Vernon Brown

3262 Last modified December 13, 2012

According to the theory of relativity and according to observations, adding movement to any massive object makes it more massive. Some portion of the massiveness of any moving object must therefore be due only to movement.

All the components of mass are in a jumble of related motion. Protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, and molecules comprise mass; they all vibrate and orbit and whiz around inside of mass. So rest mass can only be imagined, never really measured, but most scientists assume that there is a fundamental kind of massiveness called rest mass. So, now we have massiveness which is due only to movement, and another fundamental kind of mass called rest mass.

We have a real problem now. How can we tell the difference between movement mass and rest mass? What fundamental thing can we measure so that we can say for sure that this is movement mass and this is rest mass.

We might measure the overall relative movement of a chunk of mass; calculate what mass would be due to that movement; subtract that from the total mass and say what's left is rest mass. But then what about the vibration of the molecules; that's movement. What about the electrons whizzing about protons and such. All those movements can't really be known except, maybe, in a statistical sense. But wait; is this even reasonable? Probably not!

It is not reasonable in nature that there could be two fundamentally different kinds of massiveness. We know for sure that we have mass that is due only to movement. However, we do not know and can never measure, that kind of mass known as rest mass. Maybe it is that all of massiveness is really due only to the movement of some fundamental thing in nature. With that idea we are off the hook. Everything now makes sense. We have only one kind of mass; it is comprised only of the movement of some fundamental thing in nature.

Since the most fundamental thing in nature is the photon, massiveness must be due in some way to photon movement, or more exactly, mass must actually be that which is the photon; changing electromagnetic fields. From photons we know that energy; therefore massiveness; is directly related to the rate of change of the photon's fields. Mass is directly perportional to the rate of change of the photon fields that comprise it. From this idea alone and knowing that photons are quantized we can develop the mass equation: m = hv / c2. Or said more clearly; mass is electromagnetic change.


Everything in nature points to this. The equation that Henri Poincare wrote down in 1900 said it first. Poincare wrote, E = mc2 to show how much acceleration a pulse of light gave to particles of mass and Albert Einstein showed several years later that this equation described the fundamental relationship between all of energy and mass.

Gamma-ray photons of a certain frequency become electrons and positrons when they interfere with each other in just the right way. Scientists in the past thought this happened when the energy of the photons separated virtual electron-positron pairs which existed naturally and invisibly in all of space. They went on to invent a whole set of these invisible, "virtual particles," and worked out rules for how they would react with energy to become visible.

What we know for sure is that gamma-ray photons disappear, and in their place appear electrons and positrons. Just exactly how this happens we can not know, but it seems much more reasonable that the gamma-ray photons become trapped in resonant sphere-shaped orbits. We can make this happen experimentally with longer wave length photons. At UMBC in 1994, scientists described the process and the results. Single photons trapped in high-Q resonant cavities behaved just like fat electrons and exhibited all the properties of massive particles. There is no need to imagine that virtual particles exist. The energy ( photons ) actually become particles without the need for a "virtual" transformation in between.

The process is this: Bending the path of a photon, as demonstrated in the high-Q resonant cavities, creates an electric charge. The electric charge acts as positive feedback causing the photon path to bend more in the same direction. When the bend radius is such that a complete loop forms in one wavelength of the photon, synchronous lockup happens. Resonance adds additional force to the positive feedback, and at one certain frequency, this additional force is just enough to maintain the photon in a stable looping pattern. An electron, or positron is created.

There is an added benefit to the idea that photons comprise the particles. When we accept this obvious truth, the observed relativistic effects on mass in motion becomes natural. Mass is and must obviously be related to the speed of light exactly in accordance with the Lorentz transformations that describe these relativistic effects. Relativity phenomena is a natural thing caused by this relationship. Nature could not possibly be otherwise. The phenomena of relativity is demanded by this postulate. No other fundamental construct of mass demands and depends completely upon the fact that relativity is a real and fundamental part of nature.

Atomic destruction of colliding protons and neutrons sometimes produce distinctive patterns showing that three jets of matter explode out of the particles. That is a clue that protons might be composed of three photon shells. Hadron spectra also show this three-thing structure of protons. A shell structure similar to that proposed by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert Hofstadter of Stanford University accounts for the observed spectra.

Square-of-the-shells rule.

Since energy and mass equate in accordance with Einstein's famous equation, we can calculate the size of any one-photon shell. Each shell circumference must be the wave length of a photon whose energy is equal to the mass of the particle. The equation must then be, circumference = h / mc because this relationship between wave length, Planck's constant, mass, and the speed of light is well known and tested. The diameter, of course, is circumference divided by pi.

The difference between proton mass and neutron mass is about 2.5 electron masses.  We don't know this more exactly because of the difficulty in measuring the mass of the neutron, so this difference could actually be about 2.549920405 electron masses.

This would then be the mass of the outside shell of the neutron. Calculated with the equation given above, the diameter of this outer shell, and thus the diameter of a neutron would be 3.0317 x 10-11 centimeters.

Square the above 2.549920405 and the result is 6.50209 which would be the mass of the outside shell of the proton. Proton diameter then calculates to be 1.1889 x 10-11 centimeters.

Square the above 6.50210 and the result is 42.27734 electron masses. This would be the mass of the in-between shell of the proton, which calculates to be 1.8285 x 10-12 centimeters.

Square the above 42.27723 and the result is 1787.36 electron masses. This would be the mass of the inside shell of the proton, which is 4.3252 x 10-14 centimeters.

Add the masses of the inside three shells and the result is 1836.15, the proton's measured mass. Add the mass of the neutron's outer shell to that, and the result is 1838.70, the neutron's measured mass.

Merging a proton and neutron together, there is at first a repelling force as the two like-charge positive shells pass through each other. Two points of maximum electric and magnetic amplitude spin around the circumference of the shells at the speed of light. The two inside shells three and four pass through the outside proton shells 2 and face off against each other. The two inside shells of each find equilibrium between their negative outer shells and the negative inside of the proton's positive outer shell.