Anda di halaman 1dari 32

The atural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles

Riccardo C. Storti1

Key Words: Balmer Series, Bohr Radius, Buckingham Π Theory, Casimir Force, ElectroMagnetics,
Equivalence Principle, Euler’s Constant, Fourier Series, Fundamental Particles, General
Relativity, Gravity, Harmonics, Hydrogen Spectrum, &ewtonian Mechanics, Particle Physics,
Physical Modelling, Planck Scale, Polarizable Vacuum, Quantum Mechanics, Zero-Point-Field.

Abstract

Theoretical estimates and correlations, based upon the Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)


method, are presented for the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge radius and mass-energy of many
well established subatomic particles. The EGM method is a set of engineering equations and
techniques derived from the purely mathematical construct known as Buckingham’s “Π” (Pi)
Theory. The estimates and correlations coincide to astonishing precision with experimental data
presented by the Particle Data Group (PDG), CDF, D0, L3, SELEX and ZEUS Collaborations. Our
tabulated results clearly demonstrate a possible natural harmonic pattern representing all
fundamental subatomic particles. In addition, our method predicts the possible existence of several
other subatomic particles not contained within the Standard Model (SM). The accuracy and
simplicity of our computational estimates demonstrate that EGM is a useful tool to gain insight into
the domain of subatomic particles.

1
rstorti@deltagroupengineering.com
Delta Group Engineering P/L
1
1 ITRODUCTIO

1.1 HARMONIC REPRESENTATION OF GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION

Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) is a term describing a hypothetical harmonic relationship


between Electricity, Gravity and Magnetism. The hypothesis may be mathematically articulated by
the application of Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s) and Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT),
both being well established and thoroughly tested geometric engineering principles [1-3], via
Fourier harmonics. [4] The hypothesis may be tested by the correct derivation of experimentally
verified fundamental properties not predicted within the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
Storti et. al. derived the EGM relationship in [5-23] where it was shown that a theoretical
representation of constant acceleration at a mathematical point in a gravitational field may be
defined by a summation of trigonometric terms utilizing modified complex Fourier series in
exponential form, according to the harmonic distribution “nPV = -N, 2 - N ... N”, where “N” is an
odd number harmonic. Hence, the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector “g” (via the
equivalence principle applied in [5-23]) may be usefully represented by Eq. (1) as “|nPV| → ∞”,
G. M . 2 . i . π .n PV .ω ..
PV( 1 , r , M ) t i
g( r, M ) e (1)
r
2 π . n PV
n PV

such that, the frequency spectrum of the harmonic gravitational field “ωPV” is given by Eq.(2), [8]
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
ω PV n PV, r , M . . K ( r, M ) (2)
PV
r π .r
where,
Variable Description Units
ωPV(1,r,M) Fundamental spectral frequency. Hz
KPV Refractive index of a gravitational field in the Polarizable Vacuum
(PV) model of gravity, [5] only contributing significantly when a large
gravitational mass (i.e. a strong gravitational field) is considered. For None
all applications herein, the effect is approximated to KPV(r,M) = 1.
nPV Harmonic modes of the gravitational field.
r Magnitude of position vector from centre of mass. m
M Mass. kg
G Gravitational constant. m3kg-1s-2
Table 1,
Subsequently, the harmonic (Fourier) representation of the magnitude of the gravitational
acceleration vector at the surface of the Earth up to “N = 21” is graphically shown to be,

g
Gravitational Acceleration

Time

Figure 1: harmonic representation of gravitational acceleration,


2
As “N → ∞”, the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector becomes measurably constant.
Hence, Eq. (1, 2) illustrate that the Newtonian representation of “g” is easily harmonized over the
Fourier domain, from geometrically based methods (i.e. DAT’s and BPT). Therefore, unifying (in
principle) Newtonian, geometric (relativistic) and quantum (harmonized) models of gravity.

1.2 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

1.2.1 FREQUENCY

Storti et. al. showed in [8] that the spectrum defined by Eq. (2) is discrete and finite. The
lower boundary value is given by “ωPV(1,r,M)”, whilst the upper boundary value “ωΩ” (also termed
the harmonic cut-off frequency) is given by Eq. (3),
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M ) (3)
supported by Eq. (4-7),
Ω ( r, M ) 4
n Ω ( r, M ) 1 (4)
12 Ω ( r, M )
3
2
U m( r , M ) U m( r , M )
Ω ( r, M ) 108. 12. 768 81. (5)
U ω( r , M ) U ω( r , M )

2
3 .M .c
U m( r , M ) (6)
3
4 .π .r

h . 4
U ω( r , M ) ω PV( 1 , r , M ) (7)
3
2 .c
where,
Variable Description Units
nΩ Harmonic cut-off mode [mode number at ωΩ]. None
Ω Harmonic cut-off function.
Um Mass-energy density of a solid spherical gravitational object. Pa
Uω Energy density of mass induced gravitational field scaled to
the fundamental spectral frequency.
h Planck’s Constant [6.6260693 x10-34]. Js
c Velocity of light in a vacuum. m/s
Table 2,
Since the relationship between trigonometric terms at each amplitude and corresponding
frequency is mathematically defined by the nature of Fourier series, the derivation of Eq. (4, 5) is
based on the compression of energy density to one change in odd harmonic mode whilst preserving
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity in accordance with BPT.
The preservation of similarity across one change in odd mode is due to the mathematical
properties of constant functions utilizing Fourier series as discussed in [8]. The subsequent
application of these results to Eq. (1) acts to decompress the energy density over the Fourier domain
yielding a highly precise reciprocal harmonic representation of “g” whilst preserving dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity to Newtonian gravity, identified by the “compression technique”
stated above.

