This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/46067661/MassandSpace
03/03/2014
text
original
910, WinterSpring 1991 161
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Mass, Energy, Space
Henrik Broberg
Djürsholm, Sweden
This paper deals with the conceptual origin of particle mass
and its relation to energy and space. It has been impossible,
along the way, to avoid the question of the unification of the
forces, and some results have been achieved in this area as
well.
The Cosmological Redshift and Vacuum Space
While employed at the European Space Agency, I was given the
opportunity to undertake my own scientific research with a grant from
the ESA to spend a year (198283) at the Laboratoire
d’Astrophysique Theorique (LAT) in Paris, where I worked on
cosmology with professor JC Pecker, former Head of the Paris
Observatory. During that period, in the unorthodox surrounding of
Pecker, Vigier and other followers of de Broglie, who did not take the
“standard model” for granted—least of all “Big Bang” cosmology—I
was encouraged to continue my own thinking in new directions.
I would like to argue that from time to time we need to look at
problems from a new angle in order to advance our scientific
knowledge and our technology. The key ingredient in my work at the
LAT was the assumption that the cosmological redshift must involve
some interaction between photons and the vacuum space. As I saw it,
whatever the mechanism causing the redshift, even if it were due only
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 162
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
to the (hypothetical) expansion of the Universe, information about the
mechanism must be transferred to the photon via the vacuum in one
way or another.
I investigated this process, without further knowledge about its
inner nature, by defining a crosssection for the photonvacuum
interaction. This crosssection has the property of a surface
proportional to the probability of the interaction between the vacuum
and the photon during any photon cycle.
According to the rough distance relation from Hubble’s
observation of the redshift in the 1920’s, later confirmed and
improved by numerous other observers, the photon loses energy
approximately in proportion to its own energy level and the length of
an interval of time pertinent to the observed redshift. This indicates an
exponential law behind the redshift, which would lead to an average
loss of energy for any photon during any cycletime of a constant
value equal to hH, where h is Planck´s constant and H is Hubble’s
constant.
In cosmology, H is often assumed to be a variable, proportional to
the inverse of the “age” or “scale factor” of the expanding Universe. It
could just as well be a constant related to the density or curvature
applicable to a “steady state” Universe. On our more limited human
time scale it does not matter much what the case is, and both H and h
can be treated as constants. The distinction, however, will become
important on the cosmological scale.
If such a small quantity of energy as hH is exchanged between the
photon and the vacuum space, it would be the smallest amount of
energy observed to participate in any physical process, corresponding
to the energy of an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of the
same order of magnitude as the “scale factor” (or radius) of the
Universe according to the current theories in cosmology. It is hardly
possible to imagine the existence of any smaller quantum of energy in
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 163
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
our Universe, and it is, therefore, tempting to think of this as a
minimal energy quantum.
The loss of such a minimal quantum of energy as hH would
therefore be the average result of the interaction between a photon and
the vacuum space during any photon cycletime. Even if this energy
loss were an unavoidable physical attribute of each cycle of the
photon vacuum oscillator, the result could also be seen as a stochastic
process due to the requirements of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle. The probabilistic Schrödinger wave function, normalised
over each wavelength, would then generate the surface corresponding
to the crosssection for the photonvacuum interaction. The photon
crosssection σ
γ
so defined becomes a surface proportional to the
energy of the photon, for which we introduce the parameter A
expressed in m
2
/kg:
2
E
A
c
γ
σ · (1)
From this it follows that the crosssection of each photon covers a
certain constant volume during each cycle; this quantum volume in
the vacuum V
q
becomes:
q
h
V A
c
· (2)
Since the Planck Radius is assumed to be the scale at which our
known physical laws break down, it sets a lower limit for the concepts
we can deal with. It is therefore interesting to note that the above
defined crosssection applied to the minimal quantum hH becomes
approximately equal to the square of the Planck radius, or more
precisely:
2
2
q p
R σ π · (3)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 164
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
This relation is true for H equal to the inverse of 15 billion years. The
above expression can also be translated into a relation between the
parameters A, h, H, c and Newton’s constant G:
4
Hc
G A
π
· (4)
We observe that the latter expression gives G as a function of H, if
these two properties are variables and the others true constants. This
can be interpreted in different ways. One possible interpretation is to
regard H as the inverse of a scalefactor, in which case it serves as
something which can be thought of as a ground state resonance
frequency of the Universal space. In the latter case we might be able
to identify different Universes of different sizes, and accordingly also
with different values of the gravitational parameters.
The results from my earlier work are reflected in two ESA reports.
The first report (Broberg 1981), written just before my time there,
now appears as a naive effort to construct a cosmologically based
particle theory on a nonrelativistic foundation, while the second
report (Broberg 1984), written afterwards, includes relativistic
concepts, using the Schwarzschild and Kerr singularities as the
fundamental vehicles to a conceptualization of particle rest mass.
Though lacking some of the concepts presented here, these are
necessary for a deeper understanding. In that report, the interpretation
of the relation between H and G developed here is used. This relation
leads to a model of fundamental particles as miniature “universes”,
obeying the same laws as the largescale Universe.
The Singularities
Theories about particles and forces are often linked to “singularities”,
which could perhaps be defined as extreme mathematical solutions
leading to abrupt changes in parameters, manifesting themselves as
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 165
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
physical discontinuities when a variable approaches a certain value or
limit. A simple example of a singularity is the change in friction
coefficient when a car wheel becomes blocked during braking,
leading to a sudden loss in braking power—an effect we try to avoid
by using antiblocking systems (ABS).
The Einstein Singularity
Within the framework of General Theory of Relativity, Einstein tried
to show that the elementary particles could be understood as resulting
from singularities in spacetime, or in other words that the particle
masses (energies) were so dense that they curved the space in their
surrounding to the extent that their energies were trapped or locally
confined in the warp of spacetime. They would then behave like
“black holes”. However, the radius of this border, or event horizon,
calculated as the Schwarzschild radius turns out to be something like
10
40
times smaller than the measured radii of particles, and
consequently Einstein’s idea was never accepted.
In one early study, Einstein indicated (1919) the “possibility of a
theoretical construction of matter out of gravitational field and
electromagnetic field alone”, suggesting that particle energies could
be accounted for by means of a modification to the field equations of
General Relativity. More specifically, in a discussion of the electron,
he proposed that the gravitational constant (“the scalar of curvature”)
could have another value in the system of a particle than in the space
outside the particle. It now appears that Einstein was on the right track
when he made this proposal, and the analysis presented in this paper
clearly leads us in the same direction.
The “Big Bang” Singularity
The presently accepted “standard model” in physics (Weinberg
1972), invokes the idea that time, space, matter and energy all have
developed from one moment of origin about 15 billion years ago—
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 166
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
the original singularity—to the Universe of our time. The changing
scale from almost zero dimensions to the present large scale is used to
explain the creation of the particles and elements; the lighter ones (up
to the size of Helium) emanated from the hot and small early
Universe, while the heavier elements are supposed to be created in the
cores of the stars.
The main evidence for the “Big Bang” model is normally stated to
be (1) the observation of the redshift of the light from the distant stars,
(2) the 3°K background radiation measured by the radio telescopes in
all directions in space and (3) the mathematical requirement that the
Universe is dynamic and not static.
Some years before Hubble discovered the redshift, Alexander
Friedmann had built a model of the Universe based on General
Relativity and the assumption that the Universe looks the same from
anywhere and in whatever direction, as is the case with the
background radiation. His model also predicted the expansion in a
way that fits with Hubble’s observation. The Friedmann model is still
the main foundation for the “standard model” in cosmology, the three
variants of which all lead back to an original singularity, beyond
which we cannot know anything.
However, more recently within the framework of the theory of
quantum gravity, Hawking (1987a,b) has proposed that the surface of
spacetime would be closed and without a boundary, like the surface
of the Earth, but with more dimensions. He suggests that it would be
possible to move from one singularity to another, by starting at a point
at the north pole and expanding into a circle that would grow towards
the equator and slim down towards the south pole, where the circle
would then a become a point again. It is questionable whether the
points at the poles really are singularities (any more so than other
points on the surface) or whether the entire surface should be seen as
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 167
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
a selfsupporting singular system, without the need for any particular
beginning or end.
The Electron Singularity Problem
The electron is, as far as we know, the smallest fundamental restmass
quantum in the Universe. It does not decay, and it carries a minimal
quantum charge and a spinquantum. About its inner structure,
nothing is known, and it is normally treated as pointlike.
Measurements indicate that if the electron has a size, its radius is not
much larger than 10
–16
m.
However, treating the electron as a point contradicts the fact that it
is charged, since the potential energy of a charged sphere would
become infinite when the radius becomes zero. This difficulty is
circumvented in the textbooks of physics by stating that the known
laws of physics don’t apply in the very small. That means that
Coulomb’s law would be truncated at some point. Often the Planck
radius 10
–35
m is referred to as the length beyond which the known
laws break down. But at that scale the confined potential electrical
energy would be about 10
20
times the energy of the electron mass,
which is hardly possible, as that energy would presumably have to be
part of the mass.
One solution to the electron dilemma would be to assume the
geometry of the electron to be like a fibre rather than a sphere. As an
indication, before going into a more detailed analysis, we will
suppose that the charge is distributed in small dots with units of Q/N
along a fibre of length L, the distance between two nearby dots being
L/N. The force between any of two nearby dots will, independent of
N, become:
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 168
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
( )
( )
2
2
2 2
Q
N Q
F k k
L
L
N
· ⋅ ≡
Even if the forces of all dots visavis one dot are added, the sum
converges as the series:
2
2 2
1 Q
F k
L
ν
ν
· ⋅
∑
and therefore a limited value of the tension in the fibre is achieved.
This tension can be treated as the energy stored in an elastic string and
be recalculated in mass units. It turns out that a string with a length of
about 10
–15
m will have energy on the order of the restmass of the
electron. If nothing holds the string back, it will simply extend itself
lengthwise. If it is tied into a circle instead, the tension will produce
an outward expanding force on the periphery. If the electric field lines
are curved along the same circle as the fibre, such that each dot
charge is influenced only by its neighbours, the potential energy
stored in the tension of the ring becomes:
2
8
Q
E
L πε
·
This little exercise is hardly an exhaustive explanation of the
electron mass—that is not the point. It does, however, show the
possibility offered by a stringlike geometry. It might therefore be
interesting to look into string theories as a means to investigate the
properties of the electron. It will later be shown that this approach is
very fruitful for an understanding of particles and forces generally.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 169
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
String Theories
Since the mid80s, superstring theories, first introduced by Scherk
and Schwarz (1974), have been much used in efforts to describe and
unify the concepts of physics. Strings are supposed to represent
particles, and they can be open or curved lines. Over time, the strings
generate surfaces, or worldsheets:
Figure 1—A String and a Sheet
The worldsheet of a closed string is a cylinder, while its cross
section is a flat disk, for example a circle, representing the position of
the string (or particle) as a function of time. When particles absorb
one another, strings and worldsheets simply become joined. A
particle can be modelled as a wave travelling along the string world
sheet as the string vibrates.
A problem with the current superstring theories is that they have
become increasingly complicated and now require many more than
the normal four dimensions of spacetime to work consistently. Yet
they still have not achieved the anticipated success in explaining the
particle properties.
In the following, the concept of strings will be used, though not in
the framework of the superstring theories. Instead we will start from
an analysis of singularities generated by a rotating closed string. The
importance of these new singularities is that they are set up without
the use of the standard gravitational theory and therefore become
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 170
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
independent of the current gravitational parameters; for example, we
will see that Newton’s constant may not be a constant at all.
The Rotating String
We now introduce the concept of a constant surfacetomass ratio for
rotating strings, a relationship that will be fundamental to quantized
systems.
