& Finding the Electron Radius

& The Fallacy of the Electron Orbit

Please note that this paper is a simplification by me of a paper or papers written and copyrighted by Miles Mathis on his site. I have replaced "I" and "my" with "MM" to show that he is talking. All links within the papers, not yet simplified, are linked directly to the Miles Mathis site and will appear in another tab. (It will be clear which of these are Miles Mathis originals because they will be still contain "I" and "my".) The original papers on his site are the ultimate and correct source. All contributions to his papers and ordering of his books should be made on his site. (This paper incorporates Miles Mathis' elecpro paper and elec2 paper, elec3 paper, and elorb paper.) |

Also included:

The Electron Radius as a Function of *c*

A New Experiment Proves MM's Quantum Spin Equation

The Fallacy of the Electron Orbit

*First posted December 20, 2008*

Using simple math, Miles Mathis shows that the electron is the proton stripped of its outer spins.

This is another of the problems the standard model has failed to solve. QED and QCD do a lot of bragging, but they have very little to say about these fundamental questions. String theory also avoids simple questions like this, although these are the sort of questions a good quantum or atomic theory should answer first. We know that the electron weighs about 1820 times less than the nucleon, but after 90 years of experiment and theory, we still have no idea why. Once again, we have been told that the number 1820 is a fluke or a mystery, beyond physical comprehension, akin to the question of why horses have four legs instead of eight. They do, that is all. But it will be shown that the number 1820 is not arbitrary or accidental. It can be arrived at by simple math and postulates.

MM's explanation begins with the methods that prove that Superposition is not Mystical. There it is shown that the mysteries of light motion and interaction could be explained by stacked spins, each spin outside the gyroscopic influence of inner spins. There exist four spins, of relative size 1,2,4, and 8, each orthogonal to neighboring spins. In other words, most photons are spinning every way they can spin, axially and in the x,y, and z planes.

In the paper A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics, MM showed that baryons had all possible spins. MM suggested that these principles could be applied to the proton and the neutron, showing that the difference between the two is only a difference in z-spin. That is, the particle at the center of every baryon is the same. Only the spins are different.

This is also true for the mesons. Mesons are these same baryons stripped of outer spins. This unifies all hadrons. In this paper, MM will show that the electron is also this same baryon stripped of outer spins. In this way, MM will prove that electrons, mesons, neutrons and protons are all the same fundamental particle.

We begin this fundamental analysis by asking how the energy of a particle would increase when it goes from a state of no spin to a state of maximum spin. We start by arbitrarily assigning a non-spinning electron the energy 1. We also assign the number 1 to its radius. We do this because 1820 is a relative number, not an absolute number, so we don't care what the experimental values for mass are. We need only develop relative numbers. Obviously, the easiest way to do that is to start from a baseline of 1.

Next, we let the electron reach some small non-relativistic linear velocity v. That will be our baseline energy for the non-spinning state. To find how much energy the electron could gain by spin, we let the spin match the linear velocity. We let the tangential velocity of a point on the surface of the electron reach v. How much energy has the electron gained? Well, as the radius is to the velocity, the circumference will be to the spin. But we can't use 2πr, since we must be looking at the tangential velocity, not the orbital velocity. 2πr/t applies to the orbital velocity, but we can't use that since the energy of the electron or proton will be expressed mainly through its emitted field, and that field is emitted at a tangent, as a linear vector. We MUST use the tangential velocity here, which is why the study of Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum is so important. From MM new equations it is shown in π (pi) is 4 not 3.14 that the circumference is simply 8 times the radius. In kinematic or dynamic situations, we effectively replace π with 4. This gives us a spin energy of 8. We already had a non-spin energy of 1, so the total energy is 9. You may think of the non-spin energy as mass energy, or you may think of it as energy from linear velocity. Either way we must sum the two energies, since the total energy of the electron is a summation of spin and non-spin energies.

To clarify, we use the circumference here instead of the surface area, say, because we want the total energy of a given point on the surface of the electron. That point will have spin energy and non-spin energy. Given an axial spin of the electron, that point on the surface will have a vector at any given dt in one plane only. If we used the surface area equation, that would imply multiple vectors we don't yet have. We don't need to consider surface area until the next step, as you will see.

In this next step, we add the next spin, which is the x-spin. This spin is end-over-end, beyond the gyroscopic influence of the axial spin. Being end-over-end, this spin must have a radius or wavelength of 2. And since this spin is orthogonal to the axial spin, we now have too many vectors to use a simple circumference equation. We must switch to a sort of surface area equation. A point on the surface of our electron will now have a total of three linear vectors, one due to linear velocity, one due to axial spin, and one due to end-over-end motion. To express the total energy of the electron with x-spin, we use this term: [1 + (8 x 16)/2]. The radius is now 2, remember, so the 16 comes from 8r. The 8 comes from the axial spin, which we must multiply by the x-spin. We divide by 2 to express the fact that the particle itself is in the forward part of the x-spin only half the time, so only half the axial energy is affecting the x-energy in any one line of motion. What is meant is that the particle's x-spin will be moving against any linear motion half the time. A spin like this cannot combine with a linear vector by a straight addition. Only half of it can be expressed over any sum.

