Quantas do not need mass property

Quantas do not need mass property

We believe that the ultimate sub quanta because being the ultimate, it is not made of something else and cannot have the property called mass. We have to make sure that the concept of mass is well understood. Mass is not energy but a concept used to described how the interaction between matter and matter or between matter and non-matter. If the interaction causes matter to change its velocity, then we have the concept of energy since energy is a measure of that change.

If we accept that all matter is made of a multitude of last sub quanta that are organised in a certain way, then it is easier to understand how these quanta can change the velocity of matter even without having any mass.

When many quantas interact with matter, they become part of that matter. The system called matter is then reorganised and contains these quantas. It is possible for that matter to emit quantas and usually the average amount of quantas in that matter remains almost the same. If more quantas are arriving from one side of matter, then matter is reorganised a bit farther as if it was pushed. There is no real pushing force but only matter reorganised at a different position in space. An observer will think that a force has acted on matter.

Do subatomic particles really exist?

Do subatomic particles really exist?
answer from Kirsten Hacker:
Kirsten Hacker, PhD Accelerator Physics, University of Hamburg (2010) Answered May 10, 2017
When you break apart a clock, you see all of the pieces that come out and conclude that they were the parts of the clock.
When you break apart a nucleus and see a bunch of quark-antiquark pairs, many people would conclude that a nucleus is made up of quarks.
But if you also know that subatomic particles like quarks appear and disappear out of thin air and magically transform into other types of particles and that a quark has never been observed in isolation (it always comes in a matter-antimatter pair), I’m not sure that it makes sense to conclude that a nucleus is made up of quarks, just because it is possible to put together a model of the nucleus using quarks. That is a logical leap which isn’t really valid.
You could also make a model of the nucleus using protons and electrons by creating an electrostatically stable geometric arrangement. We have never seen a quark in a nucleus or had applications which require the notion of a quark in a nucleus. As far as I can tell, the only thing we can say about quarks with 100% certainty is that when you slam electrons together or protons together, you get quark-antiquark pairs and a lot of other junk with no engineering application since its discovery 50 years ago.
Anything else which has been claimed about how the nucleus is structured or how the beginning of time played out is pure, unscientific speculation which has been sold to the public like a CERN-centric religion.
——————————————————————————————————– Since it is impossible to look directly inside a proton or an electron, all explanations are theories based on some observations. It seems that all ‘particles’ are made of something else but we are not sure.
The theory of the last sub quanta tries to give a logical explanation. What is interesting with that theory is that we do not need to invent magical something to explain what is observed in real life.
We know that a billiard ball hitting another one will imparts a new direction and a new speed. We name speed and direction as velocity, having both a direction and a speed. We know also
that when the two balls touches, they touch only at the level of the electrons of the atoms of the balls. The nucleus of one ball do not touch the nucleus of the other one.
Let us look at the stationary ball at the moment of the collision. The electrons of all its atoms are already moving at about one third the speed of light. It looks as if the ball was immobile on the pool table. But the table is moving in space as the earth spins and moves around the sun. There are no objects in universe that are not moving. Everything is always in motion. Some seems to be immobile compare to us if all is moving together in the same direction and same speed.
What is the nuclei doing in the ball ? Since we are not sure what makes the nuclei, it is really impossible to make a complete final answer.
But we know that a nucleus can sometimes break and the parts are leaving in many directions. Some of what is leaving the nucleus is a kind of light at high frequency. It is called a gamma ray. In a lab in the states, (1) the students put some metal plates in front of the gamma rays and observe that electrons and positrons are produced. Where do they come from? Maybe they were extracted from the plate itself but it seem improbable because there was no free positrons in the plate. It really seems that the ray of light called gamma ray was able to be transformed into the electron positron pair. These are not moving at speed of light but the parts of the gamma ray was moving at speed of light just before it was organized as an electron positron pair. Maybe the parts of light are still moving at speed of light in the electron and in the positron but they are now interacting with one another and with what is bombarding the pair from space itself. This will be explained below.
The electron now produced will remain an electron for a long time unless it meets a positron and is reverted to another gamma ray. The stable electron thus seems to be made of the same stuff as the gamma ray. We call this stuff the ultimate sub quantas.
Possibility: the electron seems to be a stable system. Even if it receives a lot of ultimate last sub quanta that are travelling in space in all directions, the electron seems to be able to integrate these incoming quantas and seems to emit in average the same quantity so it remains the same as before.
That could explain why in a vacuum tube where electrons are emitted and only some of them are forced to pass through a small slit, they hit the metal plate. The next picture is a real experiment we have done many times. When the electron beam hits the metal plate, they give a blue light.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=crookes+tube&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi exs3k36_gAhXkmeAKHQpLBqoQ_A