3
1.2.2 POYNTING VECTOR

It was demonstrated by “Haisch, Puthoff and Rueda” in [24-26] that “inertia” may have
ElectroMagnetic (EM) origins due to the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) of Quantum-Electro-Dynamics
(QED), manifested by the Poynting vector, via the equivalence principle. Hence, it follows that
gravitational acceleration may also be EM in nature and the Polarizable Vacuum (PV) model of
gravity [27] is an EM polarized state of the ZPF with a Fourier distribution, assigning physical
meaning to Eq. (1).
Subsequently, it follows that the energy density of a mass induced gravitational field may be
scaled to changes in odd harmonic mode numbers satisfying the mathematical properties of any
constant function described in terms of Fourier series utilizing Eq. (7) - such that,
4 4
U ω n PV, r , M U ω( r , M ) . n PV 2 n PV (8)

Therefore, the Poynting vector2 of the polarized Zero-Point (ZP) gravitational field “Sω”
surrounding a solid spherical object with homogeneous mass-energy distribution is given by,
S ω n PV, r , M c .U ω n PV, r , M (9)

and may be graphically represented as follows,


ZPF Poynting Vector

S ω n PV , R E , M E

n PV
Harmonic

Figure 2,
where, “RE” and “ME” in Fig. (2) denote the radius and mass of the Earth respectively.
Fig. (2) illustrates that the Poynting vector of the ZP gravitational field increases with “nPV”.
Further work by Storti et. al. in [9] showed that “>>99.99(%)” of the effect in a gravitational field
exists well above the “THz” range. Hence, it becomes apparent that “nΩ” and “ωΩ” are important
characteristics of gravitational fields. We shall utilize these characteristics to “quasi-unify” particle
physics in harmonic form in the proceeding sections.

2 THE SIZE OF THE PROTO, EUTRO AD ELECTRO

In 2005, Storti et. al. derived the mass-energy threshold of the Photon utilizing “nΩ” and the
classical Electron radius as shown in [12], to within “4.3(%)” of the Particle Data Group (PDG)
value3 stated in [28], then proceeded to derive the mass-energies and radii of the Photon and
Graviton in [14] by the consistent utilization of “nΩ”.
The method developed in [12] was re-applied in [13] to derive the sizes4 of the Electron,
Proton and Neutron. The motivation for this was to test the hypothesis presented in Section 1 by
direct comparison of the computed size values to experimentally measured fact. They believe that

2
Per change in odd harmonic mode number.
3
Consistent with experimental evidence and interpretation of data.
4
From first principles and from a single paradigm.
4
highly precise computational predictions, agreeing with experimental evidence beyond the abilities
of the SM to do so, is conclusive evidence of the validity of the harmonic method developed.
To date, highly precise measurements have been made of the Root-Mean-Square (RMS)
charge radius of the Proton by [29] and the Mean-Square (MS) charge radius of the Neutron as
demonstrated in [30]. However, the calculations presented in [13] are considerably more accurate
than the physical measurements articulated in [29,30], lending support for the harmonic
representation of the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector stated in Eq. (1).
The basic approach utilized in [13] was to determine the equilibrium position between the
polarized state of the ZPF and the mass-energy of the fundamental particle inducing space-time
curvature as would appear in General Relativity (GR). In other words, one may consider the
curvature of the space-time manifold surrounding an object to be a “virtual fluid” in equilibrium
with the object itself5.
This concept is graphically represented in Fig. (3). A free fundamental particle with classical
form factor is depicted in equilibrium with the surrounding space-time manifold. The ZPF is
polarized by the presence of the particle in accordance with the PV model of gravity, which is (at
least) isomorphic to GR in the weak field. [27]

Figure 3: free fundamental particle with classical form factor,


In the case of the Proton, the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with the RMS charge radius
“rπ” [Eq. (10)] producing the experimentally verified result “rp” by the SELEX Collaboration as
stated in [29]6,
5
4
h .m e . . m
rπ . 27 h c . e (10)
2
16.c .π .m p
3 4 .π .G m p

where, “me” and “mp” denote Electron and Proton rest-mass respectively.
In the case of the Neutron, the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with the radial position of
zero charge density “rν” [Eq. (11)] with respect to the Neutron charge distribution as illustrated in
Fig. (4). It is shown in [18] that “rν” relates to the MS charge radius “KS” by a simple formula [Eq.
(12)] producing the experimentally verified result “KX” as presented in [30]7,
5
4
h .m e . . m
rν . 27 h c . e (11)
2
16.c .π .m n
3 4 .π .G m n

where, “mn” denotes Neutron rest-mass.

5
The intention is not to suggest that the space-time manifold is actually a fluid, it is merely to
present a method by which to solve a problem.
6
rπ = 0.8306(fm), rp = 0.8307 ± 0.012(fm).
7
rν = 0.8269(fm), KS = -0.1133(fm2), KX = -0.113 ± 0.005(fm2).
5
Neutron Charge Distribution
rν r dr

ρ ch( r )

Charge Density
5.
ρ ch r 0 r dr rν
3
ρ ch r dr

r
Radius
Charge Density
Maximum Charge Density
Minimum Charge Density

Figure 4: Neutron charge distribution,


2
3 . π . r ν ( 1 x) . x3
KS . (12)
8 1 x x
2

where, “x” is solved numerically8 within the “MathCad” environment by the following algorithm,
[18]
Given
2
x 1
ln( x) . (13)
1 3
2
x

x Find( x) (14)
Utilizing “KS”, “KX” may be converted to determine an experimental zero charge density radial
position value “rX” according to Eq. (15),

rX . K .K (15)
S X
KS

In the case of the Electron (as with the Proton), the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with
the RMS charge radius “rε” [Eq. (16)] producing an experimentally implied result9 as stated in [31],
9
5
1.
r ε r e. ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e γ (16)
2

where, “re” and “γ” denote the classical Electron radius and Euler-Mascheroni constant [32]
respectively.

8
x = 0.6829, rX = 0.8256 ± 0.018(fm).
9
rε ≥ 0.0118(fm), γ = 0.577215664901533.
6
3 HARMOIC REPRESETATIO OF FUDAMETAL PARTICLES

3.1 ESTABLISHING THE FOUNDATIONS

Motivated by the physical validation of Eq. (10, 11), Storti et. al. conducted thought
experiments in [13] to investigate harmonic and trigonometric relationships by analyzing various
forms of radii combinations for the Electron, Proton and Neutron consistent with the DAT’s and
BPT derivations in [5-12] – yielding the following useful approximations,
ω Ω r ε,m e ω Ω r ε,m e
2 (17)
ω Ω r π, m p ω Ω r ν,mn


π (18)
rπ rν

2
rε 3
α .e (19)

where,
(i) “α” and “e” denote the fine structure constant and exponential function respectively.
(ii) Eq. (17) error:
(a) associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2” is “8.876 x10-3(%)”
(b) associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rν,mn) = 2” is “0.266(%)”.
(iii) Eq. (18) error is “2.823(%)”.
(iv) Eq. (19) error is “0.042(%)”.

