In my view, the force (or rather transition amplitude) visualized and calculated by exchange of virtual photons, is mostly a very useful and visual way to organize and interprete calculations.

Nevertheless, the resulting electromagnetic forces are certainly very real! Apart from gravity, essentially everything in mechanics and chemistry and biology and everyday life  originate from electromagnetic forces (often used in a quantum mechanical context).

Note that there are three types of virtual photons; one type may be said to be the cause of the very important Coulomb force. But only two types of "real" photons may propagate freely (or at least over very long distances), making up electromagnetic waves or radiation. But what we consider "Coulomb type" photons and "radiation type" photons depends on the Lorentz frame. The Coulomb field around a charge at rest may be considered as a collection of "Coulomb photons", but viewed from a very fast moving Lorentz frame this looks like a beam of almost freely moving "radiation photons".

This viewpoint as been employed theoretically through the Weizsacker-Williams method, and I believe experimentally to investigate collisions of very energetic photons with other particles.

Dear Kåre

Interesting mentions, thank you. Let's focus on "Coulomb photons" and opposite charged particles. Fields around two opposite charged particles are made up of same virtual photons?

Dear Hossein,

I suggest that you consider looking at the paper that Tom Kopinski and I have posted here, "The Origins of Classical Matter." In it we show that neutrinos, photons, electrons and positrons (and by extension, all other particles and nuclei) are all products of an underlying process at a finer scale of resolution than these particles. Gravity, magnetism, electricity, strong and weak forces are all united in this simple construct.

Article The Origins of Classical Matter Part I: Neutrinos

 Dear Frank

Thank you for your suggestion. I have read your interesting article. You have propounded a new method, it is outside of my question. According to quantum mechanics, electromagnetic force is carried by virtual photon.

"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

So, how can we explain mechanism of electromagnetic interaction without using the uncertainty principle?

Dear Hossein,

You have asked two questions:

1. How to explain virtual particles, assuming the Quantum Mechanical frame?

2. How to explain electromagnetic interaction without using the uncertainty principle?

Tom Kopinski and I have found it necessary to abandon the Quantum Mechanical frame to explain question number 2. However, we have not abandoned the verified results of QM. The difference, we believe, is the scale of investigation. When effects of a smaller scale are observed at a larger scale, the explanations, of necessity, are abstractions of the action at the smaller scale. When the descriptions are matched at the appropriate scale within which the effects are generated, uncertainty is minimized, if not eliminated.

Dear Frank

Please consider that I do not try to avoid the uncertainty principle. I am trying show that beside of using the uncertainty principle, we should thought beyond of it too.

In your QMU hypothetical, I have not found mathematical relation for forces.

Hossein,

I want to respond to your comment about forces and also to clarify what I meant by the issues of scale.

Starting with the issues of scale: The uncertainty principle is not an exclusive property of QM. Speed and position may not be defined simultaneously. The issue of scale creates a similar related problem to the uncertainty principle, which I will call an ambiguity problem. For example watching an airplane fly one could say that it can fly because it has wings. However, the issue is aerodynamic lift, which is not understandable at the scale of the airplane, it must be analyzed at the scale of the wing where differential pressures due to air flow create unbalanced forces that lift the plane. At the level of particle physics, Tom and I believe that there are similar ambiguities that enter the discussion because we are not yet clear about the differential scales that are involved in the construction of matter at the particle and sub-particle scales. That is a main point of our paper, in that we attempted to clarify those scales.

We felt that it was important to clarify the scales of activity that lead to the production of matter. We purposely avoided moving into the mathematical description of forces for that purpose, as well as the fact that we do not have the background to attack the mathematical relation of forces reliably. For that, we were hoping that others may guide us in establishing those mathematical relations.

So in response to your comment, I would ask you if you have suggestions that we may follow that could produce results that you desire? We would much rather focus upon an answer to your question that is focused upon a data point that would be useful, rather than those questions that we find interesting.