https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1164&bih=527&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=olpfXJoZi8j9Bty1gzg&q =cthode+tube&oq=cthode+tube&gs_l=img.3…1520052.1522238..1523558…0.0..0.81.410.6…… 0….1..gws-wiz-img…….0j0i7i30j0i7i10i30j0i8i30.KUIf0iFA7P4#imgrc=yr9BQbgGtZ2HZM:

In the above drawing, we see that the moving electrons ( in green ) going from left to right are deviated in an upward direction when a charged metal plate with a surplus of electrons is placed under the beam of moving electrons. That is evidence that something is leaving the charged metal plate; the plate is sending something real that passes through the glass tube and interfere with the moving electrons. This is probably the quantas emitted by the metal plate.
Many experiments were done with a sensitive detector located far from a plastic ruler containing a surplus of electrons because it was rubbed many times on cloth. Then a neutral object was move between the detector and the ruler, the sensor stops sensing the surplus of electrons. What is sent by the ruler with a surplus of electrons goes in all directions and can be stopped by a neutral object. That is a very compelling reason to believe there is really something leaving a charged object that goes in all directions.
Furthermore, when the charged object is vibrating back and forth, the sensor display the same frequency. That also suggest that at a frequency of five hundred million millions vibrations per second, yellow light would be produced. It really seems that visible light is simply many layers of these quantas emitted from a charged object vibrating at that frequency.
If light is really a pulsating emission from a charged object, then it is reasonable to thing those quantas that are emitted always go at the speed of light because they make light. That suggest an interesting conclusion: the quantas are always moving at speed of light in the electron and in the positron but they are now interacting with one another. The electron system is so complex that we do not know how this is possible.
A comparison could help to understand this complexity. When the temperature in a room is about 20 Celsius, the air molecules move at about 500 meters per second. They are always bumping on dust particles in air. That makes the dust particle move in a pattern called Brownian movement and one can see this pattern on internet.


https://www.google.ca/search?q=brownian+movement&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0a hUKEwj88Ze17K_gAhVsmeAKHV01CcIQ_AUIDigB&biw=1164&bih=527#imgrc=3rNzaF-gzgE9 eM:
In the above drawing, the red dot represents the air molecules and the blue circle would be a dust particle bombarded on each side.
Even if the molecules are going at about 500 meters per second, the air in the room stays in the room because the molecules are colliding together and changing direction all the time. In the electron, the quantas are moving at speed of light and some are leaving the electron but most of them are colliding inside the electron. When some leave the electron, they are replaced by those arriving from all direction of space because space is filled with these quantas emitted by all the stars in universe.
That explains why the electrons in the cathode ray tube are seemed to be pushed upward by the quantas coming from below. Really, the electrons are not pushed at all but are reorganized as a stable system just above the previous position. That reorganization makes us believe there was a pushing force from below because we are used to see forces acting like that in our macroscopic world. In the atomic world, it is really different.
On the atomic scale and sub atomic scale, there is no pushing or attracting forces, only a change in velocity of complex systems depending on the incoming quantas direction.
Concept of mass: this concept is used to compare the effect when objects interact. The amount of interaction is bigger if there is more mass and/or more velocity. This is represented by the known formula: force = mass x acceleration. Another formula representing mass is this: density = mass / volume or in another form, mass = density x volume. We realize that density is a comparison of how matter is organized in the object; mass is a comparison of that organization and not a special property of matter. That is why the quantas have no mass because mass arises only when the quantas are organized as a system called objects.