3.2 IMPROVING ACCURACY

Since the experimental value of the RMS charge radius of the Proton is considered by the
scientific community to be precisely known10, [29] the accuracy of Eq. (18, 19) may be improved
by re-computing the value of “rν” and “rε”. This action further strengthens the validity of Eq. (17)
by verifying trivial deviation utilizing the re-computed values.
Hence, it follows that numerical solutions for “rν” and “rε”, constrained by exact
mathematical statements [Eq. (16 – 19)], suggests that the gravitational relationship between the
Electron and Proton, as inferred by the result “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2”, is harmonic. The
computational algorithm supporting this contention may be stated as follows,
Given
9
2
r ε ω Ω r ε, m e rε rε 3 1.
5
α .e ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e γ 2 π (20)
r e ω Ω r π, m p rπ rν rπ 2


Find r ν , r ε (21)

yields,
rν 0.826838
.( fm) (22)
rε 0.011802

10
To a degree of accuracy significantly greater than the Electron or Neutron.
7
where,
(i) Eq. (17) error:
(a) associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2” is “4.493 x10-7(%)”.
(b) associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rν,mn) = 2” is “0.282(%)”.
(ii) Eq. (18) error is “1.11 x10-13(%)”.
(iii) Eq. (19) error is “0.026(%)”.

3.3 FORMULATING AN HYPOTHESIS

In the preceding calculations utilizing known particle mass and radii as a reference, it was
found that the harmonic cut-off frequency ratio of an Electron to a Proton was precisely “2”. This
provokes the hypothesis that a simple harmonic pattern may exist describing the relationship of all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen base particle according to,
ω Ω r 1, M 1
St ω (23)
ω Ω r 2, M 2

Performing the appropriate substitutions utilizing Eq.(3 - 7), Eq. (23) may be simplified to,
2 5
M1 r2 9
. St ω (24)
M2 r1

where, “Stω” represents the ratio of two particle spectra. Subsequently, “rε” may be simply
calculated according to,
5 2
1 . me
r ε r π. (25)
2 mp
9

3.4 IDENTIFYING A MATHEMATICAL PATTERN

Utilizing Eq. (24), Storti et. al. identify mathematical patterns in [15-17] showing that “Stω”
may be represented in terms of the Proton, Electron and Quark harmonic cut-off frequencies derived
from the respective particle. Potentially, three new Leptons (L2, L3, L5 and associated Neutrino’s:
ν2, ν3, ν5) and two new Quark / Boson’s (QB5 and QB6) are predicted, beyond the SM as shown in
table (3).
The EGM Harmonic Representation of Fundamental Particles (i.e. table (3)) is applicable to
the size relationship between the Proton and Neutron (i.e. to calculate “rπ” from “rν” and vice-versa
utilising “Stω = 1”) as an approximation only. For precise calculations based upon similar forms, the
reader should refer to [13].
&ote: although the newly predicted Leptons are within the kinetic range11 and therefore “should
have been experimentally detected”, there are substantial explanations discussed in Section 5.2.
Proton Electron Quark
Existing and Theoretical Particles
Harmonics Harmonics Harmonics
Proton (p), Neutron (n) Stω = 1 Stω = 1/2 Stω = 1/14
Electron (e), Electron Neutrino (ν
νe) 2 1 1/7
L2, ν2 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) 4 2 2/7
L3, ν3 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) 6 3 3/7
Muon (µ µ), Muon Neutrino (ννµ ) 8 4 4/7
L5, ν5 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) 10 5 5/7

11
A region extensively explored in particle physics experiments.
8
Tau (ττ), Tau Neutrino (ν
ντ) 12 6 6/7
Up Quark (uq), Down Quark (dq) 14 7 1
Strange Quark (sq) 28 14 2
Charm Quark (cq) 42 21 3
Bottom Quark (bq) 56 28 4
QB5 (Theoretical Quark or Boson) 70 35 5
QB6 (Theoretical Quark or Boson) 84 42 6
W Boson 98 49 7
Z Boson 112 56 8
Higgs Boson (H) (Theoretical) 126 63 9
Top Quark (tq) 140 70 10
Table 3: harmonic representation of fundamental particles,

4 RESULTS

4.1 HARMONIC EVIDENCE OF UNIFICATION

Exploiting the mathematical pattern articulated in table (3), EGM predicts the RMS charge
radius and mass-energy of less accurately known particles, comparing them to expert opinion. The
values of “Stω” shown in table (3), predict possible particle mass and radii for all Leptons,
Neutrinos, Quarks and Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB’s), in complete agreement with the SM,
PDG estimates and studies by “Hirsch et. al” in [33] as shown in table (4),
Particle EGM Radii EGM Mass-Energy PDG Mass-Energy Range
x10-16(cm) (computed or utilized) (2005 Values)
Proton (p) rπ = 830.5957
Neutron (n) rν = 826.8379 Mass-Energy precisely known,
Electron (e) rε = 11.8055 See: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Muon (µ µ) rµ = 8.2165 (NIST) [34]
Tau (ττ) rτ = 12.2415 Note: δm = 10-100
Electron Neutrino (ννe) ren ≈ 0.0954 men(eV) ≈ 3 - δm men(eV) < 3
Muon Neutrino (ν νµ ) rµn ≈ 0.6556 mµn(MeV) ≈ 0.19 - δm mµn(MeV) < 0.19
Tau Neutrino (νντ) rτn ≈ 1.9588 mτn(MeV) ≈ 18.2 - δm mτn(MeV) < 18.2
Up Quark (uq) ruq ≈ 0.7682 muq(MeV) ≈ 3.5060 1.5 < muq(MeV) < 4
Down Quark (dq) rdq ≈ 1.0136 mdq(MeV) ≈ 7.0121 3 < mdq(MeV) < 8
Strange Quark (sq) rsq ≈ 0.8879 msq(MeV) ≈ 113.9460 80 < msq(MeV) < 130
Charm Quark (cq) rcq ≈ 1.0913 mcq(GeV) ≈ 1.1833 1.15 < mcq(GeV) < 1.35
Bottom Quark (bq) rbq ≈ 1.071 mbq(GeV) ≈ 4.1196 4.1 < mbq(GeV) < 4.4
Top Quark (tq) rtq ≈ 0.9294 mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4979 169.2 < mtq(GeV) < 179.4
W Boson rW ≈ 1.2839 mW(GeV) ≈ 80.425 80.387 < mW(GeV) < 80.463
Z Boson rZ ≈ 1.0616 mZ(GeV) ≈ 91.1876 91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897
Higgs Boson (H) rH ≈ 0.9403 mH(GeV) ≈ 114.4 + δm mH(GeV) > 114.4
Photon (γγ) rγγ = ½Kλλh mγγ ≈ 3.2 x10-45(eV) mγ < 6 x10-17(eV)
Graviton (γγg) rgg = 2(2/5)rγγ mgg = 2mγγ No definitive commitment
L2 (Lepton) mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV)
L3 (Lepton) rL ≈ 10.7518 mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)
L5 (Lepton) mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)
ν2 (L2 Neutrino) rν2,ν3,ν5 mν2 ≈ men Not predicted or considered
ν3 (L3 Neutrino) ≈ mν3 ≈ mµn
ν5 (L5 Neutrino) ren,µn,τn mν5 ≈ mτn
9
QB5 (Quark or Boson) rQB ≈ 1.0052 mQB(5) ≈ 10(GeV) Not predicted or considered
QB6 (Quark or Boson) mQB(6) ≈ 22(GeV)
Table 4: RMS charge radii and mass-energies of fundamental particles,
where,
(i) “Kλ” denotes a Planck scaling factor, determined to be “(π/2)1/3” in [17].
(ii) “λh” denotes Planck length [4.05131993288926 x10-35(m)].
(iii) “rL” and “rQB” denote the average radii of SM Leptons and Quark / Bosons
(respectively) utilized to calculate the mass-energy of the proposed “new particles”.
&ote:
(a) a formalism for the approximation of ν2, ν3 and ν5 mass-energy is shown in [19].
(b) it is shown in [12,14,17] that the RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton are “λh” and
“1.5λh” respectively, in agreement with Quantum Mechanical (QM) models.