1) Most of particle physics and quantum field theories describe at best a combination of mathematical "bookkeeping devices", quantum mechanics and extensions of QM (like QED), and empirical findings. QED rests on classical electrodynamics/classical EM and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is (generally interpreted as) an irreducibly statistical theory, but describes systems in terms of wavefunctions. In particle physics/QFT, these disappear and we get fields, in no small part because field theory (in the mathematical sense) allows us to resolve the mathematical structures of relativistic classical theories (and really, more generally, special relativity) with that of QM. So not only are we left with the same kind of division between our mathematical descriptions of systems and any actual physical system as with QM, much of what is described or said to exist is "mathematically motivated."

2) Technically, virtual photons can't be detected in any direct way. Indirectly, they're detected all the time through (as you indicate) the interactions of charged "particles" in QED.

Dear Frank Lucatelli:

I must say I'm a little mystified (and intrigued) by your two papers. For one thing, I don't quite understand the underlying motivation for the explanation. That is, granted modern physics was motivated by a combination of empirical results and the desire for a consistent framework within which these could be described and explained, and granted that this process led to the development of the standard model and the "elementary" or "fundamental" particles posited like neutrinos, once one removes most of this framework what is the reason to posit entities/processes/properties/etc. like neutrinos exist?

I realize answering this question comprehensively is difficult if not impossible via a post here. So I was wondering how you incorporate the findings since you co-authored the two-part paper you referred to concerning the Higgs (as documented by the ATLAS runs and reports) and neutrinos (as presented in e.g., the 2012 "Review of Particle Physics" by the Particle Data Group (Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001))? For example, you posit that your QMU is a candidate for the Higgs boson (which is perhaps more accurately termed the Higgs boson of the standard model), yet the consensus is that the Higgs identified at CERN in 2012 is the Higgs of the standard model. Likewise, the past decade and indeed the past few years have seen incredibly important findings in neutrino physics. These aren't dealt with in your two-part paper (and obviously the 2012 discovery of what appears to be the Higgs of the SM couldn't be as it hadn't yet occurred), but I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how you might deal with them.

Thanks!

-Andrew

Dear Frank

"The uncertainty principle is not an exclusive property of QM." I agree with you. It is very difficult to understand quantum mechanics, because the reality of events is not clear. This is because in quantum mechanics, the laws of classical mechanics are generally ignored. It makes use of the principle of uncertainty.

"Speed and position may not be defined simultaneously." I disagree; we need know the speed and position of an electron in the structure of atom.

"I would ask you if you have suggestions that we may follow that could produce results that you desire?" We would thought beyond of standard model and uncertainty principle for know the reason of quantum phenomenon. My suggestion is that we need to combine classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity. And the start point is the reconsidering relativistic Newton's second law.

Dear Andrew

Thank you for your Important mentions.

"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse." Gordon Kane Said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Also, Gordon Kane said; "All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should contain a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the emptiest regions of space. The gravitational effects of this so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the universe long ago or expanded it too much greater size. The Standard Model cannot help us understand this puzzle, called the cosmological constant problem.

The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansions accelerating and that whatever causes the acceleration (dubbed “dark energy”) cannot be Standard Model physics.

There is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.

The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not have the same structure as the other three forces. In expressing these mysteries, when I say the Standard Model cannot explain a given phenomenon, I do not mean that the theory has not yet explained it but might do so one day. The Standard Model is a highly constrained theory, and it cannot ever explain the phenomena listed above."

Kane, G., 2003, the dawn of physics beyond the standard model, Scientific American, vol. 288(6), p.68-75.

As long as you think like the past, you will get the same results that you've already earned, Feynman said.

In my opinion we need thought beyond the standard model. It does not mean we should ignore the present theories; any resolving way should be based on them.

Dear Hossein:

The Scientific American may be one of the better popular science magazines, but it is still that: a popular science magazine. It has never and will never publish an article that aptly describes quantum mechanics, let alone quantum physics and the standard model.

Forgive me for asking, but I am curious as to why you would think that it is possible to combine quantum and classical mechanics as well as whether you meant "general relativity" or "special relativity" when you suggested we "combine classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity." If the former, then this is one of THE unsolved problems in modern physics. If the latter, then it is THE fundamental motivation behind QFT. As for classical physics, it posits the existence of entities that do not exist: there are no waves or particles (not in the classical sense). Quantum mechanics emerged during a period in which physicists thought that physics research was basically finished: Max Planck's advisor suggested he try another field as there was nothing left to discover in physics (and we all know Kelvin's famous remark about the remaining issues). When it turned out the few unresolved issues presented fundamental contradictions with then-modern physics, the founders of quantum mechanics tried desperately to find some way out. Bohr opted for banishing quantum mechanics to the realm of pure mathematics except for measurement, while Einstein spent most of his career trying to demonstrate that QM was fundamentally flawed (his most elegant, sophisticated argument- as presented in EPR- turned out to be correct, but only in that Einstein had attempted to show that QM entails results that he thought impossible which we now know are intrinsic properties of the cosmos).