From experience we know that the surfacetomass relation of a
nucleon is of the order of about one square meter per kilogram of
nucleonic matter, and that a similar relation can be found for the
masscontent of the large scale Universe (say, the mass of 10
11
galaxies within a radius of 10
15
lightyears). We find the same result
again if we consider a certain surface to characterize the cosmological
Hubble redshift. In an earlier study (Broberg 1984), I found that a
value of 0.7 m
2
/kg can be calculated from the redshift for a scale
factor of 15×10
9
lightyears, a figure that also fits well with the
dimensions of the elementary particles.
As an introduction, consider a string possessing mass that rotates
around its centre, shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2—A Rotating String
The interaction between the magnetic and the electric fields in a
photon can be treated as two rotating strings, like circles sliding with
a certain displacement on the surface of a sphere, from points at the
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 171
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
poles to large circles at the equator, and back (as in the Hawking
model), while their total surface sum is constant and equal to the
surface of the sphere. The surface corresponding to each field
component in the photon would then have to be proportional to the
crosssection of its string, while its average surface over a cycle
would be half that of the entire photon.
In the case of a particle with a restmass, there will also be a
characteristic time constant for the system, and the cyclic time sheet
will be expressed as a closed threedimensional surface, like a sphere
or a toroid (or surface of a fourdimensional sphere).
The kinetic energy of the rotating string is:
( )
2
0
1
k
E m c γ · −
The surface across the string is a large circle given by:
2
2
vτ
φ π
π
 `
·
. ,
where τ is the cycletime (one turn). By analogy with the cross
section for the photonvacuum interaction from equation (1) above,
the relation between the surface across the string loop and the kinetic
mass of the rotating string is:
( )
2
0
2
1
v
A
m
τ
π
π
γ
 `
. ,
·
−
(5)
Hence, if A is a constant parameter, we have the following relation
between surface and mass:
2
0
1
2
c
Am
γ τ
γ π
γ π
+
 `
· ⋅
. ,
(6)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 172
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
The limiting value when the rotational velocity v → 0 becomes:
2
0
2
2
c
Am
τ
π
π
 `
·
. ,
(7)
The limiting value when the rotational velocity v → c becomes:
2
2
c
Am
τ
π
π
∞
 `
·
. ,
(8)
Hence, visavis its radius, and for the same energy and rotational
time constant, the fibre ring with zero velocity has twice the surface
compared to the ring rotating with velocity c.
The two cases represent two singularities. When the rotational
velocity drops close to zero the radius must also approach zero for the
string to be able to complete its revolution during its cycle time.
When the rotational velocity becomes c the periphery shrinks to zero
due to Lorentz contraction. The result is apparently highly relativistic
both for the rest mass and the “relativistic” string.
A relativistic (massless) particle can generate two restmass
particles, as follows:
2 2
2 2 2
I) 2
2 2
II) 2 4 4
2 4 4
c c
Am
c c c
τ τ
π π
π π
τ τ τ
π π π
π π π
∞
 `  `
· ⇒
. , . ,
 `  `  `
⇒ +
. , . , . ,
(9)
In simple terms, the above mechanism would be a flat
electromagnetic wave with unitary spin, which, once stopped and in a
state of rest, first becomes an integer spin system with a double
surface based on the same radius as before. This system in turn
collapses into two spherical halfinteger spin particles. The interim
system could correspond to a mesonic state and the final system,
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 173
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
baryons. Another possibility is a collapse of the original wave directly
into any pair of ½ spin particles, such as a positron and an electron.
We will now give two examples, very briefly at first, to show how
the above relations work with particles.
Example 1. A Spherical Stationary System—the Neutron
To set up a simple self supporting stationary system in three
dimensional space, we need a minimum of 6 string components
grouped in pairs, one pair for each one of the three dimensions. The
entire system has a surface equal to the sum of the surfaces of the
field components:
2
4 Am R π · (10)
The spacetime volume of the system is equal to the sum of the
volumes of the field components:
2
0
4
3
Ah
V R
c
π ≡ · (11)
The mass of the entire system becomes:
( )
2
27
3
2
1.68 10 940 MeV
h
m kg
Ac
π
−
· · ⋅ (12)
It should be noted that the same mass for the system is achieved if all
the surfaces of the string components, as well as the volumes, are
assumed to be folded over one another, and the total is calculated as
the mass of one string quantum, for which A is divided by 6.
With a value of A = 0.7 m
2
/kg, the mass of the system becomes
approximately equal to that of the neutron. As it turns out, this value
of the constant (because it seems really to be a constant) will be
consistent with all the particle and other concepts analysed in the
following. However, the above calculated mass formula is an
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 174
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
oversimplification of the neutron mass, and therefore it cannot be
justified for a more precise calculation of A.
Example 2. A Charged String—the Electron
The concept of a charged rotating string will here be used to describe
another stationary system, which will turn out to have the mass of the
electron when the charge is equal to the electron charge.
Let the string be a thin toroid, on the surface of which a current
flows, induced by a charge moving in a spiral pattern, in analogy with
a toroidal electrical coil (Figure 3):
Figure 3—The toroidal electron string
The length of the coil is L, its large radius being
2
L
R
π
· (13)
The current is i, the number of turns of the current around the coil
before closing the loop is N, and the small radius is r.
With the charge Q and the magnetic permeability of vacuum space
µ
0
, the energy of the magnetic field in such a coil becomes:
2
0
1
2
iN
E V
L
µ
 `
· ⋅
. ,
(14)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 175
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
where V is the volume of the coil:
2
V r L π · ⋅
(15)
The distance the charge goes before closing one loop (N turns) around
the coil is:
2
2 1
2
L
rN
rN
π
π
 `
· +
. ,
l (16)
The current becomes:
Qc
i ·
l
(17)
Therefore:
2
2 1
2
Qc
N i
L
r
rN
π
π
⋅ ·
 `
+
. ,
(18)
The magnetic energy stored in the coil now becomes:
( )
2 2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2 1
2
B
Q c V
E
L
r L
rN
µ
π
π
·
]
 `
+ ⋅
]
. ,
]
]
(19)
or, the mass equivalent:
2
0
2
8 1
2
B
Q
m
L
L
rN
µ
π
π
·
]
 `
+
]
. ,
]
]
(20)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 176
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
When 2 π Nr >> L (an assumption which is justified in Appendix
A), we get an expression for the mass corresponding to the magnetic
field, which in combination with Equation 7 gives:
2
2
1
4 4
4
B
S
B S
Q
m
R
Am R
µ
π π
π
¹
· ⋅
¹
'
¹
·
¹
(21)
The potential electric energy stored in the loops of the string
disappears when N becomes large, because of the division of the
charge by N and the relation between N and the thickness of the fibre.
Therefore, ignoring the gravitational field, the only contribution to the
mass is from the magnetic field.
Eliminating R gives a value for the restmass of the string:
( )
2
2
0
31 3
1
9.10 10 (0.511MeV)
4
Q
m kg
A
µ
π
−
· ≈ ⋅ (22)
This gives the radius
2 16
3
0
1
2.25 10 m
4
S
R A Q µ
π
−
· ≈ ⋅ (23)
and the length of the string:
2
3
0
1
2
L A Q µ · (24)
A is expected to be a Universal constant. Using the expression given
in equation (4), A is estimated from the parameters applicable in the
large scale (G and H), as well as Planck’s constant:
2
4
m
0.7
kg
G
A
Hc
π
· ≈ (25)
Here, Hubble’s constant is given as 15×10
9
yrs
–1
.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 177
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
This gives the mass from equation (23) to be 9.10×10
–31
kg, which
is indeed equal to the electron rest mass.
The Fundamental Particle System
In the above, we have derived a few concepts concerning singularities
and strings. We will now introduce them into a general theory for
particle rest mass.
First some postulates will be made:
1. There exists a fundamental elementary ground stage particle
with a rest mass.
2. The existence of particle rest mass is based on the existence of a
singularity in spacetime
3. The masses of the other particles will follow logically as
consequences of the properties of the fundamental elementary
particle.
As will be shown in the following, the electron is found to be the
fundamental elementary particle.
Above, we have identified a string singularity which seems
capable of explaining the property of particle mass.
In the framework of general relativity, the Schwarzschild and the
Kerr metrics contain singularities, which in popular terms lead to the
concepts of “black holes”. The radius of the so called event horizon of
the Schwarzschild singularity is the distance from the centre that
defines a boundary, from within of which no matter or energy can
escape, hence the name “black hole”. However, it has been shown by
Hawking and others (Hawking 1987a,b) that black body radiation will
be emitted from the black holes and that they are therefore not “totally
black”.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 178
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Following the same idea as I presented in an earlier study (Broberg
1984), we will now see how the Schwarzschild singularity can be
related to the rotating string described in the preceding section.
The Schwarzschild radius is:
2
2
g
gm
R
c
· (26)
In largescale Universal space the gravitational parameter g is equal to
Newton’s constant G.
For the moment we will here leave the value of g as an open
parameter—we will come back to the evaluation of G later.
If the particle is a “black hole” singularity, the mass should be seen
as a “ghost image” of the absorbed energy, hovering over the event
horizon, due to the time dilation towards infinity at the event horizon
visavis a distant observer. For a stable particle, the rest mass should
be in an equilibrium state, where the inflow of energy from the
surrounding vacuum space is equal to the black body radiation from
the surface of the particle.
As an indication of how to understand the latter process, if protons
radiate energy to the surrounding vacuum space at the same rate as
the photons are redshifted according to Hubble’s law, and if the
surface characterising the black body spectrum of the radiation is a
sphere with the electron Compton wavelength as its radius, the result
would be a 3 Kelvin spectrum, in accordance with the observed
background radiation:
( )
2
4
8 2
2.9 K
5.67 10 4
=
p
e
Hm c
T
r
h
r
cm
π
−
¹
¹
· ·
¹
⋅
'
¹
¹
¹
o
(27)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 179
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Therefore it is possible that the observed background radiation
emanates mainly from the hydrogen clouds in space.
Returning to the particle model, as seen from the outside, the
particles would have their masses concentrated in a shell at, or just
above, the event horizon. For the electron, for example, this would
mean that the rest mass, seen from the outside, would be concentrated
to a shell built by stored potential electric energy:
2
4
g
Q
m
R
µ
π
· (28)
Comparing this result with the mass from Equation (20), we see
now that the relation between the string radius and the radius of the
Schwarzschild singularity from equation (26) above becomes:
4
g S
R R π · (29)
This radius corresponds to the dilated electron time constant seen by a
distant observer.
Although the outside observer sees the rest energy as being stored
at the event surface, an observer travelling with the inflow of energy
into the electron singularity would cross the surface and enter an inner
structure, where the potential electric energy has collapsed into a
charged string, as the one described above.
The more detailed calculation in Appendix A yields the mass of
such a charged string:
( )
2
2
2
3
1 2
4 2 1
Q
N
m
A N
µ
π
 `
· ⋅
+
. ,
(30)
The parameter N is equal to the number of twists of the charged
electron string. It is obvious that the mass converges very quickly
towards the proper rest mass of the electron when the number of
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 180
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
twists increases. As the number of twists increases, the potential
electrical energy on the string disappears, being converted into
magnetic energy stored in the core of the string. Hence the string soon
becomes like an almost infinitely thin fibre of magnetic field energy.
The radius of the string becomes:
2
3
0
1 2
4 2 1
S
N
R A Q
N
µ
π
 `
·
+
. ,
(31)
This radius quickly converges towards its limit value 2.25×10
–16
m.
The Schwarzschild radius or R
g
derived above may be called the
radius of the electron system. Its value is:
2 15
3
0
2.826 10 m
g
N
R A Q µ
−
→∞
· · ⋅ (32)
We can also set up g as a function of the mass contained in the
singular electron system:
4
2
2
g
Ac
g
m
gR Ac
π
π
¹
·
¹
'
¹
·
¹
(33)
If our constants A and c are true constants, it is obvious that g
depends on the mass of the system within which it is applicable as a
force constant. This is a reasonable solution because on a large scale,
using the value of Newton’s constant for g, it corresponds to a
Universe containing mass corresponding to 10
11
galaxies, which is in
line with our observations. At the other end of the scale, the above
relation gives a force for the nuclei, which is about 10
40
times the
gravitational force in the largescale Universe—also in agreement
with observations.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 181
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
With the above established function for g, the true nature of the
force becomes that of a surfaceenergy relation, and the force in
kilonewtons needed to change the surface radius becomes:
2
2
2
4
8 3KN
d
d
c
E R
c
A
F R
A E
F
R
π
π
¹
· ⋅
¹
¹
⇒ · ⋅ ≈
'
¹
·
¹
¹
(34)
for R = 10
–15
m. In its form and amplitude, this force agrees with what
is assumed for the quarks by present day theories.