4.2 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

4.2.1 PDG MASS-ENERGY RANGES

The EGM construct was finalized by Storti et. al. in 2004 and tested against published PDG
data of the day [i.e. the 2005 values shown in table (4)]. Annually, as part of their “continuous
improvement cycle”, the PDG reconciles its published values of particle properties against the latest
experimental and theoretical evidence. The 2006 changes in PDG mass-energy range values not
impacting EGM are as follows:
1. Strange Quark = “70 < msq(MeV) < 120”.
2. Charm Quark = “1.16 < mcq(GeV) < 1.34”.
3. “W” Boson = “80.374 < mW(GeV) < 80.432”.
4. “Z” Boson = “91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897”.

Therefore, we may conclude that the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified
results within the SM to high computational precision.

4.2.2 ELECTRON NEUTRINO AND UP / DOWN / BOTTOM QUARK MASS

Particle physics research is a highly dynamic field supporting a landscape of constantly


changing hues. The EGM construct relates “mass to size” in harmonic terms. If one applies Eq. (24)
and utilizes the Proton as the reference particle in accordance with table (3), one obtains a single
expression with two unknowns, as implied by Eq. (25).
Since contemporary Physics is currently incapable of specifying the mass and size of most
fundamental particles precisely and concurrently, EGM is required to approximate values of either
mass or radius to predict one or the other (i.e. mass or size). Subsequently, the EGM predictions
articulated in table (4) denote values based upon estimates of either mass or radius.
Hence, some of the results in table (4) are approximations and subject to revision as new
experimental evidence regarding particle properties (particularly mass), come to light. The 2006
changes in PDG mass-energy values affecting table (4) are shown below. In this data set, the EGM
radii is displayed as a range relating to its mass-energy influence.

&ote: the average value of EGM “Up + Down Quark” mass from table (4) [i.e. 5.2574(MeV)]
remains within the 2006 average mass range specified by the PDG [i.e. 2.5 to 5.5(MeV)].

10
Particle EGM Radii x10-16(cm) EGM Mass-Energy PDG Mass-Energy
(utilized) Range (2006 Values)
Electron Neutrino (ν
νe) ren < 0.0811 men(eV) < 2
Up Quark (uq) 0.5469 < ruq < 0.7217 PDG Mass-Energy 1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3
Down Quark (dq) 0.7217 < rdq < 1.0128 Range (2006 Values) 3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
Bottom Quark (bq) 1.0719 > rbq > 1.0863 4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
Table 5: RMS charge radii and mass-energies of fundamental particles,
The predicted radii ranges above demonstrate that no significant deviation from table (4)
values exists. This emphasizes that the EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles is a
robust formulation and is insensitive to minor fluctuations in particle mass, particularly in the
absence of experimentally determined RMS charge radii.

Therefore, we may conclude that the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified
results within the SM to high computational precision.

4.2.3 TOP QUARK MASS

Dilemma

The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and “D-ZERO” (D0) Collaborations have recently
revised their world average value of “Top Quark” mass from “178.0(GeV/c2)” in 2004 [35] to,
“172.0” in 2005 [36], “172.5” in early 2006, then “171.4” in July 2006. [37]

&ote: since the precise value of “mtq” is subject to frequent revision, we shall utilize the 2005 value
in the resolution of the dilemma as it sits between the 2006 values.

Resolution

The EGM method utilizes fundamental particle RMS charge radius to determine mass.
Currently, Quark radii are not precisely known and approximations were applied in the formulation
of “mtq” displayed in table (4). However, if one utilizes the revised experimental value of “mtq =
172.0(GeV/c2)” to calculate the RMS charge radius of the Top Quark “rtq”, based on Proton
harmonics, it is immediately evident that a decrease in “rtq” of “< 1.508(%)” produces the new
world average value precisely. The relevant calculations may be performed simply as follows,
The revised “Top Quark” radius based upon the “new world average Top Quark” mass,
5
2
GeV
172.
2
1 . c 16 .
r π. = 0.9156 10 cm (26)
140
9 mp

The decrease in “Top Quark” RMS charge radius [relative to the table (4) value] based upon the
“new world average Top Quark” mass becomes,
r tq
1 = 1.5076 ( % ) (27)
5 2
GeV
172.
2
1 . c
r π.
140
9 mp

where, “rtq” denotes the RMS charge radius of the “Top Quark” from table (4).

11
Therefore, since the change in “rtq” is so small and its experimental value is not precisely known,
we may conclude the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified results within the
SM to high computational precision.

&ote: the 2006 value for revised “mtq” modifies the error defined by Eq. (27) to “< 1.65(%)”.