1. A simple electron-positron pair production experiment May 2006American Journal of Physics 74(5) DOI: 10.1119/1.2174030

Space is not empty

Space is not empty
What is filling space? According to wikipedia, we have this answer:
Outer space is not completely empty—it is a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, and cosmic rays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
Many scientists try to imagine what else is filling space. Quantum physics tells us that:
The Facts: Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. This is also known as “the Vacuum” or “The Zero-Point Field.” https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/07/space-is-not-empty-its-actually-full-of-energy- the-quantum-vacuum/
Another site on internet says that
This boils down to the idea that the vacuum isn’t really empty. It’s actually churning with smatterings of particles that disappear and reappear at random, creating a fluctuating energy field. Of course, that’s just because Heisenberg says so. We’ve never had actual proof of this so-called energy field. In the 1940s, scientists found indirect evidence of it by examining the radiation emitted by hydrogen atoms and the forces exerted on closely spaced metal plates, but that was it. Then in 2015, a team of German scientists led by Alfred Leitenstorfer announced that they had directly detected that fluctuating energy field by firing a super-short laser pulse into a vacuum and seeing tiny changes in the polarization of the light. Those changes, they said, were caused by the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Still, since many things could potentially cause that fluctuation, that result was up for debate.
https://curiosity.com/topics/empty-space-isnt-empty-and-quantum-researchers-now-have-direct- evidence-curiosity/
The answer from Alfred Leitenstorfer is derived from observed facts not from theory.
Another scientist, Hetrz, made a discovery in 1887 when using a spark gap apparatus. Here is the text from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Heinrich_Hertz
In 1887, Hertz made observations of the photoelectric effect and of the production and reception of electromagnetic waves, which he published in the journal Annalen der Physik. His receiver was a coil with a voltage difference maintained across a spark gap, which would issue a spark in the presence of electromagnetic waves (which were produced by a transmitter spark coil). He placed the apparatus with the receiving spark gap in a darkened box in order to see the spark better and observed instead, that the maximum spark length was less when in the box. Putting a glass panel between the source of the waves and the receiving spark gap also caused a weakening of the spark.
When teaching electrostatics to college students, we observed another interesting fact. A very sensitive detector was placed about 3 meters away. An ebonite rod was rubbed on fur and it acquired millions of electrons. The detector immediately activated a green led. When a plastic rod was rubbed on cloth to lose electrons, the detector activated the red led. In science language, we say that the ebonite rod with a surplus electrons has a negative charge and the plastic rod with a lack of electrons has a positive charge. That means the detector activates the green led for a negative charge and it activates the red led for a positive charge.
We observed more interesting facts. When the negative ebonite rod was move away from the detector, the detector activated a red led as if it senses a positive charge even if the rod was negative. The opposite effect was also recorded: when a positive charged rod was move away from the detector, it activated the green led showing a negative charge even if the rod was positive.
The most interesting fact was that when the negative ebonite rod was move back and forth, the detector followed by activating the red led and the green led alternatively at the same frequency. A fast movement produced a fast change at the detector. Since the detector was about 3 meters away, it was possible to move a neutral object in between the rod and the detector. When the neutral object was directly in line between them, the detector stopped sensing the charged object. It seems that something was leaving the charged rod in every directions and reached the detector but a simple object like a thin book was able to block that. Hertz observed a similar effect when he placed a glass panel between the spark and the receiving coil. The glass blocked some of the emissions from the spark. That fact really shows that there is something real going from the spark to the coil or from the rod to the detector. It cannot be electrons from the charged rod or from the spark because electrons do not travel 3 meters unless the voltage is in the million volts. The rod did not possessed that voltage. What was emitted from the rod?
Some scientists affirm that virtual particles are created all the time in space. Maybe these particles are the one emitted by the electrons. But virtual particles
have the property of returning to nothing in a very short time. Here we have something real leaving the charged rod and going in strait line to the detector. According to Hertz, it should go at the speed of light. In his experiment, he used sparks at different frequencies and the coil was able to detect what was called radio wave at that time. A rod moving back and forth very fast produces the same thing. The frequency is lower than radio waves but it is of the same nature. Those radio waves seem to be simply a series of emissions where the density varies at the same frequency. Light would then be simply a continuous variation of density of these emissions from a charged object. Space is not empty but contains all those frequencies produced by many apparatus that continually emits those same entities in all directions at speed of light. Are these entities the same as the micro quanta mentioned by Maurizio Michelini in his article: A Flux of Micro Quanta Explains Relativistic Mechanics and the Gravitational Interaction by Maurizio Michelini? Are these entities the same as black matter supposed to exists everywhere because they do not emit light so they appear ‘black’ to us?
What are the properties of these entities?