The above relations also result in identical amplitudes of the
electrical and gravitational interactions inside the system of the
electron:
2 2
2 2
4
2 1
4
e
GM Q
r r
M m
Ac
G
M
πε
π
¹
· ⋅
¹
¹
⇒ ·
'
¹
·
¹
¹
(35
)
Solving out the mass from the above relation simply gives back the
electron rest mass.
In the electron system, the strong force, the gravitational force and
the electric force therefore appear to be unified. The fourth force, the
weak force responsible for the radioactive particle decay, is here not
seen as a force, but the result of decaying unstable particle systems.
Hence, it is possible that the “forces” of Nature become unified in
the system of the fundamental elementary particle—the electron.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 182
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
The Electron and the Hydrogen Spectrum
The hydrogen spectrum is used as a basic source for measurement of
fundamental constants of Nature, such as, for example, Planck’s and
Rydberg’s constants. The dimensionless fine structure constant is also
an important parameter of this spectrum.
As it turns out, the hydrogen spectrum shows an interesting
structure of at least four strings superimposed upon each other, from
the event horizon of the electron outwards, separated in size only by
multiples of the fine structure constant.
The fine structure constant can be given as:
2
0
2
e c
h
µ
α · (36)
This constant is also, in relation to the Bohr model of the hydrogen
atom, identical with the relation v/c, where v is the velocity of the
electron in its inner orbit around the nucleus. The following radii of
stringlike concepts are identified:
1. The electron event horizon from equation (29)
2. The Compton wavelength of the electron
3. The inner de Broglie orbit in the Bohr model of the hydrogen
atom
4. The Rydberg wavelength (the inverse of Rydberg’s constant)
The size of each of the above objects is given by multiplying the
earlier in the series by the inverse of the fine structure constant, except
for the last one, which needs an additional factor of two. This series
may be considered as a number of string resonances from the rest
state of the electron mass, the relation between object 3 and object 4
involving a transition from a zero velocity string to a string with
velocity c, thus splitting into two objects, i.e. the two electromagnetic
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 183
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
quanta emitted by the two inner electrons when falling in from a large
distance to their places in the H atom.
The existence of the fine structure constant obviously depends on
the coupling between the photons and the quantum volumes of
vacuum space, identified earlier in equation (2), which in turn is
superimposed on the force interactions in the electromagnetic field.
From the earlier developed expression for the electron mass,
equation (23), a relation between the quantum volume and the
Rydberg wavelength can be established:
0 R
e
V
cm
λ
 `
·
. ,
h
(37)
This relation can be understood such that the quantum volume V is
the threedimensional surface to a fourdimensional volume in space
time, which describes the electron as a quantum oscillator with
Rydberg’s constant as its unique parameter.
How the electron gets its specific mass can now also be seen from
the point of view of geometry. The unfolded time constant of the
electron oscillator is given by equation (38) above as:
0
e
c
cm
τ ·
h
(38)
A circle in spacetime set up by this timeconstant would have too
large a surface compared to the energy of the oscillator. Therefore it
has to curl itself together in a number of loops to reduce its surface.
This process introduces the fine structure constant α. From equations
(26) and (32), we see the relation between the surface corresponding
to the electron mass and the radius of its event horizon. The curling
will reduce the radius of the system to the latter, and the relation
between mass and surface gives the following:
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 184
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
2
4
g
e
g
R
cm
R AM
α
π
¹
· ⋅
¹
'
¹
·
¹
h
(39)
From this equation system we can again calculate the mass, and as a
result we can now give the following three identical expressions for
the electron mass:
2 4 2 2
3 3
2
2
3
1 1 4
4 4
e
Ryd
Q h
m
A Ac
Q
R
µ α
π π
µ
α
· ≡
≡ ⋅
(40)
This concludes, for the time being, our linking of constants
measured from the hydrogen spectrum with the electron restmass.
The Masses of the Basic Particles
As it turns out, the basic charged elementary particle masses follow in
a rather uncomplicated way from the geometry of the electron. The
guiding principle seems to be that the electron string in some different
configurations serves as the geometrical norm for the particle time
constant. The interference between the electromagnetic coupling and
the vacuum quantum volume generates the charged particle systems.
Of the uncharged particles, the neutron mass was already
introduced by equation (12) in the preceding on the simple basis of a
threedimensional spherical crosssection to a system of vacuum
waves in the plus and minus directions of the three axes. The
uncharged pion mass follows from an equally simple relation. A more
detailed exposition of the hadron mass spectrum is given in Appendix
C.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 185
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
The Charged Pion
Using the periphery of the electron system from the radius given in
Equation (34) as a wavelength generates a wave with half the energy
of the pion restmass. Two such waves interacting with each other
therefore yields the pion mass. (Due to its spin½ particle nature, the
periphery from the electron system is probably folded twice over
itself.) Hence the mass becomes:
2
3
28
2 , or
2
2.489 10 kg (139.5MeV)
g
h
m
R c
h
c A Q
π
π
π µ
t
−
· ⋅
·
· ⋅
(41)
This calculated mass agrees with the observed mass to three to four
significant digits.
The Neutral Pion
Following the example of the electron and the form for the solution
for the charged pion, we get the following:
3
0
2R V
h
m
cR
¹
·
¹
'
·
¹
¹
(42)
Using the radius of the particle system as wavelength gives half the
mass of the neutral pion. Hence, the mass of the system becomes:
0
2
28
3
2
2
2.407 10 (135.0 MeV)
h
m kg
Ac
π
−
· · ⋅ (43)
This calculated mass exhibits four figure agreement with the observed
mass.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 186
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
The Generalised Pion Group
From the above it is found that the pionsystem occupies one (three
dimensional) quantum volume in spacetime. In the generalized
solution given here, the two subsystems (quarks) also occupy together
two spherical quantum volumes in threedimensional space.
The volume in threedimensional space becomes:
2
0
4
2
3
V R π ·
Hence,
3
3
2
Ah
R
c π
·
The mass of the system is given by:
h
m
cR
·
The mass becomes:
( )
2
28
3
2
2
2.44 10 kg 137 MeV
3
h
m
Ac
π
−
· ≅ ⋅ (44)
This mass falls between the observed masses of the charged and
uncharged pions.
The Proton
In accordance with the solutions for the neutron and the charged pion
we can now also find the proton mass.
The system is based on an assembly of three charged strings, each
charge equal to one third of the electron charge. Each string is twisted
twice. The length of each string is then, from equation (31):
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 187
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
2
3
0
1 2
2 3 2 1
Q N
L A
N
µ
 `  `
·
+
. , . ,
(45)
Therefore, the mass of each, following the same pattern as the
charged pion, becomes:
1
3
4 , 2
q
h
m
cL Q N π
·
 `
· ·
. ,
(46)
The mass of the assembly of three such components is:
( )
3
27
2
3
0
9 5
4
3
1.673 10 kg 938 MeV
p
h
m
c
A Q
π
µ
−
⋅
· ⋅ · ⋅ (47)
This mass is equal to the observed mass of the proton with three to
four significant figure accuracy.
If the same relation applies directly as a modification to the
observed mass of the charged pion, we get:
3
9 5
4
139.566 3 938.2 MeV
p
m
⋅
· ⋅ ⋅ ·
which gives an accuracy of at least four significant figures. Therefore
the geometrical framework seems to be in good agreement with the
charged baryons.
The Neutron and the Generalised Nucleon group
The neutron mass was given already in equation (12). The
accuracy of the calculation in respect of the observed mass is about
three significant figures. It is therefore a less accurate figure than
those calculated for the other particles. However, the geometrical
framework is similar to that of the proton above, the three wavepairs
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 188
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
of the neutron system corresponding to the three double twisted
strings of the protonsystem.
The mass of equation (12) can therefore be considered as a
generalised solution for the nucleon group, based on the principle that
each nucleon occupies one spherical quantum volume in three
dimensional space, while the three subsystems (quarks) together
occupy three quantum volumes in spacetime.
The Muon
The muon is the particle within the lepton group that is most closely
related to the electron by its physical properties. Its mass follows
directly from the geometry of the electron. It is a particle without a
quark substructure. Its normative time constant is equal to twice the
length of an electron spiral which has two loops. It can be seen as an
aborted effort to create an electron. Its mass is that of a ground state
field quantum.
The length of the spiral (cf. Appendix A) is:
1 2 L N · ⋅ + l
The mass of the muon is:
2
1
2
h
m
c
µ
τ
· ⋅
The complete expression for the mass becomes:
( )
2
3
0
28
4
5
2 5
1.883 10 kg 105.55 MeV
h
m
c A Q
µ
µ
−
·
⋅ ⋅
· ⋅
(48)
This agrees with the observed muon mass to four figure accuracy.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 189
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Results and Prospects
In this paper I have shown how microparticles might be
approximated as singularities in spacetime. The most important
results are the evidence of the unification of the forces in the electron
system and a solution to the problem of particle restmasses in
general.
Another interesting possibility is that the description of the
electron geometry presented above may offer new insights into the
problem of superconductivity, which should benefit from a more in
depth knowledge of electron properties.
Many things remain to be said, perhaps in another paper. In
Appendix B, I have given an overview of the particle spectrum,
showing how the resonances are generated from the ground states.
This is neither the beginning, nor the end. My driving force has
always been curiosity. And I am still very curious. There will always
be new frontiers to cross. I hope we will help each other to challenge
them. May I therefore be excused if I take the liberty of using the
remaining lines for some speculations.
For example, the introduction of the crosssection for the
interaction between the particles and the vacuum makes it possible to
describe inertial mass as a local phenomenon, without any reference
to Mach’s principle, simply by the energy needed to change the
pressure inside the closed particle surface as a function of the Lorentz
compression.
The introduction of a process by which particles exchange energy
with the vacuum space paves the way for a new description of
gravitation, not necessarily in contradiction with the geometrical
picture given by General Relativity, but possibly with some additional
qualities of comprehension and simplification.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 190
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
An understanding of the nature of the graviton may come within
our grasp if the massparticles, as well as the photons, are indeed
subject to an energy loss with the same rate as the cosmological
redshift, the result of which is seen as the background microwave
radiation. The stable particles should then stay in their equilibrium
state by absorbing and radiating energy with the same rate.
If the photons lose a minimal energy quantum each cycle, the rest
mass particles may pick up such quanta from the vacuum in an
ecological renewal process. Every forced absorption of such a
quantum of energy can be seen as the ejection of a hole of negative
energy into the vacuum space. These holes, small enough to have an
uncertainty in their position of cosmic size, can act as carriers of the
gravitational long range action.
The energy absorption and radiation by the particles will make
them serve as entropy regenerators, absorbing extremely longwaved
quanta from the background and emitting a microwave spectrum. The
superparticles existing as neutron stars could then be effective
regenerators of waves powerful enough to produce new mass
particles in large quantities from the vacuum.
The energy of the Sun might be due to the energy absorption by its
particles from the vacuum, feeding the core of the Sun with the
returned radiation from the particles in quantities sufficient to account
for the entire radiation of the Sun and the fusion of the lighter
elements into heavier ones all the way up to the complete neutron
stars. This might also explain why the underground facilities for
neutrino detection have failed, after more than 20 years, to detect any
neutrinos released from the assumed fusion process on the Sun—
perhaps the radiated energy does not come from fusion at all, but has
a cosmological origin instead.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 191
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
References
Bondi, Herman, 1961. Cosmology, Cambridge University Press.
Broberg, Henrik, 1981. ESA STM223.