We repeat this same math and logic to create the y and z-spins. The radius of the y-spin is 4, so the term will be [1 + (8 x 16 x 32)/2^{2}]. We divide by 4 since we must use only half of both end-over-end spins. Likewise, the z-spin is [1 + (8 x 16 x 32 x 64)/2^{4}]. We divide by 2 squared squared because we are now in three dimensions. The x-spin is expressing only 1/4 of its strength relative to z, since it is orthogonal twice. The complete equation or representation then becomes:

[1 + 8], [1 + (8 x 16)/2], [1 + (8 x 16 x 32)/2^{2}], [1 + (8 x 16 x 32 x 64)/2^{4}]

= [1 + 8], [1 + 2^{6}], [1 + 2^{10}], [1 + 2^{14}] = 9, 65, 1025, 16385

The electron with all spins has an energy of 16,385. The electron with no spin has an energy of 1. The electron with axial spin has an energy of 9. If we divide 16,385 by 9 we get 16,385/9 = 1820.56

We may therefore deduce that the electron at rest is spinning only about its own axis. An electron with all possible stable spins is a proton, anti-proton, or neutron. An electron with no z-spin is a meson.

This number is very close to the atomic mass unit or Dalton which has a value of 1822. MM's margin of error may be explained by the presence of the gravitational field at the quantum level.

On may ask how the electron can show a wave motion with only an axial spin. This has already been shown that the wave characteristic of matter and of light is caused by stacked spins. But here we have only the first spin. How is the wave expressed? Well, it isn't expressed by an electron at rest, and we are comparing rest masses here. The electron must be moving to express a wave. If the electron begins moving and expresses a wave, of course it must have a second spin. It must get this spin from collision with photons in the charge field, we assume. And this second spin will add to the energy and therefore the apparent mass of the electron. A moving electron will become a sort of stable meson. As you can see from the math above, we can predict that it will have an energy about 7.2 times (65/9) that of the electron at rest. So in the first instance, the moving electron is not gaining energy only from Relativity. It is primarily gaining energy from x-spin.

Now it will be shown that the magnetic moment of the electron and its electric charge are the same number. Currently, the two are measured in different SI units, making the comparison difficult. Logically, the two fields—magnetic and electric—should be measurable in the same units, such as Newtons or Joules. They both create forces, so it is the force we would like to compare. But in current theory, we find that the magnetic moment at the level of the electron is measured in J/T, or Joules per Tesla. The electric charge is measured in Coulombs. So going from one to the other is a bit tricky. You are rarely or never told how they compare in size to one another directly. Since this information is highly useful in creating theory at this level, this transfer will shown next.

The charge on the electron is currently measured to be 1.602 x 10^{-19} C. The magnetic moment is 9.284 x 10^{-24} J/T. Dividing, we find that the charge is 17,255 times the magnetic moment. If we compare the units, we find that J/T may be written as Cm^{2}/s. But how do we develop a transform? We need to know how many meters there are in a second. Fortunately, we can do that simply by using c. We don't know how many meters there are in a second, but a photon does. A photon is going c, so for him there are 2.9979 x 10^{8} meters in one second. Three hundred million meters in every second, which means that, for light, the second is much larger. But we have meters squared here, so if we compare the square meter to the second, we get the number √c, which is 17,314. Therefore that is our transform from meters to seconds. You can see that it almost precisely the right number.

A new experiment that confirms is next.

A very astute reader just sent me a link to a paper at Physorg.com announcing the results of an experiment measuring electron motion. Using fast lasers in attosecond (one quintillionth of a second) absorption spectroscopy, these researchers timed oscillations between "simultaneous quantum states." We are told that these oscillations drive electron motion.

This experiment is direct confirmation of my spin model, and a direct contradiction of quantum math, which tells us that particle spins are not real. You will say that we have an oscillation here, not a spin, but that is false. What we have, as data, is neither. What we have, as data, is an interval between simultaneous states. We have a time gap. These scientists interpret that gap as an oscillation, but they have no evidence of that. A gap can be caused by any number of motions, only one of which is an oscillation.

But there are even more problems with the current explanation. To start with, this interpretation of data conflicts very strongly with what we are told about electron clouds and probabilities and so on. According to these scientists, we can measure the real motion of a real particle, so we are not dealing with a probability in the data. We are dealing with an actuality. At least down to the accuracy of an attosecond, we can tell where the electron is. Not only where the electron is, but where in its “oscillation” it is. It is in one place and not another. Any “smearing” can be ignored at least down to this level of accuracy. In future, we can ask our questions with this addendum: “Down to the level of accuracy of these lasers, where is the electron? And also The Fallacy of the Electron Orbit later on in this paper. why isn't it attracted all the way into the nucleus? And so on.”

It is common for quantum physicists to dodge any mechanical questions by telling us that the electron acts as a cloud or a smear. We can't ask old fashioned questions about the electron and photon and so on because these tiny particles are not really particles, with real position. Also, their spin quantum numbers are not real spins, and their angular momentum quantum numbers are not real angular momenta. This is what we are told. All that must be out the window now, since we have just been shown the data proving that electrons have real position and motion and “oscillation.” A laser cannot interact with a cloud or a probability, it must interact with a real particle; and when it does so, those time gaps we are measuring are not in the math only, they are in the real field. With some tiny margin of error, those electron oscillations must be in once place and not another. If we can follow the electron for some some small distance with these lasers, then the electron must have position. If it has position at one time, it has position at all times, and we should be able to track it. It is a real particle with real motion, and therefore we can ask mechanical questions about it.

Another huge problem is that if the electron has either a spin or an oscillation, it can no longer be defined as a point particle. This is clear with spin, so oscillation will now be examined. We have just been shown how the oscillation creates an interval in the data, but to create an interval in the data requires that the electron create an interval in the field somehow. If it has created an interval in the field, then that interval must be defined as a length. A length is not a point. An oscillating electron must take up some space over the oscillation, you see, and any extension contradicts the point particle hypothesis.