5 DISCUSSIO

5.1 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF UNIFICATION

Table (3, 4, 5) display mathematical facts demonstrating that all fundamental particles may
be represented as harmonics of an arbitrarily selected reference particle, in complete agreement with
the SM. Considering that the EGM method is so radically different and quantifies the physical
world beyond contemporary solutions, one becomes tempted to disregard table (3, 4, 5) in favor of
concluding these to be “coincidental”.
However, it is inconceivable that such precision from a single paradigm spanning the entire
family of fundamental particles could be “coincidental”. The derivation of the “Top Quark” mass-
energy is in itself, an astonishing result which the SM is currently incapable of producing.
Moreover, the derivation of (a), EM radii characteristics of the Proton and Neutron (rπE, rπM
and rνM) (b), the classical RMS charge radius of the Proton (c), the 1st term of the Hydrogen atom
spectrum “λA” and (d), the Bohr radius “rx”: all from the same paradigm, [18-20] strengthens the
harmonic case.
Additionally, Storti et. al. demonstrate in “Quinta Essentia, A Practical Guide to Space-
Time Engineering, Part 3: pg. 54 (see: Ref.)” that the probability of coincidence is “<< 10-38”
based upon the results shown in table (6),
Particle / Atom EGM Prediction Experimental Measurement (%) Error
-16
Proton (p) rπ = 830.5957 x10 (cm) [13] rπ = 830.6624 x10-16(cm) [29] < 0.008
rπE = 848.5274 x10-16(cm) [18] rπE = 848 x10-16(cm) [41,42] < 0.062
-16 -16
rπM = 849.9334 x10 (cm) [18] rπM = 857 x10 (cm) [41,42] < 0.825
-16 -16
rp = 874.5944 x10 (cm) [18] rp = 875.0 x10 (cm) [34] < 0.046
-16 -16
Neutron (n) rν = 826.8379 x10 (cm) [13] rX ≈ 825.6174 x10 (cm) [18] < 0.148
KS = -0.1133 x10 (cm ) [18] KX = -0.113 x10-26(cm2) [30] < 0.296
-26 2

rνM = 878.9719 x10-16(cm) [18] rνM = 879 x10-16(cm) [41,42] < 0.003
Top Quark (tq) mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4979 [16,21] mtq(GeV) ≈ 172.0 [36] < 3.64
Hydrogen (H) λA = 657.3290(nm) [20] λB = 656.4696(nm) [43] < 0.131
rx = 0.0527(nm) [20] rBohr = 0.0529(nm) [34] < 0.353
Table 6: experimentally verified EGM12 predictions,
where,
(i) “rπE” and “rπM” denote the Electric and Magnetic radii of the Proton respectively.
(ii) “rνM” denotes the Magnetic radius of the Neutron.
(iii) “λA” and “λB” denote the first term of the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer series).
(iv) “rp = 875.0 x10-16(cm)” and “rBohr = 0.0529(nm)” are not experimental values, they
denote the classical RMS charge radius of the Proton and the Bohr radius, i.e. the
official values listed by NIST. [34]

&ote: numerical simulations generating all values in table (3, 4, 6) can be found in [21-23].

12
Refer to “Appendix B” for mathematical definitions of EGM predictions.
12
5.2 THE ANSWERS TO SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

5.2.1 WHAT CAUSES HARMONIC PATTERNS TO FORM?

(a) ZPF Equilibrium

A free fundamental particle is regarded by EGM as a “bubble” of energy equivalent mass.


Nature always seeks the lowest energy state: so surely, the lowest state for a free fundamental
particle “should be” to diffuse itself to “non-existence” in the absence of “something” acting to
keep it contained?
This provokes the suggestion that a free fundamental particle is kept contained by the
surrounding space-time manifold. In other words, free fundamental particles are analogous to
“neutrally buoyant bubbles” floating in a locally static fluid (the space-time manifold). EGM is an
approximation method, developed by the application of standard engineering tools, which finds the
ZPF equilibrium point between the mass-energy equivalence of the particle and the space-time
manifold (the ZPF) surrounding it - as depicted by Fig. (3).

(b) Inherent Quantum Characteristics

If one assumes that the basic nature of the Universe is built upon quantum states of
existence, it follows that ZPF equilibrium is a common and convenient feature amongst free
fundamental particles by which to test this assumption. Relativity tells us that no absolute frames of
reference exist, so a logical course of action is to define a datum as EGM is derived from a
gravitational base. In our case, it is an arbitrary choice of fundamental particle.
To be representative of the quantum realm, it follows that ZPF equilibrium between free
fundamental particles should also be analogous to quantum and fractional quantum numbers – as
one finds with the “Quantum Hall Effect”. Subsequently, the harmonic patterns of table (3) form
because the determination of ZPF equilibrium is applied to inherently quantum characteristic
objects – i.e. fundamental particles.
Hence, it should be no surprise to the reader that comparing a set of inherently quantum
characterized objects to each other, each of which may be described by a single wavefunction at its
harmonic cut-off frequency, results in a globally harmonic description. That is, the EGM harmonic
representation of fundamental particles is a quantum statement of ZPF equilibrium – as one would
expect. In-fact, it would be alarming if table (3), or a suitable variation thereof, could not be
formulated.

Therefore, harmonic patterns form due to inherent quantum characteristics and ZPF equilibrium.

5.2.2 WHY HAVEN’T THE “NEW” PARTICLES BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY DETECTED?

EGM approaches the question of particle existence, not just by mass as in the SM, but by
harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ” (i.e. by mass and ZPF equilibrium). Storti et. al. showed in [9]
that the bulk of the PV spectral energy13 at the surface of the Earth exists well above the “THz”
range. Hence, generalizing this result to any mass implies that the harmonic cut-off period14 “TΩ”
defines the minimum detection interval to confirm (or refute) the existence of the proposed “L2, L3,
L5” Leptons and associated “ν2, ν3, ν5” Neutrinos. In other words, a particle exists for at least the
period specified by “TΩ” – i.e. its minimum lifetime.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) approaches this question from a highly useful, but extremely
limited perspective compared to the EGM construct. QFT utilizes particle mass to determine the