Broberg, Henrik, 1984. ESA STM233.
Einstein, Albert, 1919. “Do Gravitational Fields Play an Essential Part in the
Structure of the Elementary Particles of Matter”, in The Principle of Relativity,
Dover.
Hawking, Stephen W., 1987a. Physica Scripta, T15, 151.
Hawking, Stephen W., 1987b.”Quantum Cosmology”, in Hawking and Israel eds.,
300 Years of Gravitation, Cambridge.
Scherk, J. and Schwarz, J.H., 1974. Nucl. Phys., B81, 118.
Weinberg, Steven, 1972. Gravitation and Cosmology, J. Wiley and Sons.
Appendix A1: Further Analysis of the Electron
String Geometry
The mass of the magnetic field stored on the electron string/coil was
given in the text by equation (20):
2
2
8 1
2
b
Q
m
L
L
rN
µ
π
π
·
 `
]
+
]
]
. ,
(A1.1)
To solve this expression, we must establish a relation between the
large radius of the particle string, R, and the small radius, r, of the
loops. Consequently, we need to have some understanding of the
geometry of the system composed of the string and its loops.
In the following, we refer to the parameters of the strings with the
subscript “S” and the loops with “L”. The lenth of the spiral is defined
as l = cτ.
The relationship between the kinetic energy of the string and the
surface set up in the loopsystem becomes
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 192
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
( )
2
1
S S
r
c
A m k
τ
γ
γ
 `
⋅ − ·
. ,
(A1.2)
Similarly, the relation between the kinetic energy of the loops and the
surface set up by the cycletime in the string system becomes:
( )
2
1
L L
r
c
N Am k
τ
γ
γ
 `
⋅ − ·
. ,
(A1.3)
In the above relations, N is the number of loops and k is introduced as
an arbitrary parameter, which in the text of the paper was defined as
l/2π.
From the spiral structure, we have the following relation:
1 1
1
S L
γ γ
· + (A1.4)
Using these relations, the above formulae can be transformed into:
( )
( )
2
1
S
S S
S
Am k c
γ
γ τ
γ
+
⋅ · (A1.5)
and
( )
2
1
L
L L
L
c
Am k
N
γ
τ
γ
γ
+
 `
⋅ ·
. ,
(A1.6)
Hence, we have restored the original form of the string from formula
(6) of the paper, which applies to the loops as well as the charged
string itself.
The relation between the surface of the string and the sum of the
surfaces of the loops therefore becomes:
( )
( )
1
1
S
S S
L L L
N
γ
φ γ
φ γ γ
+
· ⋅ ⋅
+
(A1.7)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 193
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
If only singularities are allowed as basic particle components, there
can only be cstrings and 0strings. Instead of assuming different
peripheral velocities, we suppose that the time is dilated differently in
each system, i.e. the string system and the loop system. In the
terminology of General Relativity, we have introduced a metric
system.
If the particle restmass is identified with the 0string, its
relativistic content of loops forms a system of cstrings. We interpret
this as meaning that we have found a unique solution to the
relationship between the surface of the restmass particle string and
the surfaces of the loops, yielding a factor 2N. This relation turns out
to be the key to the different particle geometries.
For example, it is possible that in the system of the baryons, the
geometry requires one 0string to interface with two cstrings. The
same logic applied to the mesons would dictate that two elements
from one group interface with each other.
In the case of the electron system, the particle surface was
assumed to be a sphere of radius R. This surface contains the energy
of the N relativistic loops. If the energy of a cstring had a surface πr
2
,
the sum of N such surfaces would be Nπr
2
. The energy of the N loops
makes up the energy of the particle. Therefore the sum of the surfaces
of the loops is half the surface of the particle string:
2 2
1
4
2
N r R π π ⋅ · ⋅ (A1.8)
The relation between R and r is therefore:
2
r R
N
· ⋅ (A1.9)
By inserting this relation in (A1.1), we find the expression for the
mass and the radius of equations (30) and (31) in the main paper.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 194
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Appendix A.2: The Disappearance of the
Electrical Energy in the Electron String
The remaining problem is to show that the electrical energy
disappears in the little loops. If we consider one of these loops as
having a fraction of the charge on its surface, we get the potential
energy:
( )
2
2
1
2
S
Q N
Q
E k k
r
R N N
ν
· ≡ ⋅ (A2.1)
Summing over all the N loops gives:
2
1
1
2
N
S
Q
E k
R N
ν
ν ·
· ⋅
∑
(A2.2)
Hence, when N is large the potential electric energy of the loops
disappears. The remaining energy is the tension along the string,
which is equivalent to the magnetic energy.
Appendix B: The Mass Spectrum of the Hadrons
The generalized mass formula for a particle singularity composed
of electromagnetic energy rotating about a surface on a Schwarzshild
radius, adapted from equation (12) in the text, is:
( ) ( )
2/ 3
86 MeV E N N · ⋅ (B1)
The integer N indicates the number of waves with a wavelength
equal to the circumference of the particle that are needed to set up the
particle energy that fulfills the Schwarzschild singularity condition in
the system of waves. Choosing specific numbers for N gives the
masses of groundstate particles, such as N=2 for the pion and N=36
for the n/p group.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 195
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Here we explain the use of the N values and indicate how particles
may be formed using excitations to a quantum oscillator as a model.
The mesons
In the flat case where all N waves are in one plane, the particle
groundstate will correspond to a squared integer number of waves,
because the square of the number of wavenodes (P) on the surface of
the particle (ignoring halfwaves) will be equal to the number of
single waves (N) assumed to envelop the singularity in setting up the
mass formula. A particle with four nodes will correspond to sixteen
basic onenode waves:
This particle can also be split up into two twonode flat wave
packets, which will have half the radius of the free particle.
The two subwave packets cannot exist as free groundstates
themselves, since they do not satisfy the mass formula above.
However, they may serve as building blocks for larger particles. In
the same way, the two doublenode packets can be broken down into
two singlenode waves.
The lowest level wave packets have a mass that is 1/4 of the 16
wave particle. Such a mass is possible in free form, according to the
mass formula, since this gives a particle with quantum number N=2.
A particle with this mass does indeed exist: the pion. The fournode
(N=16) particle also exists in the form of the ηparticle.
Taking the π and η particles as groundstates of quantum
oscillators generates practically the whole meson spectrum, with the η
particle as the groundstate for most of the spin mesons (though it has
no spin itself).
The energy of the quantum oscillator can be written as:
0
1
2
E L n ω
 `
· +
. ,
h (B2)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 196
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
where L is the number of degrees of freedom and n is the excitation
quantum number. If the groundstate corresponds to n = 0, the ground
oscillator is given by:
0 0
1
2
E ω · ⋅ h (B3)
and the spectrum is given by:
( )
2
1
L
E E N n
 `
· + ⋅
. ,
(B4)
A spectrum that scans through most of the meson family is
generated by E(2) as the groundstate and L=4 degrees of freedom,
corresponding to a system of twodimensional oscillators. This
spectrum is given in Table 1.
Among the particles listed above, there is a mixture of different
spin states. By choosing a large number for the degrees of freedom,
the particles with spin different from zero will be separated out. In
Table 2, the ηparticle has been used as a groundstate. Here,
E(16)=4E(2) and L=10, corresponding to a system of two oscillators,
each with 5 degrees of freedom.
Only the groundstate and the Dparticle have zero spin (the latter
being an arithmetic coincidence). However, this model of mesonic
isospin states apparently gives a fairly accurate description of reality,
and additionally conforms to the quarkgluon concept of meson
structure.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 197
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Table 1
Spectrum for E(2), L=4
n Particle Nearest particle Spin
energy (GeV) or resonance
0 0.137 π (0.135, 0.139) 0

5 0.48 K (0.498, 0.494) 0
6 0.55 η (0.549) 0

9 0.75 ρ (0.77) 1
10 0.82 ω (0.78) 1
11 0.89 K
*
(0.892) 1
12 0.96 η’ (0.958) 0
13 1.02 φ (1.02) 1
14 1.10 A
1
(1.10) 1

16 1.23 B (1.231) 1
17 1.30 ε (1.30), A
2
(1.31) 0,2
18 1.37 κ (1.40) 0
19 1.44 K
*
(1.43) 2
20 1.51 f’ (1.52) 2
21 1.57 ρ’ (1.60) 1
22 1.64 A
3
(1.64) 2

24 1.78 K
*
(1.78) 3
25 1.86 D (1.86) 0
Table 2
Spectrum for E(16), L=10
(2 oscillators, 5 degrees of freedom each)
n Particle Nearest
particle
Spin
energy
(GeV)
or
resonance
0 0.55 η (0.55) 0

2 0.77 ρ (0.77) 1
3 0.88 K* (0.89) 1
4 0.99 φ (1.02)
5 1.10 A
1
(1.10) 1
6 1.23 B (1.231) 1
7 1.32 A
2
(1.31) 2
8 1.44 K
*
(1.43) 2
9 1.51 f’ (1.52) 2
10 1.64 A
3
(1.64) 2
11 1.78 K
*
(1.78) 3
(12 1.86 D (1.86) 0)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 198
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
The Baryons
A model for the baryon spectrum can be set up by analogy with the
above model for the mesons, though the baryons are treated as three
oscillator systems (three quarkgluons) instead of the two oscillator
systems applicable to mesons. This gives a 6node particle with 36
waves that has a mass identical to the neutronproton group. The
lower sub and subsub wave packets do not satisfy the mass formula,
and therefore cannot function as free groundstates.
A quantum oscillator with energy E(36) as its groundstate will be
used to generate a spectrum. The formula for the energy levels is:
( )
2
36 1
L
E E n
 `
· + ⋅
. ,
(B5)
The number of degrees of freedom for which resonances are found
are L=12, 15 and 18, corresponding to three subparticles with 4, 5
and 6 degrees of freedom respectively. The spectrum generated for
each is given in Table 3.
However, it turns out that a generator starting with a 24wave
system (N=24) as a groundstate generates a large part of the baryon
spectrum in a straightforward way, although the groundstate has not
been observed to date. The formula for the excited states is then:
( )
2
24 1
L
E E n
 `
· + ⋅
. ,
(B6)
Resonances are found for 12 and 18 degrees of freedom,
corresponding to three four and sixdimensional oscillators
respectively. The particles and resonances generated are given in
Table 4.
The top level of a hypothetical groundstate particle (N=24 waves)
could be composed of three 3dimensional wave systems with double
nodes.
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991 199
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Table 3
Spectrum for
E(36), L=3X
(2 oscillators, 5 degrees of freedom each)
X Excitation Calculated Nearest particle
number energy
(GeV)
or resonance
4 0 0.94 n/p (0.94)
1 1.10 ∼ Λ (1.116)
2 1.25 ∼ ∆ 1.232
3 1.41 Λ 1.405
4 1.56 ∼ N 1.535 + other
res.
5 1.72 ∼ Ω (1.67)
6 1.88 ∆ 1.890, K 1.860
5 0 0.94
1 1.07 ∼ Λ (1.116)
2 1.19 Σ (1.19)
3 1.32 Ξ (1.32)
4 1.44 N (1.39  1.47)
5 1.57 ∼ multiple
resonances
6 1.69 Λ 1.690
7 1.82 Λ 1.815
8 1.94 ∆ 1.950, R 1.940
9 2.07 Λ 2.110 (2.050
2.150)
10 2.19 N 2.190 (2.140
2.250)
6 0 0.94 n/p

5 1.46 ∼ N 1.470 (1.390
1.470)
6 1.56 
7 1.671 Ω (1.672)
8 1.775 Σ (1.774) + multiple
resonances
9 1.88 ∆ 1.890, K 1.860
Table 4
Spectrum for
E(24), L=3X
X Excitation Calculated Nearest
particle
number energy
(GeV)
or resonance
4 0 0.717 
 
2 0.96 ∼ n/p (0.94)
3 1.08 ∼ Λ (1.115)
4 1.196 Σ (1.195)
5 1.32 Ξ (1.32)
6 1.44 N 1.470
7 1.55 ∼ Λ 1.520 +
other
resonances
8 1.674 Ω (1.672)
9 1.79 Λ 1.870
10 1.91 ∆ 1.910, Σ 1.915
11 2.03 Σ 2.030
12 2.15 N 2.190 + other
res.