You will say that the electron is only defined as a point at an instant, and that the oscillation must take time, saving the math. But this is strictly illogical. First of all, a point is a nothing, and it is not clear how a nothing can oscillate. Second, an instant is also a nothing, since it is *no* time. Defining a particle at an instant and point is contradictory, since the definition of a particle is “a thing.” A thing cannot exist at no time and in no space, simply by definition of thing, space, and time. Those who are defining particles like this simply don't understand what words mean.

As soon as we give time or space any extension, the electron begins to take up both space and time. That is precisely what this new data is telling us, with its “oscillation.” Therefore, the electron is not a point.

But if the electron is not a point, then it is also illogical to call this gap in the data an oscillation. It is an oscillation *only if* the electron is a point; but since the electron is not a point, the gap cannot be an oscillation. And once we jettison the whole idea of point and instant from our math and field, the spin model falls right into our laps.

Like this: If the electron is not a point, it must have extension. If it has extension, it has radius. If it has radius, then the most logical cause of our interval is spin. In Superposition is not Mystical, the appearance of an oscillation or gap between states can most easily be created with two stacked spins, with no other postulates or motions (see the wav. file,especially). The two spins create a wobble with simple mechanics, and the wobble is the gap or oscillation. In this way, we do not have to propose an uncaused oscillation. The oscillation has a simple and straightforward mechanical cause.

You will say we still have an uncaused spin, but that is not true either since the cause of the spin is a collision between quanta. Since quanta are not points, they have size. Since they have size, we can propose off-center hits. Off-center hits will cause spin, by simple pool ball mechanics. We have causes for everything, and do not need to postulate mysterious oscillations, generated by nothing.

For this reason, the new experiments with lasers must prove my spin theory. They cannot prove current theory, because current theory is based on the point, and the point is illogical. You cannot prove illogic with any amount of data whatever.

We have even more evidence for my spin theory in the half cycle difference between the probe pulse and the pump pulse:

By varying the time delay between the pump pulse and the probe pulse, the researchers found that subsequent states of increasing ionization were being produced at regular intervals, which turned out to be approximately equal to the time for a half cycle of the pump pulse. (The pulse is only a few cycles long; the time from crest to crest is a full cycle, and from crest to trough is a half cycle.)

"The femtosecond (one millionth of one billionth, of a second) pulse produces a strong electromagnetic field, and ionization takes place with every half cycle of the pulse," Leone says. "Therefore little bursts of ions are coming out every half cycle."

The reason that indicates a spin is that a spin would naturally produce a half cycle difference here. (See Superposition is not Mystical.) We can have multiple spins, even with an electron, with outer spins doubling inner spins simply due to gyroscopic rules. Since it is the charge field of the electron that is interacting with the photons of the laser, and since the photonic charge field is being emitted through the spins, we will naturally obtain ionization in a wave, with maxima and minima.

If that still doesn't convince you, we can use the actual numbers to prove my theory. We are told in this article that the gap was on the order of 10^{-18}s. In MM's paper Bohr's Three Mistakes, after correcting the angular momentum equations, a moving electron radius of 4.48 x 10^{-17}m and an electron angular momentum of 5.8 x 10^{-5}m/s will be found. In 10^{-18}s, an electron would spin 5.8 x 10^{-23}m. But as also showed, this spin motion would be stretched out by the linear motion of the electron. If we assume that motion is at speed c, we just multiply by c, which gives us 6.96 x 10^{-14}m. Since the spin gives us a circumference, not a radius, and since as the paper π (pi) is 4 not 3.14, it was shown that pi=4 in this situation, the effective circumference is 3.58 x 10^{-16}m. Which means we are off by a factor of about 194. [6.96 x 10^{-14}m/3.58 x 10^{-16}m = 194] Which means the electron is actually not travelling at c, it is travelling at .0051c. To make the equations work with these numbers, we have to assume the electron is not going c. Why does that prove anything, you will ask? Since the number .0051 is not an accident, MM will show you how to get it from the other direction.

Since we are dealing with the interaction of the electron and photon (laser) here, we can use the scaling constant G (right out of Newton's gravitational equation) that G is actually a scaling constant between photons and atoms, and the electrons are embedded in krypton atoms during this experiment. If we take the fourth root of G (times 2), we get .0057. Not a direct match, you will say, but we used a rounded number when we used 10^{-18}s. To get an exact match, we only have to use the number 3.61 x 10^{-18}s as our attosecond time. The article does not tell us the exact time, but we will assume it is close to that number.

You will say, “Even if that math is true, and even if we discover that is the real time for the gap or oscillation, what does that prove? Why take the fourth root of G?”

Well, .0057c is a scaling of velocity. We are finding the speed of the electron relative to the photon, right? But G is a scaler of size, or radius. The photon size is G times the atomic size. So we need an equation to relate velocity and size. Do we have one? Yes:

E = ½mv^{2}

It is not masses or velocities that are interacting in this experiment, it is energies. For instance, the scientists don't know the velocity of the electron here. MM can calculate it, but they have no way to do so. No, it is masses *with* velocities that are interacting in the experiment, and a mass with velocity is an energy. Therefore, we can use this equation in a new way. We can use it as a scaling equation rather than in the usual way. All we do is let energy stand for size. With spins, a particle must get larger to gain energy. So we can rewrite the equation as

2G = mv^{2}

That is where the “times 2” comes from in my math above [If we take the fourth root of G (times 2), we get .0057.] Then we just remember from above that the mass of the quantum is its radius squared. More specifically, the mass is the change in the radius, which is the velocity of the radius over a defined interval. Therefore, mass can be written as velocity squared. So we can rewrite the equation again

2G = v^{4}

That is why the electron in this experiment is going .0057c. It is strictly a matter of size and energy. The electron is hit by a photon, and the energy differential determines the escape velocity. Which means MM has a simple way to calculate the attosecond interval. By working my equations backwards, MM can tell you that the interval must be on the order of 3.61 x 10^{-18}s. Not only does the article avoid telling you this number, it is clear from the results announced that these scientists have no idea why the interval was around an attosecond rather than any other small time. Not only can they not calculate the number 3.61 x 10^{-18}s, or the velocity of the escaping electron, they cannot even say why it is on the order of 10^{-18}s. Why not 10^{-21}s or 10^{-24}s? MM has just shown you why, with both math and mechanics.

