AOH :: P2.TXT|
What is mass?
WHAT IS MASS
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 3 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986- AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to email@example.com.