13 2.272 Λ
c
(2.273)
14 2.39 ∼ ∆ 2.420
15 2.51 
16 2.63 ∼ N 2.650
6 0 0.717 
5 1.116 Λ (1.116)
10 1.57 N 1.520 + other
res.
15 1.91 ∆ 1.910 + other
res.
20 2.31 ∼ Λ
c
(2.273)
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991
162
to the (hypothetical) expansion of the Universe, information about the mechanism must be transferred to the photon via the vacuum in one way or another. I investigated this process, without further knowledge about its inner nature, by defining a crosssection for the photonvacuum interaction. This crosssection has the property of a surface proportional to the probability of the interaction between the vacuum and the photon during any photon cycle. According to the rough distance relation from Hubble’s observation of the redshift in the 1920’s, later confirmed and improved by numerous other observers, the photon loses energy approximately in proportion to its own energy level and the length of an interval of time pertinent to the observed redshift. This indicates an exponential law behind the redshift, which would lead to an average loss of energy for any photon during any cycletime of a constant value equal to hH, where h is Planck´s constant and H is Hubble’s constant. In cosmology, H is often assumed to be a variable, proportional to the inverse of the “age” or “scale factor” of the expanding Universe. It could just as well be a constant related to the density or curvature applicable to a “steady state” Universe. On our more limited human time scale it does not matter much what the case is, and both H and h can be treated as constants. The distinction, however, will become important on the cosmological scale. If such a small quantity of energy as hH is exchanged between the photon and the vacuum space, it would be the smallest amount of energy observed to participate in any physical process, corresponding to the energy of an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of the same order of magnitude as the “scale factor” (or radius) of the Universe according to the current theories in cosmology. It is hardly possible to imagine the existence of any smaller quantum of energy in
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
Apeiron, No. 910, WinterSpring 1991
163
our Universe, and it is, therefore, tempting to think of this as a minimal energy quantum. The loss of such a minimal quantum of energy as hH would therefore be the average result of the interaction between a photon and the vacuum space during any photon cycletime. Even if this energy loss were an unavoidable physical attribute of each cycle of the photon vacuum oscillator, the result could also be seen as a stochastic process due to the requirements of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The probabilistic Schrödinger wave function, normalised over each wavelength, would then generate the surface corresponding to the crosssection for the photonvacuum interaction. The photon crosssection σγ so defined becomes a surface proportional to the energy of the photon, for which we introduce the parameter A expressed in m2/kg: E σγ = A 2 (1) c From this it follows that the crosssection of each photon covers a certain constant volume during each cycle; this quantum volume in the vacuum Vq becomes: h Vq = A (2) c Since the Planck Radius is assumed to be the scale at which our known physical laws break down, it sets a lower limit for the concepts we can deal with. It is therefore interesting to note that the above defined crosssection applied to the minimal quantum hH becomes approximately equal to the square of the Planck radius, or more precisely:
2 σ q = 2π R p
(3)
© 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift.vif.com
No.com .Apeiron. This can be interpreted in different ways. The first report (Broberg 1981). includes relativistic concepts. written just before my time there. The results from my earlier work are reflected in two ESA reports. The above expression can also be translated into a relation between the parameters A. using the Schwarzschild and Kerr singularities as the fundamental vehicles to a conceptualization of particle rest mass. c and Newton’s constant G: Hc G=A (4) 4π We observe that the latter expression gives G as a function of H. and accordingly also with different values of the gravitational parameters. now appears as a naive effort to construct a cosmologically based particle theory on a nonrelativistic foundation. written afterwards. which could perhaps be defined as extreme mathematical solutions leading to abrupt changes in parameters. One possible interpretation is to regard H as the inverse of a scalefactor. H. The Singularities Theories about particles and forces are often linked to “singularities”. Though lacking some of the concepts presented here. – http://redshift. these are necessary for a deeper understanding. if these two properties are variables and the others true constants. while the second report (Broberg 1984). Roy Keys Inc.vif. 910. the interpretation of the relation between H and G developed here is used. manifesting themselves as © 1991 C. WinterSpring 1991 164 This relation is true for H equal to the inverse of 15 billion years. in which case it serves as something which can be thought of as a ground state resonance frequency of the Universal space. obeying the same laws as the largescale Universe. h. This relation leads to a model of fundamental particles as miniature “universes”. In the latter case we might be able to identify different Universes of different sizes. In that report.
Apeiron. and consequently Einstein’s idea was never accepted. Roy Keys Inc. It now appears that Einstein was on the right track when he made this proposal. A simple example of a singularity is the change in friction coefficient when a car wheel becomes blocked during braking. and the analysis presented in this paper clearly leads us in the same direction. matter and energy all have developed from one moment of origin about 15 billion years ago— © 1991 C. More specifically. The “Big Bang” Singularity The presently accepted “standard model” in physics (Weinberg 1972). the radius of this border. Einstein tried to show that the elementary particles could be understood as resulting from singularities in spacetime. he proposed that the gravitational constant (“the scalar of curvature”) could have another value in the system of a particle than in the space outside the particle. However.com . 910. leading to a sudden loss in braking power—an effect we try to avoid by using antiblocking systems (ABS). They would then behave like “black holes”. WinterSpring 1991 165 physical discontinuities when a variable approaches a certain value or limit. – http://redshift. invokes the idea that time. or in other words that the particle masses (energies) were so dense that they curved the space in their surrounding to the extent that their energies were trapped or locally confined in the warp of spacetime. in a discussion of the electron. In one early study. suggesting that particle energies could be accounted for by means of a modification to the field equations of General Relativity. No. or event horizon. The Einstein Singularity Within the framework of General Theory of Relativity. space. calculated as the Schwarzschild radius turns out to be something like 1040 times smaller than the measured radii of particles. Einstein indicated (1919) the “possibility of a theoretical construction of matter out of gravitational field and electromagnetic field alone”.vif.
Hawking (1987a. the three variants of which all lead back to an original singularity. 910. The Friedmann model is still the main foundation for the “standard model” in cosmology.Apeiron. Some years before Hubble discovered the redshift.vif. His model also predicted the expansion in a way that fits with Hubble’s observation. by starting at a point at the north pole and expanding into a circle that would grow towards the equator and slim down towards the south pole. as is the case with the background radiation. Alexander Friedmann had built a model of the Universe based on General Relativity and the assumption that the Universe looks the same from anywhere and in whatever direction. like the surface of the Earth. more recently within the framework of the theory of quantum gravity. WinterSpring 1991 166 the original singularity—to the Universe of our time. beyond which we cannot know anything. – http://redshift. The main evidence for the “Big Bang” model is normally stated to be (1) the observation of the redshift of the light from the distant stars. However. where the circle would then a become a point again.com . the lighter ones (up to the size of Helium) emanated from the hot and small early Universe. It is questionable whether the points at the poles really are singularities (any more so than other points on the surface) or whether the entire surface should be seen as © 1991 C. (2) the 3°K background radiation measured by the radio telescopes in all directions in space and (3) the mathematical requirement that the Universe is dynamic and not static.b) has proposed that the surface of spacetime would be closed and without a boundary. Roy Keys Inc. The changing scale from almost zero dimensions to the present large scale is used to explain the creation of the particles and elements. No. He suggests that it would be possible to move from one singularity to another. while the heavier elements are supposed to be created in the cores of the stars. but with more dimensions.
But at that scale the confined potential electrical energy would be about 1020 times the energy of the electron mass. One solution to the electron dilemma would be to assume the geometry of the electron to be like a fibre rather than a sphere. Measurements indicate that if the electron has a size. and it is normally treated as pointlike. as that energy would presumably have to be part of the mass. This difficulty is circumvented in the textbooks of physics by stating that the known laws of physics don’t apply in the very small. treating the electron as a point contradicts the fact that it is charged. However. the smallest fundamental restmass quantum in the Universe. which is hardly possible. as far as we know. we will suppose that the charge is distributed in small dots with units of Q/N along a fibre of length L. The Electron Singularity Problem The electron is. Roy Keys Inc. its radius is not much larger than 10–16 m. That means that Coulomb’s law would be truncated at some point. before going into a more detailed analysis. The force between any of two nearby dots will.com .vif. No. become: © 1991 C. 910. nothing is known. the distance between two nearby dots being L/N. independent of N. without the need for any particular beginning or end. and it carries a minimal quantum charge and a spinquantum. It does not decay. Often the Planck radius 10–35 m is referred to as the length beyond which the known laws break down. since the potential energy of a charged sphere would become infinite when the radius becomes zero.Apeiron. About its inner structure. As an indication. WinterSpring 1991 167 a selfsupporting singular system. – http://redshift.
It will later be shown that this approach is very fruitful for an understanding of particles and forces generally. such that each dotcharge is influenced only by its neighbours. E= © 1991 C. If it is tied into a circle instead. the sum converges as the series: Q2 1 ⋅ 2 ∑ 2 L ν ν and therefore a limited value of the tension in the fibre is achieved. It might therefore be interesting to look into string theories as a means to investigate the properties of the electron. WinterSpring 1991 (Q N ) F =k⋅ ( N) L F =k 168 2 2 ≡k Q2 L2 Even if the forces of all dots visavis one dot are added. No. It does. It turns out that a string with a length of about 10–15 m will have energy on the order of the restmass of the electron. the tension will produce an outward expanding force on the periphery.vif. it will simply extend itself lengthwise. This tension can be treated as the energy stored in an elastic string and be recalculated in mass units. Roy Keys Inc.com . If the electric field lines are curved along the same circle as the fibre. 910. however. – http://redshift. the potential energy stored in the tension of the ring becomes: Q2 8πε L This little exercise is hardly an exhaustive explanation of the electron mass—that is not the point.Apeiron. show the possibility offered by a stringlike geometry. If nothing holds the string back.
strings and worldsheets simply become joined. Instead we will start from an analysis of singularities generated by a rotating closed string. Yet they still have not achieved the anticipated success in explaining the particle properties. and they can be open or curved lines. while its crosssection is a flat disk.Apeiron. though not in the framework of the superstring theories.vif. or worldsheets: Figure 1—A String and a Sheet The worldsheet of a closed string is a cylinder. Roy Keys Inc. the concept of strings will be used. No. for example a circle. have been much used in efforts to describe and unify the concepts of physics. When particles absorb one another. A particle can be modelled as a wave travelling along the string worldsheet as the string vibrates. In the following. A problem with the current superstring theories is that they have become increasingly complicated and now require many more than the normal four dimensions of spacetime to work consistently. Strings are supposed to represent particles.com . Over time. superstring theories. WinterSpring 1991 169 String Theories Since the mid80s. The importance of these new singularities is that they are set up without the use of the standard gravitational theory and therefore become © 1991 C. representing the position of the string (or particle) as a function of time. – http://redshift. the strings generate surfaces. 910. first introduced by Scherk and Schwarz (1974).