13
“>> 99.99(%)”.
14
The inverse of “ωΩ”.
13
minimum detection period (in terms of eV) to be designed into experiments. To date, this approach
has been highly successful, but results in the conclusion that no new Leptons exist beyond the SM
in the mass-energy range specified by the proposed Leptons. Whilst QFT is a highly useful
yardstick, it is by no means a definitive benchmark to warrant termination of exploratory
investigations for additional particles.
Typically in the SM, short lived particles are seen as resonances in cross sections of data
sets and many Hadrons in the data tables are revealed in this manner. Hence, the SM asserts that the
more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and the greater the likelihood of detection.
The EGM construct regards the existing Leptons of the SM as long-lived particles. It also
asserts that the SM does not adequately address the existence or stability of the extremely short-
lived Leptons proposed. This assertion is supported by the fact that detection of these particles is
substantially beyond current capabilities due to:
1. The minimum detection interval (with negligible experimental error) being “< 10-29(s)”.
2. The possibility that the proposed Leptons are transient (intermediate) states of particle
production processes which decay before detection. For example, perhaps an Electron
passes through an “L2” phase prior to stabilization to Electronic form (for an appropriate
production process). Subsequently, this would be not be detected if the transition process is
very rapid and the accelerator energies are too low.
3. The possibility of statistically low production events.
Hence:
1. The proposed Leptons are too short-lived to appear as resonances in cross-sections.
2. The SM assertion that the more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and the
greater the likelihood of detection is invalid for the proposed Leptons.
Therefore, contemporary particle experiments are incapable of detecting the proposed Leptons at
the minimum accelerator energy levels required to refute the EGM construct.

5.2.3 WHY SHOULD ONE BELIEVE THAT ALL FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES MAY BE
DESCRIBED AS HARMONIC MULTIPLES OF EACH OTHER?

Because of the precise experimental and mathematical evidence presented in table (3, 4, 6).
These results were achieved by construction of a model based upon a single gravitational paradigm.
Moreover, Storti et. al. also derive the Casmir force in [11] from [5-10] utilizing Eq. (1 - 3).

5.2.4 WHY IS EGM A METHOD AND NOT A THEORY?

EGM is a method and not a theory because: (i) it is an engineering approximation and (ii),
the mass and size of most subatomic particles are not precisely known. It harmonizes all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen reference particle by parameterizing ZPF
equilibrium in terms of harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ”.
The formulation of table (3) is a robust approximation based upon PDG data. Other
interpretations are possible, depending on the values utilized. For example, if one re-applies the
method presented in [16] based upon other data, the values of “Stω” in table (3) might differ.
However, in the absence of exact experimentally measured mass and size information, there is little
motivation to postulate alternative harmonic sequences, particularly since the current formulation
fits the available experimental evidence extremely well.
If all mass and size values were exactly known by experimental measurement, the main
sequence formulated in [16] (or a suitable variation thereof) will produce a precise harmonic
representation of fundamental particles, invariant to interpretation. Table (3) values cannot be
dismissed due to potential multiplicity before reconciling how:
1. “ωΩ”, which is the basis of the table (3) construct, produces Eq. (10, 11) as derived in [13].
These generate radii values substantially more accurate than any other contemporary
method. In-fact, it is a noteworthy result that EGM is capable of producing the Neutron MS
14
charge radius as a positive quantity. Conventional techniques favor the non-intuitive form of
a negative squared quantity.
2. “ωΩ” is capable of producing “a Top Quark” mass value – the SM cannot.
3. EGM produces the results defined in table (6).
4. Extremely short-lived Leptons [i.e. with lifetimes of “< 10-29(s)”] cannot exist, or do not
exist for a plausible harmonic interpretation.
5. Any other harmonic interpretation, in the absence of exact mass and size values determined
experimentally, denote a superior formulation.

Therefore, EGM is a method facilitating the harmonic representation of fundamental particles.

5.2.5 WHAT WOULD ONE NEED TO DO, IN ORDER TO DISPROVE THE EGM METHOD?

Explain how experimental measurements of charge radii and mass-energy by international


collaborations such as CDF, D0, L3, SELEX and ZEUS in [29,35-40,44], do not correlate to EGM
calculations.

5.2.6 WHY DOES THE EGM METHOD PRODUCE CURRENT QUARK MASSES AND NOT
CONSTITUENT MASSES?

The EGM method is capable of producing current and constituent Quark masses, only
current Quark masses are presented herein. This manuscript is limited to current Quark masses
because it is the simplest example of ZPF equilibrium applicable whereby a particle is treated as “a
system” and the equilibrium radius is calculated.
Determination of the constituent Quark mass is a more complicated process, but the method
of solution remains basically the same. For example, Storti et. al. calculate an experimentally
implicit value of the Bohr radius in [20] by treating the atom as “a system” in equilibrium with the
polarized ZPF.

5.2.7 WHY DOES THE EGM METHOD YIELD ONLY THE THREE OBSERVED
FAMILIES?

This occurs because it treats all objects with mass as a system (e.g. the Bohr atom) in
equilibrium with the polarized ZPF (the objects own gravitational field). Therefore, since
fundamental particles with classical form factor denote fundamental states (or systems: Quarks in
the Proton and &eutron) of polarized ZPF equilibrium, it follows that only the three families will be
predicted.

15
5.3 PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES

Assuming “QB5,6” to be Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB's), we shall conjecture that the
periodic table of elementary particles may be constructed as follows,
Types of Matter
Group I Group II Group III
Up 14 Charm 42 Top 140
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B] +2/3,1/2,[R,G,B] +2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
uq cq tq
Quarks

1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3 ≈ 1.1833(GeV) ≈ 172.0(GeV)


Down 14 Strange 28 Bottom 56
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B] -1/3,1/2,[R,G,B] -1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
dq sq bq
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7 ≈ 113.9460(MeV) 4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
Electron 2 Muon 8 Tau 12
-1,1/2 -1,1/2 -1,1/2
e µ τ
Standard

Leptons
M od e l

= 0.5110(MeV) = 105.7(MeV) = 1.777(GeV)


Electron Neutrino 2 Muon Neutrino 8 Tau Neutrino 12
0,1/2 0,1/2 0,1/2
νe νµ ντ
< 2(eV) < 0.19(MeV) < 18.2(MeV)
L2 4 L3 6 L5 10
-1,1/2 -1,1/2 -1,1/2
L2 L3 L5
Leptons
EGM

≈ 9(MeV) ≈ 57(MeV) ≈ 566(MeV)