A reader replied to this math by telling me the measured time of the experiment contradicted my prediction here, since a check of the full article shows a pulse of about 150 attoseconds. Problem there is that the time of the pulse is not measured directly. As shown elsewhere, it is impossible to measure time directly, since time is always dependent on length. As with the time of a cesium wobble, the scientists have to assume a length of the wobble to calculate a time. In the paper Bohr's Three Mistakes, MM showed that all length calculations at the quantum level are off by 170x, since the math is wrong. Well, if we apply that here, we must multiply my number by 170 to get their number (time and length are inversely proportional in equations). If we do that, we find a remainder of almost precisely 4x. Again, MM has also explained the genesis of that error, since current physics doesn't understand the size differential between an electron at rest and an electron moving. A moving electron is four times as large as an at-rest electron, since it gains a spin from the field. My numbers take this into account; theirs don't. Their size is too small, therefore their time is too large.

You will say, “Still, even if all that is true, it doesn't prove anything about spins. All it shows is that you have a clever way of using G that no one else has. That is impressive, but it doesn't prove squat about spins.” Ah, but it does. My use of G is not just a clever trick. The fact that my math works implies very strongly that my mechanics is correct. My math is tied to my mechanics at every point in my theory and in my explanations, as you see. MM can explain every mathematical step with a real motion, not an airy heuristic math, but fully kinematic math, supported by “pool ball” mechanics and without not using higher math to generate numbers. MM's numbers come directly from real collisions of real particles. MM has shown how spins determine the radius of particles, by obeying gyroscopic rules, so anytime correct size scaling is shown, in addition to spin scaling. Every time problems like this are solved like this, concerning sizes and energies, MM's quantum spin equations are proved. This is because MM's quantum spin equations are simple multiples of 2, not esoteric equations based on gauge fields or curved space or complex math. When these spin equations work so smoothly, they must imply spin. Either that, or someone else must show why quantum particles would increase in radius in this gyroscopic manner, without spinning.

One final comment on this article: we are told that these oscillations, which MM has shown are spins, “drive electron motion.” This is false. Current science has no evidence for that claim, and this experiment provides no evidence for that claim. It is simply a tack-on. What causes electron motion is photon motion. Electrons are carried along by photons, as in a wind. What causes electron spin is collisions. Electrons can gain spin from photon vortices or from edge hits with other larger quanta like electrons, mesons, or nucleons. An electron at rest can be spinning (or not), and a moving electron can also lack spin (although this would be very rare). This means that spin does not *cause* linear motion.

In fact, it is closer to correct to say that mass causes linear motion, since we can see from the last equation above how closely they are linked. Mass does not cause linear motion, it determines it. Meaning, if the particle has not been stopped for some reason, it will tend to travel at a velocity determined by its mass. In relative or scaling equations, the mass and the velocity can even be treated as equivalent, as we have seen. This is because mass is a motion itself.

You will say, “If electron motion is determined by photon motion, what determines or causes photon motion?” Unknown. It may be residue of a big bang, or c may be the ground state of the universe. Every theory hits a wall at some first cause, and mine hits the wall here. Even if a cause of c could be shown, the cause of that cause would need to be shown. Like Einstein, one needs to be satisfied taking c as a first postulate, and going from there.

as a Function of

Abstract: MM shows that the current equation for the classical electron radius is off by 252x due to ignoring a necessary scaling constant. Once this simple correction is made, the electron radius is simply 1/c^{2}.

In "A Correction to Newton's Equation a=v2/r", the section Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum shows that the old angular velocity equation v = ωr was wrong, which was due a misinterpretation of Newton's equation. Instead of v = ωr, the equation should be v = ω/r.* This allows us to get rid of the moment of inertia, which is just a fudge factor. It also corrects the Bohr radius and a thousand other things. To insert some figures is always a big eye-opener.

In the paper Bohr's Three Mistakes, MM had calculated the radius of the electron by other (but related) means, finding 2.244 x 10^{-17}m. In How Photons Travel, MM had proposed that c^{2} in the famous equation E = mc^{2} was another scaling constant, taking us from the size of the photon up to a larger field size. MM explained that we were scaling a local wave—local at the photon level—up to our own level, where we were measuring it. The scaler was c^{2} because the linear motion stretched out the local wave. If the linear speed is c and the spin speed is 1/c, then the difference between them is c^{2}. That is where the number comes from. But MM implied or perhaps even stated in that paper that we are scaling the photon when we do this.

It turns out that is not quite right. It turns out that we are actually scaling the electron up when we do that, and that the spin speed 1/c applies to the electron, not the photon. How does MM know that? Watch this:

If we take the equation v = ω/r and insert c for v and 1/c for ω, we get r = 1.11 x 10^{-17}m. Look familiar? That is almost exactly half my electron radius. We can confirm this method by instead using c for v and 1/c^{2} for ω. In that case, we get r = 3.7 x 10^{-26}m, which MM has shown is about the radius of a photon (photons come in a variety of sizes, depending on many spins they have).