We find the same result again if we consider a certain surface to characterize the cosmological Hubble redshift. Roy Keys Inc. like circles sliding with a certain displacement on the surface of a sphere. for example. In an earlier study (Broberg 1984).7 m2/kg can be calculated from the redshift for a scalefactor of 15×109 lightyears. 910. As an introduction. and that a similar relation can be found for the masscontent of the large scale Universe (say.com . a relationship that will be fundamental to quantized systems. – http://redshift. shown in Figure 2. the mass of 1011 galaxies within a radius of 1015 lightyears). The Rotating String We now introduce the concept of a constant surfacetomass ratio for rotating strings.vif. a figure that also fits well with the dimensions of the elementary particles. From experience we know that the surfacetomass relation of a nucleon is of the order of about one square meter per kilogram of nucleonic matter. consider a string possessing mass that rotates around its centre.Apeiron. No. Figure 2—A Rotating String The interaction between the magnetic and the electric fields in a photon can be treated as two rotating strings. WinterSpring 1991 170 independent of the current gravitational parameters. I found that a value of 0. from points at the © 1991 C. we will see that Newton’s constant may not be a constant at all.
there will also be a characteristic time constant for the system. WinterSpring 1991 171 poles to large circles at the equator. the relation between the surface across the string loop and the kinetic mass of the rotating string is: vτ π 2π A= m0 ( γ − 1) 2 (5) Hence.vif. while their total surface sum is constant and equal to the surface of the sphere.Apeiron. and the cyclic time sheet will be expressed as a closed threedimensional surface. By analogy with the crosssection for the photonvacuum interaction from equation (1) above. Roy Keys Inc. – http://redshift. 910. No. we have the following relation between surface and mass: γ + 1 cτ Am0γ = ⋅π γ 2π 2 (6) © 1991 C. The kinetic energy of the rotating string is: Ek = m0 c 2 ( γ − 1) The surface across the string is a large circle given by: vτ φ =π 2π 2 where τ is the cycletime (one turn). if A is a constant parameter.com . while its average surface over a cycle would be half that of the entire photon. like a sphere or a toroid (or surface of a fourdimensional sphere). In the case of a particle with a restmass. and back (as in the Hawking model). The surface corresponding to each field component in the photon would then have to be proportional to the crosssection of its string.
– http://redshift. This system in turn collapses into two spherical halfinteger spin particles. When the rotational velocity drops close to zero the radius must also approach zero for the string to be able to complete its revolution during its cycle time.vif. The result is apparently highly relativistic both for the rest mass and the “relativistic” string. the above mechanism would be a flat electromagnetic wave with unitary spin. and for the same energy and rotational time constant. No. first becomes an integer spin system with a double surface based on the same radius as before.com 2 (9) . as follows: I) cτ cτ Am∞ = π ⇒ 2π 2π 2π 2 2 2 2 2 cτ cτ cτ II) 2π ⇒ 4π + 4π 2π 4π 4π In simple terms. © 1991 C. which. The two cases represent two singularities.Apeiron. once stopped and in a state of rest. visavis its radius. 910. WinterSpring 1991 172 The limiting value when the rotational velocity v → 0 becomes: cτ Am0 = 2π 2π 2 (7) The limiting value when the rotational velocity v → c becomes: cτ Am∞ = π (8) 2π Hence. The interim system could correspond to a mesonic state and the final system. When the rotational velocity becomes c the periphery shrinks to zero due to Lorentz contraction. Roy Keys Inc. A relativistic (massless) particle can generate two restmass particles. the fibre ring with zero velocity has twice the surface compared to the ring rotating with velocity c.
are assumed to be folded over one another.68 ⋅10−27 kg ( 940 MeV ) (12) Ac 2 It should be noted that the same mass for the system is achieved if all the surfaces of the string components. one pair for each one of the three dimensions.Apeiron. As it turns out. Roy Keys Inc. However. We will now give two examples. Another possibility is a collapse of the original wave directly into any pair of ½ spin particles. With a value of A = 0. to show how the above relations work with particles.com . The entire system has a surface equal to the sum of the surfaces of the field components: Am = 4π R 2 (10) The spacetime volume of the system is equal to the sum of the volumes of the field components: Ah 4 V0 ≡ = π R2 (11) c 3 The mass of the entire system becomes: π h2 = 1. Example 1. this value of the constant (because it seems really to be a constant) will be consistent with all the particle and other concepts analysed in the following. such as a positron and an electron.7 m2/kg. A Spherical Stationary System—the Neutron To set up a simple self supporting stationary system in threedimensional space. the above calculated mass formula is an m= 3 © 1991 C. very briefly at first. the mass of the system becomes approximately equal to that of the neutron.vif. 910. for which A is divided by 6. No. as well as the volumes. we need a minimum of 6 string components grouped in pairs. – http://redshift. WinterSpring 1991 173 baryons. and the total is calculated as the mass of one string quantum.
vif. in analogy with a toroidal electrical coil (Figure 3): Figure 3—The toroidal electron string The length of the coil is L. A Charged String—the Electron The concept of a charged rotating string will here be used to describe another stationary system. WinterSpring 1991 174 oversimplification of the neutron mass. induced by a charge moving in a spiral pattern. 910. Let the string be a thin toroid. With the charge Q and the magnetic permeability of vacuum space µ0. the number of turns of the current around the coil before closing the loop is N. and the small radius is r. Roy Keys Inc. Example 2. its large radius being L R= (13) 2π The current is i.com 2 (14) . No. the energy of the magnetic field in such a coil becomes: 1 iN E = µ0 ⋅ V 2 L © 1991 C. on the surface of which a current flows. and therefore it cannot be justified for a more precise calculation of A.Apeiron. which will turn out to have the mass of the electron when the charge is equal to the electron charge. – http://redshift.
– http://redshift. the mass equivalent: mB = (20) © 1991 C. 910. Roy Keys Inc.vif.com . No. WinterSpring 1991 175 where V is the volume of the coil: (15) V = π r2 ⋅ L The distance the charge goes before closing one loop (N turns) around the coil is: l = 2π rN 1 + L 2π rN The current becomes: i= Qc 2 (16) Therefore: N ⋅i = l (17) Qc L 2π r 1 + 2π rN 2 (18) The magnetic energy stored in the coil now becomes: EB = 1 µ0 2 Q 2c 2V ( 2π r ) 2 L 2 2 1 + ⋅L 2π rN µ0 Q 2 L 2 8π L 1 + 2π rN (19) or.Apeiron.
No. – http://redshift. Hubble’s constant is given as 15×109 yrs–1. which in combination with Equation 7 gives: µQ 2 1 ⋅ mB = 4π 4π RS (21) Am = 4π R 2 S B The potential electric energy stored in the loops of the string disappears when N becomes large. 910. Eliminating R gives a value for the restmass of the string: 2 1 3 ( µ 0Q ) m= ≈ 9. as well as Planck’s constant: 2 4π G A= ≈ 0.7 m (25) kg Hc Here. Roy Keys Inc. because of the division of the charge by N and the relation between N and the thickness of the fibre.10 ⋅10−31 kg (0. ignoring the gravitational field. Therefore. Using the expression given in equation (4).511MeV) (22) 4π A This gives the radius 1 3 RS = Aµ0 Q 2 ≈ 2.vif. we get an expression for the mass corresponding to the magnetic field.25 ⋅10−16 m (23) 4π and the length of the string: 1 L = 3 Aµ0 Q 2 (24) 2 A is expected to be a Universal constant.Apeiron. WinterSpring 1991 176 When 2 π Nr >> L (an assumption which is justified in Appendix A).com . A is estimated from the parameters applicable in the large scale (G and H). 2 © 1991 C. the only contribution to the mass is from the magnetic field.
No. The radius of the so called event horizon of the Schwarzschild singularity is the distance from the centre that defines a boundary. WinterSpring 1991 177 –31 This gives the mass from equation (23) to be 9. We will now introduce them into a general theory for particle rest mass. Roy Keys Inc. There exists a fundamental elementary ground stage particle with a rest mass. However. hence the name “black hole”. First some postulates will be made: 1. the electron is found to be the fundamental elementary particle. As will be shown in the following. 910.10×10 is indeed equal to the electron rest mass. kg. In the framework of general relativity. which The Fundamental Particle System In the above. from within of which no matter or energy can escape. – http://redshift. The existence of particle rest mass is based on the existence of a singularity in spacetime 3. The masses of the other particles will follow logically as consequences of the properties of the fundamental elementary particle. © 1991 C. we have derived a few concepts concerning singularities and strings.vif. the Schwarzschild and the Kerr metrics contain singularities.Apeiron. Above.com .b) that black body radiation will be emitted from the black holes and that they are therefore not “totally black”. 2. which in popular terms lead to the concepts of “black holes”. it has been shown by Hawking and others (Hawking 1987a. we have identified a string singularity which seems capable of explaining the property of particle mass.
vif. if protons radiate energy to the surrounding vacuum space at the same rate as the photons are redshifted according to Hubble’s law. hovering over the event horizon. The Schwarzschild radius is: 2 gm Rg = 2 (26) c In largescale Universal space the gravitational parameter g is equal to Newton’s constant G. where the inflow of energy from the surrounding vacuum space is equal to the black body radiation from the surface of the particle. For the moment we will here leave the value of g as an open parameter—we will come back to the evaluation of G later. WinterSpring 1991 178 Following the same idea as I presented in an earlier study (Broberg 1984). we will now see how the Schwarzschild singularity can be related to the rotating string described in the preceding section. in accordance with the observed background radiation: Hm p c 2 T = 4 = 2.9o K −8 2 ( 5. No. and if the surface characterising the black body spectrum of the radiation is a sphere with the electron Compton wavelength as its radius. the result would be a 3 Kelvin spectrum. the rest mass should be in an equilibrium state. If the particle is a “black hole” singularity. – http://redshift. the mass should be seen as a “ghost image” of the absorbed energy. 910. Roy Keys Inc. For a stable particle.com (27) . As an indication of how to understand the latter process. due to the time dilation towards infinity at the event horizon visavis a distant observer.67 ⋅10 ) 4π r h r = cme © 1991 C.Apeiron.
com . – http://redshift. WinterSpring 1991 179 Therefore it is possible that the observed background radiation emanates mainly from the hydrogen clouds in space.Apeiron. The more detailed calculation in Appendix A yields the mass of such a charged string: 1 m= 4π 3 ( µQ ) A 2 2 2N ⋅ 2N +1 2 (30) The parameter N is equal to the number of twists of the charged electron string. 910. as the one described above. for example. Returning to the particle model. For the electron. It is obvious that the mass converges very quickly towards the proper rest mass of the electron when the number of © 1991 C. where the potential electric energy has collapsed into a charged string. the particles would have their masses concentrated in a shell at. this would mean that the rest mass. or just above. No. as seen from the outside. the event horizon.vif. seen from the outside. would be concentrated to a shell built by stored potential electric energy: m= µQ 2 4π Rg (28) Comparing this result with the mass from Equation (20). Although the outside observer sees the rest energy as being stored at the event surface. Roy Keys Inc. we see now that the relation between the string radius and the radius of the Schwarzschild singularity from equation (26) above becomes: Rg = 4π RS (29) This radius corresponds to the dilated electron time constant seen by a distant observer. an observer travelling with the inflow of energy into the electron singularity would cross the surface and enter an inner structure.
This is a reasonable solution because on a large scale. At the other end of the scale. the above relation gives a force for the nuclei. No.Apeiron. 910. As the number of twists increases. The radius of the string becomes: RS = 1 4π 3 2N Aµ0 Q 2 2N +1 (31) This radius quickly converges towards its limit value 2. which is about 1040 times the gravitational force in the largescale Universe—also in agreement with observations. the potential electrical energy on the string disappears. Its value is: N →∞ Rg = 3 Aµ0Q 2 = 2.25×10–16 m.com . it corresponds to a Universe containing mass corresponding to 1011 galaxies.826 ⋅10−15 m (32) We can also set up g as a function of the mass contained in the singular electron system: π Ac 4 g= (33) m gR = 2π Ac 2 g If our constants A and c are true constants. The Schwarzschild radius or Rg derived above may be called the radius of the electron system. Hence the string soon becomes like an almost infinitely thin fibre of magnetic field energy. © 1991 C. Roy Keys Inc. it is obvious that g depends on the mass of the system within which it is applicable as a force constant.vif. using the value of Newton’s constant for g. WinterSpring 1991 180 twists increases. – http://redshift. being converted into magnetic energy stored in the core of the string. which is in line with our observations.