L2 Neutrino 4 L3 Neutrino 6 L5 Neutrino 10
0,1/2 0,1/2 0,1/2
ν2 ν3 ν5
≈ men ≈ mµn ≈ mτn
Standard Model and EGM Bosons
Photon N/A Gluon ? QB6 84 Z Boson 112
1,Charge,α 1,Colour,1 1, Weak Charge,10-6 1,Weak Charge,10-6
γ gl QB6 Z
-45 < 10(MeV) ≈ 22(GeV) ≈ 91.1875(GeV)
≈ 3.2 x10 (eV)
Graviton N/A QB5 70 W Boson 98 Higgs Boson 126
-39 -6 -6
2,Energy,10 1, Weak Charge,10 1,Weak Charge,10 0,Higgs Field,?
γg QB5 W H
= 2mγγ ≈ 10(GeV) ≈ 80.27(GeV) > 114.4(GeV)
Table 7: predicted periodic table of elementary particles,
Legend
Quarks Leptons Bosons
Name Stω Name Stω Name Stω
Charge(e),Spin,Colour Charge(e),Spin Spin,Source,*SC
Symbol S ym b ol Symbol
Mass-Energy Mass-Energy Mass-Energy
(i) *Where, “SC” denotes coupling strength at “1(GeV)”. [45]
(ii) The values of “Stω” in table (7) utilize the Proton as the reference particle. This is due to its
RMS charge radius and mass-energy being precisely known by physical measurement.
Table 7: particle legend,
16
6 COCLUSIO

A concise mathematical relationship, based upon homogeneity concepts inherent in


Buckingham “Π” Theory, augmented with Fourier series, has been used to combine gravitational
acceleration and ElectroMagnetism into a method producing fundamental particle properties to
extraordinary precision. This also results in the representation of fundamental particles as harmonic
forms of each other. Additionally, the solution herein predicts the existence of new fundamental
particles not found within the Standard Model – suggesting the following:
1. An exciting avenue for community exploration, beyond the Standard Model.
2. The potential for new Physics at higher accelerator energies.
3. The potential for unification of fundamental particles.
4. Physical limitations on the value of two extremely important mathematical constants [i.e.
“π” and “γ”] at the quantum mechanical level – subject to uncertainty principles.

REFERECES

[1] “B.S. Massey”, Mechanics of Fluids sixth edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold (International), 1989,
Ch. 9.

[2] “Rogers & Mayhew”, Engineering Thermodynamics Work & Heat Transfer third edition,
Longman Scientific & Technical, 1980, Part IV, Ch. 22.

[3] “Douglas, Gasiorek, Swaffield”, Fluid Mechanics second edition, Longman Scientific &
Technical, 1987, Part VII, Ch. 25.

[4] “K.A. Stroud”, “Further Engineering Mathematics”, MacMillan Education LTD, Camelot Press
LTD, 1986, Programme 17.

Note: [5 - 20] refer to: http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/Metric_Engineering.pdf


“Riccardo C. Storti”, Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering, Part 3, Metric
Engineering & The Quasi-Unification of Particle Physics, ISBN 978-1-84753-942-7, In Press.

[5] Ch. 3.1, Dimensional Analysis, Pg(85 - 95):


This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Electro-Gravi-
Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum – I,
Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 1: March 2006.

[6] Ch. 3.2, General Modelling and the Critical Factor, Pg(97 - 105):
This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Electro-Gravi-
Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum – II,
Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 2: June 2006.

[7] Ch. 3.3, The Engineered Metric, Pg(107 - 114):


This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Electro-Gravi-
Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum – III,
Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 3: September 2006.

[8] Ch. 3.4, Amplitude and Frequency Spectra, Pg(115 - 123):


This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Electro-Gravi-
Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum – IV,

17
Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 4: December 2006.

[9] Ch. 3.5, General Similarity, Pg(125 - 143):


This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Electro-Gravi-
Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum – V,
Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 1: March 2007.

[10] Ch. 3.6, Harmonic and Spectral Similarity, Pg(145 - 157):


This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Electro-Gravi-
Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum – VI,
Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 2: June 2007.

[11] Ch. 3.7, The Casimir Effect, Pg(159 - 166):


This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Electro-Gravi-
Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum – VII,
Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 3: September 2007.

[12] Ch. 3.8, Derivation of the Photon Mass-Energy Threshold, Pg(169 - 173):
This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Derivation of the
Photon mass-energy threshold, The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?, edited by C.
Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A. Kracklauer, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5866 (SPIE,
Bellingham, WA, 2005) [pg. 207 - 213].

[13] Ch. 3.9, Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron),
Pg(175 - 182).

This chapter has been submitted to Physics Essays as: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J.
Desiato”, Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron).

[14] Ch. 3.10, Derivation of the Photon and Graviton Mass-Energies and Radii,
Pg(183 - 187):
This chapter appears in: “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Derivation of the
Photon & Graviton mass-energies & radii, The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?,
edited by C. Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A. Kracklauer, Proceedings of SPIE Vol.
5866 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2005) [pg. 214 - 217].

[15] Ch. 3.11, Derivation of Lepton Radii, Pg(189 - 193).

[16] Ch. 3.12, Derivation of Quark and Boson Mass-Energies and Radii, Pg(195 - 203).

[17] Ch. 3.13, The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an
Experiment to Test the Negative Energy Conjecture, Pg(205 - 216).

[18] App. 3.G, Derivation of ElectroMagnetic Radii, Pg(255 - 262).

[19] App. 3.H, Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Associated Neutrino Radii, Pg(263).

[20] App. 3.I, Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) and an
Experimentally Implicit Definition of the Bohr Radius, Pg(265 - 268).

18
[21] App. 3.K, Numerical Simulations, MathCad 8 Professional, Complete Simulation,
Pg(283 - 363).

[22] App. 3.L, Numerical Simulations, MathCad 8 Professional, Calculation Engine,


Pg(367 - 386).

[23] App. 3.M, Numerical Simulations, MathCad 12, High Precision Calculation Results,
Pg(389 - 393).

[24] “Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch”, Contribution to inertial mass by reaction of the vacuum to
accelerated motion, Found.Phys. 28 (1998) 1057-1108: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802030

[25] “Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch”, Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion,
Phys.Lett. A240 (1998) 115-126: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031

[26] “Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, Hal Puthoff”, Advances in the proposed electromagnetic
zero-point field theory of inertia, presentation at 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, July 13-15, 1998, Cleveland, OH, 10 pages: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023

[27] “Puthoff et. Al.”, Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) approach to general relativity, Found. Phys. 32,
927 - 943 (2002): http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909037

[28] Particle Data Group, Photon Mass-Energy Threshold: “S. Eidelman et Al.” Phys. Lett. B 592, 1
(2004): http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s000.pdf

[29] The SELEX Collaboration, Measurement of the Σ- Charge Radius by Σ- - Electron Elastic
Scattering, Phys.Lett. B522 (2001) 233-239: http://arxiv.org/hep-ex/0106053

[30] “Karmanov et. Al.”, On Calculation of the Neutron Charge Radius, Contribution to the Third
International Conference on Perspectives in Hadronic Physics, Trieste, Italy, 7-11 May 2001, Nucl.
Phys. A699 (2002) 148-151: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106349

[31] “P. W. Milonni”, The Quantum Vacuum – An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics,


Academic Press, Inc. 1994. Page 403.