This is important because it tells us more about the equation E = mc^{2}. MM had shown where the c^{2} came from, but only in part. MM had not seen that it could also be assigned to a radius. With this new information, we can rewrite Einstein's equation like this

E= mc^{2} = m/r_{e}

This tells us that the energy of any given mass is always a function of that mass relative to the electron radius. Or we can rewrite the equation like this

m = Er_{e}

That tells us that any mass is some number times the radius of the electron. By that way of looking at it, energy itself becomes a scaler. Energy is not really energy, it is just the number of electron radii involved in the event. Or, we can continue to calculate. Since MM has just shown that mass and radius are a function of one another, with the proton mass just the square of its radius, we can rewrite the last equation like this

m = Er_{e}

m_{e} = Dr_{e}^{2}

r_{e} = √(m_{e}/D)/2

m = E√(m_{e}/D)/2

The constant D is the Dalton, which is just the number 1821. MM uses this number as a scaler between the electron and proton, for reasons explained earlier. This last equation allows us to express the mass of any object as a number of electron masses involved.

E = 85.336m/√m_{e}

This allows us to calculate the energy of any mass as a multiple of electron masses.

It also allows us to see where the Dalton comes from.

D = m_{e}c^{4}/4

Physicists have never understood where these numbers come from, but the Dalton, also called the atomic mass unit, comes from this equation.

If you go to the standard model, you find that the “classical electron radius” is calculated from this equation:

r_{e} = e^{2}/4πε_{0}m_{e}c^{2}

In Bohr's Three Mistakes MM has shown how and why that is about 10^{2} too large. It turns out the equation is too complex. The radius of the electron is just one over c squared. In Coulomb's equation is a Unified Field equation in disguise, MM has shown that the permittivity constant is mis-assigned to space. The constant is not an attribute of space, since space has no attributes; it is the gravity field of the proton. Since the equation contains both the gravity field and the charge field, it is another unified field equation. And since charge is dimensionally the same as mass, we can reduce:

e^{2}/ε_{0}m_{e} = 1

You will say that in the current equation, that fraction is about 252. What MM is not saying that one of these constants is wrong, but rather that the current equation is wrong. Because they have left out a constant, they have the wrong number for r. The equation should look like this:

r_{e} = e^{2}/a4πε_{0}m_{e}c^{2}

where a is the number 252. You see, they forgot to scale the electron to the proton. Since ε_{0} applies to the proton, they have both the proton and the electron in the same equation. So they need to scale one to the other with the Dalton, 1821. But if we put that number into the equation, we are still off by 7.22. Well, that number 7.22 comes right out above, since it is the difference between a moving electron and an electron at rest. The electron in this equation is moving relative to the proton, therefore we have to use the moving electron. The full equation is

r_{e} = e^{2}/(1821/7.22)4πε_{0}m_{e}c^{2}

And that reduces to 1/c^{2}.

What MM has just shown is that the current equation is wrong. A field scaling constant has been left out, which makes the equation misfire. Since both the proton and electron are in the equation, we have to scale one to the other. This explains directly why the current equation gets an electron radius that is 252 times too large. The scaling constant is a = 1821/7.222. Once we correct the equation by adding the scaling constant, the equation reduces to 1/c^{2}.

Still, this begs other questions, like why is the spin speed of the electron 1/c? Is that really what the equation v = ω/r is telling us? It can't be, because the electron can't even go c. So why is the electron radius 1/c^{2}?

To answer this, we have to go back to my unification of all quanta. As shown previously: the proton and electron are really the same particle, and all mesons are really the same particle, just with a different number of spins. If you take a moving electron and give it one more spin, it becomes a meson; two more spins, it becomes a proton or anti-proton. By the same token, if you take an electron and subtract several spins, you can turn it into a high-energy photon. So the electron is just a common spin level. We could call an electron a very big photon, if we like. Which means that it is almost quibbling when MM says the particle we are dealing with is an electron instead of a photon. Rigorously, ALL particles are photons.

The only difference is, at the size of the electron, the particle becomes large enough to begin “eating” smaller particles. The big outer spins are large enough to trap and intake smaller photons, recycling them. These recycled photons then become the charge field.

You will say, “Aren't these photons the charge field both before and after they are recycled?” MM says he is only now getting close to being able to answer. If larger particles are indeed recycling the charge field, we may ask why. Is it just by accident, as it were, the smaller particles getting trapped only as matter of statistics; or are the larger particles actually feeding off the smaller ones, taking energy from them in some way, and subsisting on them in some way? It is difficult to say. Certainly electrons do not have intention, and it is not even necessary if they do. Even if the trapping of photons by large spins is just an accident, caused by no intention of any electron, the trapping could still function to keep the electron viable. We do not need to say that the electron “lives” on this trapping. We only need to say that the various motions of the electron are maintained by this trapping. Physically, all spins must come from field collisions, and the field collisions of larger particles are simply more complex than those of smaller particles. At a certain level of size, these field collisions create greater vortices, ones that are able to funnel smaller particles through intakes and exhausts. We have such engines at our level of size, and we do not assign intention to them. Gas maintains an engine, or keeps it running, but the engine is not thereby alive. If you wish to assign life to engines or electrons, you can, but as a matter of physics, it is just an external question. Physics is mechanics. Such questions are not mechanical.