Various physicists have tried to develop theories that retain the most desired aspects of classical physics but are consistent with empirical findings over the last 100+ years. So far, none have gained even a decent following and all are more subject to criticism than quantum physics.

Were it possible to explain the double-slit experiment via classical mechanics, this would have been done almost a century ago. Since then, things have become even more complicated as former thought experiments have become realized (for example, we haven't created any superposition states of real cats, but we have created superposition states of massive systems composed of hundreds of atoms). The projection postulate has largely been replaced by decoherence, alternative explanations are far more wild (e.g., the relative state interpretation Everett III proposed that DeWitt and Deutsch later revived as the many-world interpretation; Bohmian mechanics is a deterministic theory in which the entire universe is basically one wavefunction or, more accurately, particles are ontological but obey wave mechanics; etc.)

Dear Andrew

You are right about The Scientific American magazine, I agree with you.

It is important that Gordon Kane had said those, not the website or magazine.  Kane focuses on ways to test, extend, and strengthen the very successful Standard Model of Particle Physics in his research. So, I think he know Standard Model well, please correct me if I am wrong.

"QED makes clear that physics offers recipes and descriptions that are sufficiently precise for practical purposes. However, in case of QED the recipe has no proper explanation and shows our lack of understanding of the deep foundations of physical reality. For example QED works with Feynman diagrams and offers a recipe, which describes how to use them. In QED the diagrams concern the movements of electrons and photons during perturbation experiments. QED specifies the recipe, but does not explain why the recipe works. QED gives some indication why the recipe can work, but it is based on assumptions that are not yet proven or in detail explained." Hans van Leunen said. Forgive me that I quoted.

Long years my thought and research (Since 1962), from a new approach, turns out to merge the fundamental principles of quantum physics, relativity and classical mechanics through a new definition of quiescent state of particles like photon, and attempts to present the reasons and the possibilities of the existence of the superluminal speeds. At the beginning of the 20th century, Newton’s second law was corrected considering the limit speed c and the relativistic mass. At that time there has not been a clear understanding of the subatomic particles and basically there was little research in high energy physics, if we ignore the zero rest mass of photon, much better and more real physical phenomena may be investigated. The speed of the created particles is a function of the internal interaction and the mechanism of creation of subatomic particles, and the external forces that are exerted on them.

This look lead me to reconsider the relativistic Newton's second law, and it results was very interesting.

For examples;

According a new definition of singularity, I reviewed Friedmann equation,

Graviton curves space,

Why speed of light is constant in vacuum,

How charged particles produce boson (virtual photon)

I explained the quantum vacuum energy

I do not claim what I am saying is correct or perfect, but I claim it is a new look at physical phenomenon, that need more work.

Hossein and Andrew,

I believe that Hossein is asking the right questions. The ultimate question is not how do we fix quantum mechanics, but rather how do we get closer to understanding the way that physical reality operates? Thomas L. Kopinski and I, in Kalamazoo, MI, have been asking similar questions as Hossein. Our focus has been upon understanding how the physical scale of particles influences the way in which general principles operate. We have found that the same principle, under different conditions and different scales will produce different results. Our focus in our "Origins" paper was upon the smallest recognized classical particles, the neutrino, photon, electron, and positron. However, our attention is upon the entire periodic table and the peripheral unstable forms that surround the stable elements of the periodic table. Our preliminary work has shown us that the structural composition of not only these simplest particles but the structural composition of all nuclei may be potentially modeled, in such a way that reveals previously little-understood properties of matter. For example, the bond angle of water, naturally falls out of our geometric structural approach.