Speed of light

Speed of light

Is the speed of light always c or can it go faster?

That question is still debated today. It seems that Einstein proposed to use the speed of light as a constant being always the same in void. He could not prove that experimentally but it seems to be true for many theories. Is it possible to prove that c is the only speed for light? Maybe.

N.B. The accepted value for c is 299 792 458 m / s.

When the force between two objects each having a surplus of 1.6 E19 electrons is measured, the answer is almost 9 E9 Newtons when they are separated by a distance of one meter. The speed of light does not appear in that measure.

N.B. 9E9 means 9 exponent 9. This method is used in the text.

Also when the force is measured between two 1 meter long wires each conducting an amount of 1. 6 E19 electrons per second and being parallel to one another at a distance of one meter the answer is 1 E-7 Newtons. Again, the speed of light does not appear in that measure.

The two formulas for these forces are here

Force = almost 9E9 Newtons x charge x charge / (distance squared) for charged stationary objects. The objects are pushed away from one another.

Force = 1 E-7 Newtons x charge x charge x speed x speed / (distance squared) for two conducting wires parallel to one another and separated by one meter. The two wires are pushed towards one another.

If we try to find at what speed the pushing force would equal the attracting force using these two formulas, we obtain a speed of 299 792 458 m / s. That is the measured speed of light.

If you like formulas, it would be this
(9E9 )x Q x Q / d2 = ( 1 E-7 ) x Q x Q x v x v / d2

where Q is for charge in Coulomb, and v for speed and d for distance in meters

cancel like terms on each side of equations

v 2 = (9E9 ) / (1 E-7 ) = 9 E16.
v = 3E8 m / s.

That is the measured speed of light.
At that speed the forces cancel one another.

There are many conclusions coming from that observation.

First, it seems that if two electrons were moving parallel to one another at the same speed, if they could attain a speed of 299 792 458 m / s, they would neither be pushed toward one another or pushed away from one another. It would seem that one electron would continue its trajectory as if there was no electrons near it.
That supposes the second electron has no effect on the first one or that the effect of one electron on the second one is leaving at a speed of 299 792 458 m / s, also, therefore never be able to reach the other one because it is also going at 299 792 458 m / s.

Second, it suppose the speed of something ejected from an electron in all directions can affect another electron if the speed of the electron is less than c. Those ejected something would also go at speed c. Interesting.

Third, the insight of Einstein was right even if he could not prove that experimentally.

Planets in gravitational well

Planets in gravitational well by Louis Rancourt

Far from any stars in space, gravity coming from one direction is almost cancelled by gravity coming in opposite direction. An object in that position continues in strait line because the net force on the object is zero.

Because of all its atoms, the sun blocks some of that gravity going through the sun. If it was possible to take a picture of only the gravity coming from all region of space, the density of that gravity would be less closer to the sun because of that shielding effect. Gravity density is lower close to the sun and increases according to 1/distance squared. The next drawing represents such a density.

But the sun itself is also an emitter of gravity. That extends to a certain distance from the sun. If it was possible to take a picture of only the gravity coming from the sun without the gravity coming from all region of space, the density of that gravity would be greater closer to the sun and the density decreases according to 1/distance squared.

When these two gravities are added, at a certain distance, the density of gravity from space is almost equal to the density of gravity coming from the direction of the sun.

That makes a kind of big sphere or bubble where gravity is less. That region or bubble is the gravitational well . Planets in that region cannot go in strait line because in doing so, they would enter a region where the gravity from outside is now bigger and they are pushed back towards the sun. When they approach the sun, the same thing happens in opposite: the gravity coming from the sun is now bigger and the planet is pushed away, In that manner, the planet goes around the sun as satellite.