– http://redshift. Hence. In the electron system.Apeiron.vif. the weak force responsible for the radioactive particle decay. the gravitational force and the electric force therefore appear to be unified. but the result of decaying unstable particle systems. this force agrees with what is assumed for the quarks by present day theories. The fourth force. the strong force. the true nature of the force becomes that of a surfaceenergy relation. 910. is here not seen as a force. The above relations also result in identical amplitudes of the electrical and gravitational interactions inside the system of the electron: ) 2GM 2 1 Q2 = ⋅ 2 r2 4πε r (35 ⇒ M = me 4 G = π Ac M Solving out the mass from the above relation simply gives back the electron rest mass. Roy Keys Inc. © 1991 C. and the force in kilonewtons needed to change the surface radius becomes: c2 E = 4π R 2 ⋅ 2 A ⇒ F = 8π R ⋅ c ≈ 3KN (34) A F = dE dR –15 for R = 10 m. WinterSpring 1991 181 With the above established function for g. it is possible that the “forces” of Nature become unified in the system of the fundamental elementary particle—the electron.com . In its form and amplitude. No.
The electron event horizon from equation (29) 2. – http://redshift. thus splitting into two objects. from the event horizon of the electron outwards. The fine structure constant can be given as: µ0 e 2 c α= (36) 2h This constant is also. The following radii of stringlike concepts are identified: 1.e. i. The inner de Broglie orbit in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom 4. The Rydberg wavelength (the inverse of Rydberg’s constant) The size of each of the above objects is given by multiplying the earlier in the series by the inverse of the fine structure constant. The Compton wavelength of the electron 3. except for the last one. in relation to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom.Apeiron.com .vif. Planck’s and Rydberg’s constants. where v is the velocity of the electron in its inner orbit around the nucleus. the hydrogen spectrum shows an interesting structure of at least four strings superimposed upon each other. for example. As it turns out. which needs an additional factor of two. This series may be considered as a number of string resonances from the reststate of the electron mass. The dimensionless fine structure constant is also an important parameter of this spectrum. identical with the relation v/c. such as. the relation between object 3 and object 4 involving a transition from a zero velocity string to a string with velocity c. the two electromagnetic © 1991 C. 910. separated in size only by multiples of the fine structure constant. WinterSpring 1991 182 The Electron and the Hydrogen Spectrum The hydrogen spectrum is used as a basic source for measurement of fundamental constants of Nature. Roy Keys Inc. No.
which describes the electron as a quantum oscillator with Rydberg’s constant as its unique parameter. and the relation between mass and surface gives the following: © 1991 C. The curling will reduce the radius of the system to the latter. This process introduces the fine structure constant α. From equations (26) and (32). From the earlier developed expression for the electron mass.vif. – http://redshift. equation (23). Therefore it has to curl itself together in a number of loops to reduce its surface. identified earlier in equation (2).com .Apeiron. The existence of the fine structure constant obviously depends on the coupling between the photons and the quantum volumes of vacuum space. a relation between the quantum volume and the Rydberg wavelength can be established: h (37) V0 λR = cme This relation can be understood such that the quantum volume V is the threedimensional surface to a fourdimensional volume in spacetime. 910. The unfolded time constant of the electron oscillator is given by equation (38) above as: h cτ 0 = (38) cme A circle in spacetime set up by this timeconstant would have too large a surface compared to the energy of the oscillator. we see the relation between the surface corresponding to the electron mass and the radius of its event horizon. WinterSpring 1991 183 quanta emitted by the two inner electrons when falling in from a large distance to their places in the H atom. Roy Keys Inc. How the electron gets its specific mass can now also be seen from the point of view of geometry. No. which in turn is superimposed on the force interactions in the electromagnetic field.
– http://redshift. © 1991 C. Of the uncharged particles.vif. The uncharged pion mass follows from an equally simple relation. 910. and as a result we can now give the following three identical expressions for the electron mass: 1 3 µ 2Q 4 1 3 4α 2 h 2 ≡ A Ac 2 4π 4π (40) µQ 2 ≡ 3 ⋅ RRyd α This concludes.com . A more detailed exposition of the hadron mass spectrum is given in Appendix C. The interference between the electromagnetic coupling and the vacuum quantum volume generates the charged particle systems. our linking of constants measured from the hydrogen spectrum with the electron restmass. me = The Masses of the Basic Particles As it turns out. The guiding principle seems to be that the electron string in some different configurations serves as the geometrical norm for the particle time constant. the basic charged elementary particle masses follow in a rather uncomplicated way from the geometry of the electron. WinterSpring 1991 184 h Rg = α ⋅ cm e R 2 = 4π AM g (39) From this equation system we can again calculate the mass. No. Roy Keys Inc. for the time being.Apeiron. the neutron mass was already introduced by equation (12) in the preceding on the simple basis of a threedimensional spherical crosssection to a system of vacuum waves in the plus and minus directions of the three axes.
or 2π Rg c = h π c 3 Aµ Q 2 (41) = 2. Roy Keys Inc. No. – http://redshift. Two such waves interacting with each other therefore yields the pion mass. we get the following: 2R3 = V0 (42) h m= cR Using the radius of the particle system as wavelength gives half the mass of the neutral pion.5MeV) This calculated mass agrees with the observed mass to three to four significant digits. 910.) Hence the mass becomes: h mπ ± = 2 ⋅ .com . the mass of the system becomes: 2h 2 = 2.489 ⋅10−28 kg (139. the periphery from the electron system is probably folded twice over itself. WinterSpring 1991 185 The Charged Pion Using the periphery of the electron system from the radius given in Equation (34) as a wavelength generates a wave with half the energy of the pion restmass. (Due to its spin½ particle nature. mπ 0 = 3 © 1991 C.407 ⋅ 10−28 kg (135. Hence.0 MeV) (43) Ac 2 This calculated mass exhibits four figure agreement with the observed mass.Apeiron.vif. The Neutral Pion Following the example of the electron and the form for the solution for the charged pion.
WinterSpring 1991 186 The Generalised Pion Group From the above it is found that the pionsystem occupies one (threedimensional) quantum volume in spacetime. Roy Keys Inc.Apeiron. m= 3 The Proton In accordance with the solutions for the neutron and the charged pion we can now also find the proton mass.vif. each charge equal to one third of the electron charge. The system is based on an assembly of three charged strings.44 ⋅10−28 kg (137 MeV ) (44) 2 3 Ac This mass falls between the observed masses of the charged and uncharged pions. The length of each string is then. Each string is twisted twice. In the generalized solution given here. 910. 3 Ah 2π c The mass of the system is given by: h m= cR The mass becomes: R= 3 2π h 2 ≅ 2. The volume in threedimensional space becomes: 4 2V0 = π R 2 3 Hence. – http://redshift.com . the two subsystems (quarks) also occupy together two spherical quantum volumes in threedimensional space. No. from equation (31): © 1991 C.
Apeiron. If the same relation applies directly as a modification to the observed mass of the charged pion. Therefore the geometrical framework seems to be in good agreement with the charged baryons. The Neutron and the Generalised Nucleon group The neutron mass was given already in equation (12). N = 2 3 The mass of the assembly of three such components is: 3h 4 ⋅ = 1.673 ⋅10−27 kg ( 938 MeV ) mp = 2 3 π c Aµ0Q 3 9⋅5 (47) This mass is equal to the observed mass of the proton with three to four significant figure accuracy. the geometrical framework is similar to that of the proton above.com .2 MeV which gives an accuracy of at least four significant figures. However. 910. No. the three wavepairs © 1991 C. following the same pattern as the charged pion. – http://redshift. Roy Keys Inc. we get: m p = 139. The accuracy of the calculation in respect of the observed mass is about three significant figures. becomes: h (46) mq = 1 4π cL Q = .566 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 3 9⋅5 4 = 938.vif. WinterSpring 1991 187 L= 13 Q 2N Aµ0 2 3 2N +1 2 (45) Therefore. It is therefore a less accurate figure than those calculated for the other particles. the mass of each.
Roy Keys Inc.55 MeV ) This agrees with the observed muon mass to four figure accuracy. Its mass is that of a ground state field quantum. The length of the spiral (cf.vif. Its normative time constant is equal to twice the length of an electron spiral which has two loops.com . No. The mass of equation (12) can therefore be considered as a generalised solution for the nucleon group. Appendix A) is: The mass of the muon is: l = L ⋅ 1+ 2N mµ = 1 h ⋅ 2 c 2τ The complete expression for the mass becomes: h mµ = 4 2c 3 Aµ0 Q2 ⋅ ⋅ 5 5 (48) = 1. based on the principle that each nucleon occupies one spherical quantum volume in threedimensional space. 910. The Muon The muon is the particle within the lepton group that is most closely related to the electron by its physical properties.Apeiron. © 1991 C. WinterSpring 1991 188 of the neutron system corresponding to the three double twisted strings of the protonsystem. It is a particle without a quark substructure. Its mass follows directly from the geometry of the electron. while the three subsystems (quarks) together occupy three quantum volumes in spacetime. It can be seen as an aborted effort to create an electron.883 ⋅10−28 kg (105. – http://redshift.
without any reference to Mach’s principle. Another interesting possibility is that the description of the electron geometry presented above may offer new insights into the problem of superconductivity.Apeiron. The introduction of a process by which particles exchange energy with the vacuum space paves the way for a new description of gravitation. The most important results are the evidence of the unification of the forces in the electron system and a solution to the problem of particle restmasses in general. And I am still very curious. 910. – http://redshift. simply by the energy needed to change the pressure inside the closed particle surface as a function of the Lorentz compression. but possibly with some additional qualities of comprehension and simplification. I have given an overview of the particle spectrum. There will always be new frontiers to cross. © 1991 C. which should benefit from a more indepth knowledge of electron properties. not necessarily in contradiction with the geometrical picture given by General Relativity.vif. perhaps in another paper. I hope we will help each other to challenge them. Many things remain to be said. No. showing how the resonances are generated from the ground states. My driving force has always been curiosity. In Appendix B.com . This is neither the beginning. For example. the introduction of the crosssection for the interaction between the particles and the vacuum makes it possible to describe inertial mass as a local phenomenon. Roy Keys Inc. May I therefore be excused if I take the liberty of using the remaining lines for some speculations. nor the end. WinterSpring 1991 189 Results and Prospects In this paper I have shown how microparticles might be approximated as singularities in spacetime.
Every forced absorption of such a quantum of energy can be seen as the ejection of a hole of negative energy into the vacuum space. the restmass particles may pick up such quanta from the vacuum in an ecological renewal process. to detect any neutrinos released from the assumed fusion process on the Sun— perhaps the radiated energy does not come from fusion at all. The energy absorption and radiation by the particles will make them serve as entropy regenerators. WinterSpring 1991 190 An understanding of the nature of the graviton may come within our grasp if the massparticles. The energy of the Sun might be due to the energy absorption by its particles from the vacuum. © 1991 C. the result of which is seen as the background microwave radiation. as well as the photons. can act as carriers of the gravitational long range action.Apeiron. but has a cosmological origin instead. No. Roy Keys Inc. after more than 20 years. – http://redshift. These holes. small enough to have an uncertainty in their position of cosmic size. absorbing extremely longwaved quanta from the background and emitting a microwave spectrum. If the photons lose a minimal energy quantum each cycle.com . 910. are indeed subject to an energy loss with the same rate as the cosmological redshift. The superparticles existing as neutron stars could then be effective regenerators of waves powerful enough to produce new mass particles in large quantities from the vacuum. The stable particles should then stay in their equilibrium state by absorbing and radiating energy with the same rate.vif. feeding the core of the Sun with the returned radiation from the particles in quantities sufficient to account for the entire radiation of the Sun and the fusion of the lighter elements into heavier ones all the way up to the complete neutron stars. This might also explain why the underground facilities for neutrino detection have failed.