At any rate, if the larger particles are getting their energy from the smaller ones, then the smaller ones must be losing energy. Which means the photons coming out of the engine must be changed in some way. They must have lost some energy. We may propose that the engine strips the outermost spins of the photon, using it to maintain its own spin. But this means charge emitted is less energetic than charge taken in. Particles aren't emitting a charge field, they are taking the ambient charge field and weakening it in the near vicinity. Therefore, what we call charge is actually a charge LOSS. The charge wind is WEAKER (in some way) near particles than everywhere else. This would create the appearance of an attraction.

Well, you will say, if that is so, can we apply this new attraction to gravity, getting rid of both it and expansion? MM dones not think so, though it is initially a good proposal. The first reason we can't is that the variance in a primary field can't be larger than the field itself. At the level of the Earth, we know that gravity is much larger than E/M, and that can't be explained if gravity is just a variance in E/M.

It turns out that this energy loss near matter is only a magnetic energy loss. The emitted photons lose spin but not linear velocity, therefore the field is weakened only as a matter of magnetism or spin. The photon density is still higher near matter, and the total linear energy is still higher near matter. Only the spin energy is weakened. Which means we still require a second fundamental motion or field to explain all interactions. We cannot explain everything with E/M any more than we could explain everything with gravity. The unified field must still be dual at all levels, quantum and macro. We require two fundamental fields or forces in opposition to explain the universe.

However, this new finding concerning magnetism may come in useful in later papers. If spins are being stripped to act as fuel for larger quanta, then this may explain other phenomena or data we have not yet addressed. It also may better explain old data, or lack of data. For instance, although MM has said that the entire E/M spectrum is probably acting as the charge field, many have complained that my charge field is a poor hypothesis in that we have not detected it directly. Especially problematic is my calculation that the field should peak in the infrared. MM has been told that we don't measure a ubiquitous field at the infrared level. Well, we do, both in heat and in cosmic background radiation (which peaks in about the right place). Black body radiation also confirms my hypothesis. MM has shown that many photons assigned to other causes or functions are probably acting as the charge. We had long recognized their existence, we just hadn't found a basic function for them. But if that is not satisfying to some of you, MM proposes that by this mechanism MM has uncovered in this paper charge photons are being partially de-magnetized and de-spun by matter. Since most of our experiments are on the surface of the Earth, this would explain a lack of detection. Our detectors commonly use magnetic fields for detection, and temporary charge loss near matter would explain many things, including energy deficits and inability to “see” the charge field.

In this case, space would have a higher magnetic charge than matter (this charge being the spin of the photons). You will say that if that is so, we would know it, but that is not necessarily so. Since space has little or no matter in it (no ions), there is nothing for this charge field to work upon. Our machines currently detect magnetic fields by detecting the presence of ions. Our machines cannot detect the fundamental E/M field or charge field, except in the presence of ions, since it is the ions they are calibrated to detect. A magnetic field without ions would be undetectable. Which is another way of saying we currently have no way to measure the inherent or photonic magnetism of space. Our machines could hardly be calibrated to detect the spin of small photons, when the standard model does not even know or admit that photons have real spin.

But let us return to the original question. Why does the spin speed tend to be the inverse of the linear speed? MM has not answered that in other papers or here. Well, notice that according to the equation v = ω/r, we are not being told that the spin speed of the electron is 1/c or that the linear speed is c. We are told that a spin speed of 1/c is equivalent to a linear speed of c, given that radius. We aren't being told anything about the actual linear velocity of the particle, we are being told the tangential velocity of a point on the surface of the spin. In other words, the velocity v is not the linear velocity of the electron, it is the linear velocity of a point on the spin tangent. At that radius r, an angular velocity of ω will give us a linear velocity at the tangent of v. We can interpret that to mean that a particle of radius r and angular velocity 1/c will cast off or emit a particle from its outer spin at a velocity of c. And we can interpret that to mean that since we see photons travelling at c, and since we propose they are emitted by electrons (as well as protons and other quanta), the electron must be spinning at 1/c. This tells us nothing about the linear velocity of the electron, it only tells us that if the electron is emitting, it is emitting at that radius and that spin velocity.

Fair enough. If that is true, then we should be able to calculate a spin velocity for the proton, by the same equation:

v = ω/r

cr = ω

ω = 1.23 x 10^{-5}m/s

The angular speed of larger particles is greater than the angular speed of smaller particles, which is precisely why they have more energy.

Still, why is the electron special? Why is it's spin speed 1/c? We can't just accidentally have a fundamental particle with a spin speed of 1/c. No, all our fundamental particles have spin speeds that are simple fractions of c. Just look at the spin speed of the proton just calculated, ω = 1.23 x 10^{-5}m/s. That is also not an accident:

ω = 1.23 x 10^{-5}m/s = 2D/c = m_{e}c^{3}/2

This takes us back to my spin quantum equation, whereby all spins are multiples of 2, based on gyroscopic rules. Because all larger quanta are built on photons, they must be multiples of the photon. So we can use c and simple equations like this to build any particle, showing both its size and its spin.

But again, why does the electron happen to have a spin speed of 1/c? Because it is one level up from the photon in mass. It is several levels of spin up, but only one level of mass up. What is meant by that is that to find the photon mass, we can divide the electron mass by c, giving us 3 x 10^{-39}kg. True, in another paper MM calculated the photon mass as 92 times larger than that, but photons come in different sizes.

Even G is a multiple of c. G = 1/50c

That is not a mathematical coincidence. Simple fractions like 1/50 or 2/100 tell us that our numbers are closely related, and G is simply a function of c, as MM has shown elsewhere. Just as D is the scaler between electron and proton, G is the scaler between photon and proton. And, as you have seen here, they can both be written in terms of c.

