positron pairs 
which existed naturally and invisibly in all of space. 
They went on to invent a whole set of these 
invisible, "virtual particles," and worked out rules 
for how they would react with energy to become 
visible.

What we know for sure is that gamma-ray 
photons disappear, and in their place appear 
electrons and positrons.  Just exactly how this 
happens we can not know, but it seems much more 
reasonable that the gamma-ray photons become 
trapped in resonant sphere-shaped orbits. We can 
make this happen experimentally with longer wave 
length photons. At UMBC in 1994, scientists 
described the process and the results. Single photons 
trapped in high-Q resonant cavities behaved just like 
fat electrons and exhibited all the properties of 
massive particles. There is no need to imagine that 
virtual particles exist.

There is an added benefit to the idea that 
photons comprise the particles.  When we accept 
this obvious truth, the observed relativistic effects on 
mass in motion becomes natural.  Mass is and must 
obviously be related to the speed of light exactly in 
accordance with the Lorentz transformations that 
describe these relativistic effects.  Relativity 
phenomena is a  natural thing caused by this 
relationship. Nature could not possibly be otherwise.

Atomic destruction of colliding protons and 
neutrons sometimes produce distinctive patterns 
showing that three jets of matter explode out of the 
particles.  Protons should then be composed of three 
photon shells.  Hadronic spectra also show this 
three-thing structure of  protons and this led to the 
quark theory.  A shell structure in accord with that 
proposed by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert Hofstadter 
of Stanford is more reasonable, however, and if this 
is so neutrons must be composed of four photon 
shells in order for electric charges to cancel to 
neutral.

Square-of-the-shells rule.

Since energy and mass equate in accordance 
with Einstein's famous equation, we can calculate 
the size of any one-photon shell..  Each shell 
circumference must be the wave length of a photon 
whose energy is equal to the mass of the particle.  
The equation must then be, circumference  = h / mc. 
The diameter, of course, is circumference divided by 
pi.

The difference between proton mass and 
neutron mass is about 2.5 electron masses.  We 
don’t know this more exactly because of the 
difficulty in measuring the mass of the neutron, so 
this difference could actually be about 
2.54992206745 electron masses.

This would then be the mass of the outside 
shell of the neutron.  Calculated with the equation 
given above, the diameter of this outer shell, and 
thus the diameter of a neutron would be 3.0317 x 
10^11 centimeters.

Square the above 2.54992206745 and the 
result is 6.502010 which would be the mass of the 
outside shell of the proton.  Proton diameter then 
calculates to be  1.1889 x 10^-11 centimeters.

Square the above 6.50210 and the result is 
42.27734 electron masses.  This would be the mass 
of the in-between shell of the proton, which 
calculates to be 1.8285 x 10^-12 centimeters.

Square the above 42.27734 and the result is 
1787.37 electron masses.  This would be the mass of 
the inside shell of the proton, which is  4.3252 x 
10^-14 centimeters.

Add the masses of the inside three shells and 
the result is 1836.15, the proton's measured mass.  
Add the mass of the neutron's outer shell to that, and 
the result is 1838.70, the neutron's measured mass.  

Add the mass-energy of the middle and outer 
shells of two protons, take the square root of that 
and get 9.8767 electron forces, the observed proton-
proton binding force of the strong nuclear 
interactions; add the neutron's outer shell value to 
the above four shells, take the square root and the 
result is 10.00, the observed value for the neutron-
proton strong nuclear interaction.

Merging a proton and neutron together, 
there is at first a repelling force as the two positive 
shells pass through each other.  This weak force is 
dynamic, short lived, and difficult to calculate, but it 
is well within the observed value of the weak nuclear 
interaction. After this dynamic weak force, the 
merging shells come in close proximity to shells of 
opposite charge, and feel the strong interaction 
resulting from the four shells in contact. This is the 
strong force. The numbers match as close as anyone 
can calculate.

There is no reasonable way around this idea. 
At the very beginning there is the clear and obvious 
fact that relativity phenomena must result as a 
consequence of  the most basic construct of mass.  
Otherwise there are only unreasonable ideas, and 
when we abandon reasonableness as a test for what 
is real, we’re doomed to be fooled by anyone willing 
to cook up some scheme that agrees with the ideas 
of the funded few. That is exactly what we have 
today.

Fundamental physics comes now at the 
crossroads it faced at the turn of the twentieth 
century. It took the wrong turn then. If we approach 
the twenty-first century with the notion that any idea 
about how nature works must pass the test of 
reasonableness we will rapidly succeed in finding the 
true nature of the universe. Until we do, we will 
meander in the foolish quest to understand the 
exotic and unreal dreams of unreasonable dreamers. 
Not only will we lose our funding, but we will also 
lose the participation of bright students who will not 
put up with the unreasonable nonsense that 
abounded in the fundamental physics of the 
twentieth century.