distance sun – planet
planet planet from sun in m mass kg 1 force in N
Mercury 1 5.80E+07 3.30E+23 2 1.30E+28 1
Venus 2 1.10E+08 4.87E+24 3 5.34E+28 2
Earth 3 1.50E+08 5.98E+24 4 3.53E+28 3
Mars 4 2.30E+08 6.42E+23 5 1.61E+27 4
Jupiter 5 7.80E+08 5.69E+26 6 1.24E+29 5
Saturn 6 1.40E+09 5.69E+26 7 3.85E+28 6
Uranus 7 2.80E+09 8.68E+25 8 1.47E+27 7
Neptune 8 4.50E+09 1.02E+26 9 6.69E+26 8
Pluto 9 6.00E+09

Using an arbitrary unit of 10 units for gravity from space, we can compare the different effects on planets of our solar system.

in log in log
distance sending blocking
10 1 1.0000 9.7782
1.00E+02 2 2.0000 9.6532
1.00E+03 3 3.0000 9.4472
1.00E+04 4 4.0000 9.1461
1.00E+05 5 5.0000 8.8921
1.00E+06 6 6.0000 8.3617
Mercury 1.00E+07 7 7.0000 8.0414
Venus 1.10E+08 8 8.0414 7.0000
Pluto 2.30E+08 9 8.3617 6.0000
7.80E+08 10 8.8921 5.0000
1.40E+09 11 9.1461 4.0000
2.80E+09 12 9.4472 3.0000
4.50E+09 13 9.6532 2.0000
6.00E+09 14 9.7782 1.0000

In order to show the gravity well, we must use the log value of the distances. The blue line is for the gravity from space that was partially blocked by the sun and the red line is the gravity emitted by the sun. It goes to almost zero at far distance.


The mass and the speed of the planet will permit to find an equilibrium point and it becomes a satellite to the sun. The centrifugal force has to be equal to the force pushing the planet toward the sun.

The gravity in this graphic represents the net total force when we add opposite forces. Depending on its speed, the planet finds the distance away from the sun where the force towards the sun equals its centrifugal force.

Einstein seems to have a vague idea of that gravity well and tried to explain it with his theory of space time curvature. Space is not curved but its different density will influence objects towards the sun as if it was “curved’ inward.

Following the equation (F = Gmm/dd) there is a possibility to have planets between the sun and Mercury if the speed is big enough. There is no such planet there. This is because of the gravity well described here. A planet closer to the sun would be pushed away by sun radiation of gravity unless it had a very high speed.

This also explains why most comets do not fall into the sun as they should because of the pressure of the gravity emitted by the sun. That gravity will push the comet’s tail away from the sun.

If we add all forces going towards a planet to forces from space coming from other side we have this picture. The sun is at 0 level on y axis in the next graph.


At position 7 to 8, the planet will stay in orbit.This correspond to distances between 1×107 m and 2.3 x 108 m from the sun .Closer distances smaller than 1×107 m, a planet is pushed away from the sun.

These are the figures used in Excel to calculate these positions. in multiple of 10 units.

forcrces going toward planet opposite
in log in log from away from total
sending blocking space forces space forces
1 1.0000 9.7782 10 20.7782 -25 1 -4.2218
2 2.0000 9.6532 10 21.6532 -25 2 -3.3468
3 3.0000 9.4472 10 22.4472 -25 3 -2.5528
4 4.0000 9.1461 10 23.1461 -25 4 -1.8539
5 5.0000 8.8921 10 23.8921 -25 5 -1.1079
6 6.0000 8.3617 10 24.3617 -25 6 -0.6383
7 7.0000 8.0414 10 25.0414 -25 7 0.0414
8 8.0414 7.0000 10 25.0414 -25 8 0.0414
9 8.3617 6.0000 10 24.3617 -25 9 0.6383
10 8.8921 5.0000 10 23.8921 -25 10 1.1079
11 9.1461 4.0000 10 23.1461 -25 11 1.8539
12 9.4472 3.0000 10 22.4472 -25 12 2.5528
13 9.6532 2.0000 10 21.6532 -25 13 3.3468
14 9.7782 1.0000 10 20.7782 -25 14 4.2218

In this graph, the sun centre is at 0 on y-axis.

Forces toward the sun from space are below the 0 y axis and forces pushing away from the sun are above the 0 y axis.

These total forces are lowest at the distance where our planets orbit the sun.

N.B. Since we do not know the exact value of the forces due to gravity coming from every directions of space on every kg of matter, we used 10 units in the graph. These units are probably very great and might be measured in the future.