*For those who think this can't work due to units, you should know that my variables are a bit different than current variables. My v is the tangential velocity. The current v is defined as the tangential velocity, but it isn't. It is the orbital velocity, v = 2πr/t. Since that is a curve, it can't be a linear velocity. My ω is also different. Although it is an angular "velocity", MM does not measure it in radians. An angular motion is a curve, therefore it is an acceleration. And so my units do resolve. See A Correction to Newton's Equation a=v^{2}/r and the section Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum.

It is amazing the things we can look away from, when we really need to. The problem with the electron “orbit” is that the electron and proton have opposite charges, we are told. This causes an attraction, as we know. And yet the electron and proton only seem to attract each other *up to a point*. The electron is not attracted all the way into the proton itself, it is only attracted to the distance of some shell, near to the proton. This is fairly astonishing, or should be, and yet the standard model completely ignores it. It doesn’t even find it necessary to tell us why the electron does not continue on in to a collision.

In the few instances that QM or QED deigns to notice this problem, it tells us, mostly by implication, that the electron maintains its distance due to its orbital velocity. But this is no answer. Why should the electron, attracted to the proton, suddenly develop an orbital velocity? At what distance from the proton does it decide to start going sideways, and for what mechanical reason? We are led to assume, by the fudgy wording and theory of QED, that electrons must always just miss the proton, as if they always just happen to intersect the proton at a tangent, this tangent being the right orbital distance for the shell. But this is mystification in the extreme.

Given particles that are rushing around with opposite charges, we would expect a large number of direct collisions. We would expect a fair number of direct collisions even without opposite charges, wouldn’t we? If these quantum particles were asteroids instead of electrons and protons, we would expect direct collisions, no matter their sizes. But if we add charge to the mix, we should expect a highly noticeable number of collisions.

The standard model has no answer. The picture we often have of electrons as small objects circling a nucleus in well defined "orbits" is actually quite wrong. The positions of these electrons at any given time is not well known at all, however we CAN figure out the volume of space where we are likely to find a given electron. For example, the electron in a hydrogen atom likes to occupy a spherical volume surrounding the proton. If you think of the proton as a grain of salt, then the electron is about equally likely to be anywhere inside a ten foot radius sphere surrounding this grain, kind of like a cloud.

The weird thing about that cloud is that its spread in space is related to the spread of possible momenta (or velocities) of the electron. So here’s the key point, which we will not pretend to explain here. The more squashed in the cloud gets, the more spread out the range of momenta has to get. That’s called Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Big momenta mean big kinetic energies. So the cloud can lower its potential energy by squishing in closer to the nucleus, but when it squishes in too far its kinetic energy goes up more than its potential energy goes down. So it settles at a happy medium, and that gives the cloud and thus the atom its size.

Quantum Mechanics tries to answer the question by making the electron a cloud or probability, but we must imagine that no matter how probabilistic the electron is, it still must have a negative charge. It cannot have a negative charge far away from the nucleus, acting like a particle, then approach the nucleus and begin acting like a cloud with a positive charge. All this talk of momentum and kinetic energy and HUP is just misdirection. No matter how you represent the kinetic energy or momentum of the electron, you cannot create a repulsion. The dispersion of momentum or kinetic energy into a cloud or probability cannot switch the charge or create a repulsion. And the HUP simply has nothing to say about switching charges or creating repulsions from attractions.

The truth is, using the wave function to represent electrons instead of representing them as discrete balls does nothing to answer this question. It is complete misdirection. MM is not saying the wave function is mathematically incorrect, but that the wave function does nothing to explain repulsion. The wave function in no way gives the electron a positive charge, or turns off its negative charge. To do that we would have to change or stop the spin of the electron, and the wave function does not do this. In fact, the wave function was meant to represent some unknown motion or motions or amplitudes of the electron: its complex *wave*. This wave function does not change its character as the electron approaches the proton, it *expresses* this character. But for the proton to begin repulsing the electron, the electron would have to change its character. It would have to change its charge in some way. The answer that includes momentum and HUP is especially dishonest, because it wants us to believe that a probability is somehow an exclusionary force of its own.

The mainstream physicists always deflect these questions by screaming that the electron is not really in an “orbit.” It is in a probabilistic cloud. But a probabilistic cloud does not magically become repulsive just by becoming probabilistic. Probability math should not, and does not, switch the charge on the electron. The electron can have all the wave motions and functions and amplitudes and smearing it wants to have, but becoming a wave or a smear does not bypass this fundamental problem. This is because neither waves nor probabilities are automatically repulsive.

There is no theoretical reason to believe that either waves or probabilities are physically exclusive. If they were, then protons and neutrons, which according to QED (see deBroglie, Pauli, Gell Mann, etc.) also have wave and probability characteristics, could never fit into the nucleus. Their bubbles would repulse each other, and the strong force would have to overcome not just E/M, but also probability repulsion. Making the electron a cloud seems to be enough to explain why it does not impact the proton. What you do is smear the electron out into a probability, then give the smear an edge. This edge is then given an exclusionary force, like a material bubble. The electron can’t impact the proton because the electron is now a big bubble, and the bubble bounces off the proton! Lovely.

This is also proved by the photoelectric effect and many other experiments. The photoelectric effect works both ways: if the photon acts like a particle, the electron must, also. Both the photon and the electron must not only have a discrete energy, they must have discrete positions, otherwise the data would not work like it does. Once again the standard model tries to fudge over this fact with probabilities, but a mechanical explanation requires that both the incoming and outgoing particles must have real position at impact. Energy transfer cannot take place *mechanically* between probabilities, since probabilities can only work * mathematically.* The photon must physically hit something, and you cannot hit a probability.