ESA STM233. B81. 910. 1981. The lenth of the spiral is defined as l = cτ. Gravitation and Cosmology. Cosmology. we must establish a relation between the large radius of the particle string. Phys. Weinberg. The relationship between the kinetic energy of the string and the surface set up in the loopsystem becomes © 1991 C. – http://redshift. in Hawking and Israel eds. J. 1961.. 1972. Albert. 1974. Stephen W. “Do Gravitational Fields Play an Essential Part in the Structure of the Elementary Particles of Matter”..”Quantum Cosmology”.com mb = µQ 2 . J. Physica Scripta. Roy Keys Inc. 1987a. and Schwarz. 300 Years of Gravitation. T15. Steven. of the loops. Wiley and Sons. No.. WinterSpring 1991 191 References Bondi. and the small radius. Appendix A1: Further Analysis of the Electron String Geometry The mass of the magnetic field stored on the electron string/coil was given in the text by equation (20): (A1. Henrik. J. r. Stephen W. 1987b. in The Principle of Relativity. we need to have some understanding of the geometry of the system composed of the string and its loops. Cambridge University Press. Scherk. Henrik.. Cambridge. Herman. Hawking.1) L 2 8π L 1 + 2π rN To solve this expression. Nucl. Broberg. we refer to the parameters of the strings with the subscript “S” and the loops with “L”. R. Dover. Broberg.vif. ESA STM223. 1984.H. 1919. 118. Consequently. Hawking.Apeiron. Einstein. In the following.. 151.
6) Hence.vif. From the spiral structure. WinterSpring 1991 2 192 A ⋅ mS ( γ S − 1) = k cτ (A1.3) N ⋅ AmL ( γ L − 1) = k cτ γ r In the above relations. the relation between the kinetic energy of the loops and the surface set up by the cycletime in the string system becomes: (A1. – http://redshift.2) γ r Similarly. 910. the above formulae can be transformed into: AmS ⋅ γ S = and AmL ⋅ γ L 2 (γ S + 1) γS k ( cτ ) 2 (A1.5) ( γ L + 1) k cτ 2 = γL N (A1. which applies to the loops as well as the charged string itself.7) . N is the number of loops and k is introduced as an arbitrary parameter. we have restored the original form of the string from formula (6) of the paper.Apeiron. we have the following relation: 1 1 1= + (A1. which in the text of the paper was defined as l/2π.com (A1. No. The relation between the surface of the string and the sum of the surfaces of the loops therefore becomes: φS γ S ( γ S + 1) = ⋅ ⋅N φL γ L ( γ L + 1) © 1991 C.4) γS γL Using these relations. Roy Keys Inc.
its relativistic content of loops forms a system of cstrings. In the case of the electron system. WinterSpring 1991 193 If only singularities are allowed as basic particle components.e.com .vif. In the terminology of General Relativity. For example.Apeiron. the string system and the loop system.1). there can only be cstrings and 0strings. Instead of assuming different peripheral velocities. we have introduced a metric system. Roy Keys Inc. The same logic applied to the mesons would dictate that two elements from one group interface with each other. – http://redshift. No.8) 2 The relation between R and r is therefore: 2 ⋅R (A1. we suppose that the time is dilated differently in each system. If the energy of a cstring had a surface πr2. This surface contains the energy of the N relativistic loops. r= © 1991 C. we find the expression for the mass and the radius of equations (30) and (31) in the main paper. Therefore the sum of the surfaces of the loops is half the surface of the particle string: 1 N ⋅ π r 2 = ⋅ 4π R 2 (A1. This relation turns out to be the key to the different particle geometries. The energy of the N loops makes up the energy of the particle.9) N By inserting this relation in (A1. the geometry requires one 0string to interface with two cstrings. the sum of N such surfaces would be Nπr2. We interpret this as meaning that we have found a unique solution to the relationship between the surface of the restmass particle string and the surfaces of the loops. the particle surface was assumed to be a sphere of radius R. If the particle restmass is identified with the 0string. yielding a factor 2N. i. it is possible that in the system of the baryons. 910.
Appendix B: The Mass Spectrum of the Hadrons The generalized mass formula for a particle singularity composed of electromagnetic energy rotating about a surface on a Schwarzshild radius. Choosing specific numbers for N gives the masses of groundstate particles. No. such as N=2 for the pion and N=36 for the n/p group.Apeiron. is: E ( N ) = 86 ⋅ ( N ) 2/3 MeV (B1) The integer N indicates the number of waves with a wavelength equal to the circumference of the particle that are needed to set up the particle energy that fulfills the Schwarzschild singularity condition in the system of waves. If we consider one of these loops as having a fraction of the charge on its surface.2: The Disappearance of the Electrical Energy in the Electron String The remaining problem is to show that the electrical energy disappears in the little loops. © 1991 C. The remaining energy is the tension along the string. adapted from equation (12) in the text.2) Hence. – http://redshift. WinterSpring 1991 194 Appendix A. when N is large the potential electric energy of the loops disappears. which is equivalent to the magnetic energy.com .vif. we get the potential energy: Eν (Q =k N N) Q2 1 ≡k ⋅ r 2 RS N N 2 (A2. Roy Keys Inc.1) Summing over all the N loops gives: ∑ Eν = k ν =1 Q2 1 ⋅ 2 RS N (A2. 910.
Roy Keys Inc. However. The fournode (N=16) particle also exists in the form of the ηparticle. since this gives a particle with quantum number N=2. with the η particle as the groundstate for most of the spin mesons (though it has no spin itself). The energy of the quantum oscillator can be written as: 1 E = hω0 L + n 2 © 1991 C. 910. The two subwave packets cannot exist as free groundstates themselves. the two doublenode packets can be broken down into two singlenode waves. Taking the π and η particles as groundstates of quantum oscillators generates practically the whole meson spectrum. since they do not satisfy the mass formula above. A particle with this mass does indeed exist: the pion. because the square of the number of wavenodes (P) on the surface of the particle (ignoring halfwaves) will be equal to the number of single waves (N) assumed to envelop the singularity in setting up the mass formula. Such a mass is possible in free form. – http://redshift.Apeiron. WinterSpring 1991 195 Here we explain the use of the N values and indicate how particles may be formed using excitations to a quantum oscillator as a model. A particle with four nodes will correspond to sixteen basic onenode waves: This particle can also be split up into two twonode flat wave packets. The lowest level wave packets have a mass that is 1/4 of the 16wave particle. they may serve as building blocks for larger particles.vif. the particle groundstate will correspond to a squared integer number of waves. according to the mass formula. In the same way.com (B2) . which will have half the radius of the free particle. No. The mesons In the flat case where all N waves are in one plane.
This spectrum is given in Table 1. No. the ground oscillator is given by: E0 = hω0 ⋅ 1 2 (B3) and the spectrum is given by: 2 E = E ( N ) 1 + ⋅ n (B4) L A spectrum that scans through most of the meson family is generated by E(2) as the groundstate and L=4 degrees of freedom. In Table 2. © 1991 C. 910. E(16)=4E(2) and L=10. the ηparticle has been used as a groundstate. this model of mesonic isospin states apparently gives a fairly accurate description of reality. Among the particles listed above. there is a mixture of different spin states.com . each with 5 degrees of freedom. Roy Keys Inc. However. the particles with spin different from zero will be separated out.vif. By choosing a large number for the degrees of freedom. and additionally conforms to the quarkgluon concept of meson structure. WinterSpring 1991 196 where L is the number of degrees of freedom and n is the excitation quantum number.Apeiron. If the groundstate corresponds to n = 0. Only the groundstate and the Dparticle have zero spin (the latter being an arithmetic coincidence). corresponding to a system of two oscillators. – http://redshift. Here. corresponding to a system of twodimensional oscillators.
vif. 0.40) K (1.231) A2 (1.10 1.82 0.30 1.86) * Table 2 Nearest particle or resonance π (0.10) B (1. 5 degrees of freedom each) n Particle energy (GeV) 0 0. 910.77) K* (0.86 K (1.78) K (0. A2 (1.44 1.31) K (1.139) K (0.52) A3 (1.55) ρ (0.43) f’ (1.57 1.64) K (1.77) ω (0. – http://redshift.64 1.231) ε (1.89 0.52) ρ’ (1.135.51 1. WinterSpring 1991 197 Table 1 Spectrum for E(2).55 0.88 0. 0.89) φ (1.10 1.2 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (12 © 1991 C.78) D (1. Roy Keys Inc. L=4 n 0 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 1.51 1.99 1.64) * * Particle energy (GeV) 0.86 Nearest particle or resonance η (0.55 0.43) f’ (1.86) * * Spectrum for E(16).78) D (1. No.44 1.64 Spin 0 0 0 (2 oscillators.com .30).02 1.10) B (1.77 0.48 0.958) φ (1.23 1.549) ρ (0.494) η (0.78 1.23 1.78 1.892) η’ (0.96 1.75 0.Apeiron.32 1.498.02) A1 (1. L=10 Spin 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 0) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.31) κ (1.60) A3 (1.02) A1 (1.137 0.37 1.
corresponding to three four.vif. 5 and 6 degrees of freedom respectively. The formula for the excited states is then: 2 E = E ( 24 ) 1 + ⋅ n (B6) L Resonances are found for 12 and 18 degrees of freedom. it turns out that a generator starting with a 24wave system (N=24) as a groundstate generates a large part of the baryon spectrum in a straightforward way. The top level of a hypothetical groundstate particle (N=24 waves) could be composed of three 3dimensional wave systems with double nodes. The lower sub and subsub wave packets do not satisfy the mass formula.com . corresponding to three subparticles with 4. Roy Keys Inc. The particles and resonances generated are given in Table 4. No. WinterSpring 1991 198 The Baryons A model for the baryon spectrum can be set up by analogy with the above model for the mesons. The formula for the energy levels is: 2 E = E ( 36 ) 1 + ⋅ n (B5) L The number of degrees of freedom for which resonances are found are L=12.and sixdimensional oscillators respectively. although the groundstate has not been observed to date. 910. This gives a 6node particle with 36 waves that has a mass identical to the neutronproton group. 15 and 18. © 1991 C. though the baryons are treated as threeoscillator systems (three quarkgluons) instead of the two oscillatorsystems applicable to mesons. The spectrum generated for each is given in Table 3.Apeiron. – http://redshift. However. A quantum oscillator with energy E(36) as its groundstate will be used to generate a spectrum. and therefore cannot function as free groundstates.
Roy Keys Inc.520 + other res.91 2.870 ∆ 1.44 1.39 .94 2.57 1.79 1.32) N (1.860 Nearest particle or resonance Table 4 Spectrum for E(36).94 1.72 1.3901.116) N 1.94 1.19) Ξ (1. K 1.671 1.91 2. 910.44 1.535 + other res.250) n/p ∼ N 1.910.19 1.150) N 2.273) ∼ ∆ 2.717 1.232 Λ 1.672) Λ 1.51 2.470 (1.com .915 Σ 2.1402.25 1.56 1.39 2.520 + other resonances Ω (1. ∼ Ω (1.910 + other res.030 N 2.07 2.57 1.116 1.07 1.03 2. K 1.196 1.94 1.1.69 1. L=3X X Excitation number 4 n/p (0.94) ∼ Λ (1.860 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Calculated energy (GeV) 0.47) ∼ multiple resonances Λ 1.31 © 1991 C. R 1.774) + multiple resonances ∆ 1.674 1.41 1.115) Σ (1.717 0.63 0.190 + other res.470 ∼ Λ 1. WinterSpring 1991 199 Table 3 (2 oscillators.672) Σ (1.32) N 1.690 Λ 1.46 1.vif. Σ 1.110 (2.32 1.470) Ω (1.815 ∆ 1.96 1.116) ∼ ∆ 1.67) ∆ 1.272 2.0502.Apeiron.88 ∼ Λ (1.08 1.15 2. Λc (2. No.273) Nearest particle or resonance  4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6 0 5 10 15 20 1.890. ∼ Λc (2.82 1. L=3X Spectrum for E(24).890.56 1.195) Ξ (1.19 0.32 1.650 Λ (1.116) Σ (1.88 0.94) ∼ Λ (1. – http://redshift.420 ∼ N 2.775 1.10 1.190 (2. 5 degrees of freedom each) X Excitation number 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 0 5 6 7 8 9 Calculated energy (GeV) 0.405 ∼ N 1.940 Λ 2. ∆ 1.55 ∼ n/p (0.950.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?