[32] Mathworld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Euler-MascheroniConstant.html

[33] “Hirsch et. Al.”, Bounds on the tau and muon neutrino vector and axial vector charge radius,
Phys. Rev. D67: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210137

[34] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/

[35] The D-ZERO Collaboration, A Precision Measurement of the Mass of the Top Quark, Nature
429 (2004) 638-642: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0406031

[36] Progress in Top Quark Physics (Evelyn Thomson): Conference proceedings for PANIC05,
Particles & Nuclei International Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA), October 24 – 28, 2005.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0602024

[37] Combination of CDF and D0 Results on the Mass of the Top Quark, Fermilab-TM-2347-E,
TEVEWWG/top 2006/01, CDF-8162, D0-5064: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0603039

19
[38] The CDF & D0 Collaborations, W Mass & Properties, FERMILAB-CONF-05-507-E.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0511039

[39] The L3 Collaboration, Measurement of the Mass and the Width of the W Boson at LEP, Eur.
Phys.J. C45 (2006) 569-587: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0511049

[40] The ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD Collaborations, the LEP Electroweak Working Group,
the SLD Electroweak & Heavy Flavor Groups, Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z
Resonance, CERN-PH-EP/2005-041, SLAC-R-774: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0509008

[41] “Hammer and Meißner et. Al”., Updated dispersion-theoretical analysis of the nucleon
electromagnetic form factors, Eur. Phys.J. A20 (2004) 469-473:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312081

[42] “Hammer et. Al”, Nucleon Form Factors in Dispersion Theory, invited talk at the Symposium
"20 Years of Physics at the Mainz Microtron MAMI", October 20-22, 2005, Mainz, Germany,
HISKP-TH-05/25: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602121

[43] Spectrum of the Hydrogen Atom, University of Tel Aviv.


http://www.tau.ac.il/~phchlab/experiments/hydrogen/balmer.htm

[44] The ZEUS Collaboration, Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and finite
quark radius in ep collisions at HERA, Phys. Lett. B591 (2004) 23-41:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0401009

[45] “James William Rohlf”, Modern Physics from α to Z, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1994.

[46] “J. F. Douglas”, Solving Problems in Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 2, Third Edition, Longman
Scientific & Technical, ISBN 0-470-20776-0 (USA only), 1986.

20
APPEDIX A

1
T Ω ( r, M ) (A1)
ω Ω ( r, M )

Illustrational (only) wavefunction “ψ” [Eq. (A2)] based on Proton harmonics,


ψ St ω , t sin St ω .2 .π .ω Ω r π , m p .t (A2)

1.
T Ω r π ,m p
2

ψ( 1, t)

ψ( 2, t)

ψ( 4, t) 29 28 28 28 28 28 28
0 5 .10 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 3.5 .10
ψ( 6, t)

t
Proton, Neutron
Electron, Electron Neutrino
L2, v2
L3, v3

Figure A1,
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p
16

ψ( 8, t)

ψ ( 10 , t )

ψ ( 12 , t ) 30 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
0 5 .10 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 3.5 .10 4 .10 4.5 .10
ψ ( 14 , t )

t
Muon, Muon Neutrino
L5, v5
Tau, Tau Neutrino
Up and Down Quark

Figure A2,

21
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p
56

ψ ( 28 , t )

ψ ( 42 , t )

ψ ( 56 , t ) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29
0 1 .10 2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 8 .10 9 .10 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10
ψ ( 70 , t )

t
Strange Quark
Charm Quark
Bottom Quark
QB5

Figure A3,
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p
168

ψ ( 84 , t )

ψ ( 98 , t )

ψ ( 112 , t )
31 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 5 .10 1 .10 1.5 .10 2 .10 2.5 .10 3 .10 3.5 .10 4 .10 4.5 .10
ψ ( 126 , t )

ψ ( 140 , t )

t
QB6
W Boson
Z Boson
Higgs Boson
Top Quark

Figure A4,

22
APPEDIX B
Graviton mass-energy, [14]
mgg = 2mγγ (B1)
Photon mass-energy, [14]
3 2
h . π .r e 512.G.m e n Ω r e, m e
m γγ . . (B2)
re
3 2 .c .G.m e c .π
2
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e γ
2

Photon RMS charge radius – 1st representation, [14]


5
2
m γγ
r γγ r e . (B3)
2
m e .c

Photon RMS charge radius – 2nd representation (in terms of the Planck scale), [17]

G.h . r µ
r γγ K ω . (B4)
c
3 rτ
Graviton RMS charge radius, [14]
5
r gg 4 .r γγ (B5)

Fine structure constant – 2nd representation, [15]



rε rτ
α .e (B6)

Neutron charge distribution, [18]
2 2
r r
2. KS rν 1. x .r ν
ρ ch ( r ) . e e (B7)
3 3 5. 2
3
x
π .r ν x 1
Neutron Magnetic radius, [18]
Given
r dr

r ν . ρ ch r νM ρ ch ( r ) d r (B8)

r νM Find r νM

Proton Electric radius, [18]


Given
r dr
r ν . ρ ch r πE ρ ch ( r ) d r (B9)

r πE Find r πE

23
Proton Magnetic radius, [18]
Given

r ν . ρ ch r πM ρ ch ( r ) d r (B10)
r dr

r πM Find r πM

Classical RMS charge radius of the Proton by the EGM method, [18]
1.
r P r πE r νM rν (B11)
2

1st term of the Balmer series by the EGM method, [18]


λ PV 1 , K ω .r Bohr , m p
λA (B12)
2 .n Ω K ω .r Bohr , m p
EGM wavelength, [8]
c
λ PV n PV, r , M (B13)
ω PV n PV, r , M
Bohr radius, [43]
2
ε 0 .h
r Bohr (B14)
2
π .m e .Q e

24
APPEDIX C

Illustration examples of Dimensional Analysis Techniques and Buckingham “Π” Theory


(for unfamiliar readers) have been taken from [46] and shown below,

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32