Using the charge in Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M,
MM can explain orbits mechanically. This allows us to get rid of the messenger or virtual photon that is now said to mediate the electron/proton interaction and replace the virtual photon with a real one and give it mass equivalence. Moreover, we must make all force repulsive. There is simply no way to explain attraction mechanically, so we give up on attraction, at the foundational level. Underlying both electricity and magnetism, we have the charge field, or what MM now calls the foundational E/M field. Although electricity may be either positive or negative, the foundational E/M field is always positive. It is always repulsive. This means that all protons and electrons are emitting real photons, and that all protons and electrons are repulsing all other protons and electrons via simple bombardment. Attraction is explained by noticing that protons repulse electrons much less than they repulse other protons. In this way, the attraction is a *relative* attraction. Relative to the speed of repulsion of protons with one another, electron *appear* to move backwards. If protons are defined as the baseline, then electrons are *negative* to this baseline.

Classically, this can be explained by the size difference alone. Due only to surface area considerations, electrons are able to dodge much of the emission of protons and nuclei, and so they seem to swim upstream.

If you want to think of protons and electrons as smears instead of particles, be my guest: it doesn’t change my analysis at all. Larger smears repel smaller smears less than they repel each other. Smears have size just like particles, and electron smears must have smaller or less dense smears than protons. Or, probability smears of electrons must have less flux, or whatever. However you want to define or imagine the electron, the electron must have more space in or around its probability smear, which means my analysis must hold in any possible field. This being true, it is much preferable, from a theoretical viewpoint, to talk of discrete particles. Talking of smears adds nothing to the fundamental theory, and, in fact, often throws a blanket over it.

This explains our current problem in a very direct manner, since the orbital distance or shell or level that the electron ultimately reaches is determined by the distance at which the electron is no longer able to dodge the emission of the proton. If we think of the electron and proton as spheres, it makes this very easy to see (we can think of the spheres as probability clouds rather than particles, if we like, but it does not change the mechanics in any important way). The proton is emitting at a constant rate, we assume. But due to spherical considerations, the emission field must dissipate with greater distance from the center. Which is the same as saying that it gets denser the *closer* you get to the proton. The electron simply continues to fall nearer the proton, until the field density of emitted photons gets great enough to stop it. At this point, a level of equilibrium is reached. The proton has always been repulsing the electron, but now the electron gets close enough that the proton can stop it from coming nearer. At greater distances, the field density of photons was not enough to stop the electron, but now it is great enough. It is that simple.

Think of it this way, if you like. Let us say you live inside a proton, and you have a little window you can look out of. You are very private, so you have an ingenious intruder system. You have guns mounted all around your spherical “house”, but instead of firing bullets, they fire basketballs. All your neighbors are protons, and you have found that you can keep these drifting neighbors away using these basketballs. By long experience, you have found that using a given rate of fire, these neighboring protons never get closer to you than 100 feet. You have also found that at 100 feet, these neighboring protons have an apparent size of one foot. At that distance, they can’t really tell what you are doing and you can’t tell what they are doing, so you are satisfied. Everything is great until an electron moves into the neighborhood. The problem is, he is a lot smaller and he can navigate the gaps between basketballs. He can only move in a straight line, so many times he gets hit and you keep him away. But over time, by trying again and again, he is able to get quite near. After long years of this annoyance, you find from your records that this electron is able to get 10 feet from your house, but no nearer. Here is the question: how big is the electron’s apparent size at 10 feet?

The answer is: one foot. This short answer assumes that the electron and proton weigh the same, and so “feel” the same force or pressure. Of course they don’t, so the answer is incomplete. For optical equivalence to work, we would have to include the gravity field here, as well as the foundational E/M field, and MM has not wanted to get into that. Gravity is present at the quantum level, so my answer is strictly correct. Once we include gravity, all we have to do is assume that the proton and electron have the same density. In which case the falling off of gravity exactly offsets the difference in mass. The repulsive force is 100 times less, per unit area; but the “attractive” force of gravity is also 100 times less, so they cancel.

The electron can defy the field until he reaches the point of optical equivalence to the neighboring protons. At this point the pressure of basketballs on him at ten feet is equal to that on the neighboring protons at 100 feet. Or, to say it in another way, if two basketballs per second hit the protons at 100 feet, two basketballs per second will hit the electron at 10 feet.

Now, the point of this story was not to imply that the proton is 100 times bigger than the electron or to imply that the proton is a simple sphere, any more than it was to imply that little people live inside protons. The point of the story is to show that there is a logical variant to the standard model explanation. We do not have to believe in opposite charges causing attractions or repulsions. We do not have to believe in messenger photons that are capable of “telling” quanta whether they should move nearer or farther away. We can propose a simple bombarding field like this and use it to explain protons repelling and also to explain electrons coming close to the protons. One of the great benefits of this new theory (and there are many many others) is that it explains all at once why the electron does not fall into the proton. It does not collide because it was never attracted to the proton or the nucleus in the first place. Its distance of exclusion is simply much less, based on its size.

Also notice that we can throw this theoretical switch without affecting most of the math of QM and QED. Yes, it will require some fundamental changes, but the bulk of the mathematical content of the wave equations is unaffected. More than anything, this is a shoring up of the foundations, not a critique of the math. Above all, throwing this switch opens up the road to unification. Quantum physicists can proudly keep much of their edifice; but now it is possible to unify that edifice with gravity, in a transparent manner, without the need of strings or other esoterica. It is also now possible to answer the simple questions of high school students without telling embarrassing fibs.