Most importantly, the lack of coordination between QM and Relativity's gravitational implications has been a guiding light in our work. Our "Origins" paper gives preliminary results that show that gravity, magnetism, electricity, the strong and weak forces all may be simply explained within our single model.

Andrew asks why we have not considered current research about the neutrino. It is because current work published about the neutrino is silent about the neutrino's physical structure, which is the focus of our work. As Hossein has said, there is much work yet to be accomplished, and although our findings are promising they are still early findings and the need to provide mathematical relations between forces that Hossein requested is important work yet to be done. Having a model that shows the structural relationships among nuclear and sub-nuclear components makes it possible to begin that work of quantifying the forces involved.

Dear Frank

"We have found that the same principle, under different conditions and different scales will produce different results." Yes, I agree with you. As you know science develop step by step.

Let's focus on real and virtual photons.

Is it outside of scientific method that we thought that if virtual particles are real, but undetectable? In the other word, is it time we thought beyond the uncertainty principle, and accept that virtual particles exist?

Hossein,

This is a conjecture that I have, that may be related to your question regarding virtual particles and the uncertainty principle. The most basic formulation of the uncertainty principle is that one cannot simultaneously know the position and velocity of an object. I interpret that this may be also considered as an expression of energy vs. position. Position is determined by geometry. Mainstream physics chose the energy path to knowledge about fundamental particles as an exclusive approach. The philosophy behind it, and it is an understandable set of assumptions, is that since energy and geometry cannot be simultaneously known, by focusing on one or the other we can know for certain what exists in terms of that particular choice; energy or geometry. The mistake that this philosophy encounters, is that at some point the abandonment of consideration of the other side of the uncertainty principle, leaves one with unresolvable problems, because the answers to the paradoxes we encounter, are likely to be easily resolvable with the opposite approach. I believe that a parallel approach to the fundamentals of physics from a geometrical perspective will resolve many, if not most, of these paradoxes. After all, matter fills space through its geometric extensions. I suspect that those particles that are referred to as "virtual particles" are likely to be, in many cases, simply the properties of geometry as particles assemble themselves into more complex configurations, ultimately producing the periodic table. Since we are not looking at the geometry of particle construction, the effects of geometry seem to "magically" appear as virtual energies.

Dear Frank Lucatelli:

I have some questions/comments regarding your response.

1) "The ultimate question is not how do we fix quantum mechanics, but rather how do we get closer to understanding the way that physical reality operates?"

I absolutely agree that the ultimate questions in modern physics are ontological and/or related to the nature of physics and reality, but I don't see any need to "fix" quantum mechanics. Not just because it isn't broken, but because it is perhaps the most successful physical theory of all time.

2) "Our focus in our "Origins" paper was upon the smallest recognized classical particles, the neutrino, photon, electron, and positron."

First, elementary/fundamental particles come in six classes or categories (one being hypothesized particles, the others being gauge/higgs bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons), and neutrinos aren't among them. Second, there are many different types of neutrinos. and even these categories are redundant. Third, none of the particles you list are classical particles. Classical particles are point-like with defined trajectories and do not exist. Classical particles cannot exhibit self-interference the way a single electron can or form diffraction patterns when sent at the double-slit screen as electrons do. Photons more or less marked the end of classical physics, in which light didn't come in discrete packets. As for neutrinos, not only do they fit nowhere in classical physics they weren't even detected until the 1950s.

3) "Our preliminary work has shown us that the structural composition of not only these simplest particles but the structural composition of all nuclei may be potentially modeled, in such a way that reveals previously little-understood properties of matter."

This was why I asked the questions I did. I can propose a structural composition that can explain all reality; indeed, I can develop several. The problem is making up results that have no empirical basis and conflict with known empirical results while proposing to explain the "particles" discovered via these results (and the theories that have proved successful in explaining their dynamics, allowing modern technology and the modern world, etc.) seems interesting but of questionable value at best. I knew an individual who struggled with the idea of quantum "entities" and couldn't really conceptualize why, in modern realizations of the two-slit experiment in which we can watch electrons being detected one at a time after passing through the two-slit "screen", it is not possible to explain the diffraction pattern if the electrons were localized and had defined trajectories. However, my friend wasn't a physicist. His proposals about the nature of electrons were based mostly on an extremely limited understanding of rather basic physics and a seeming need to explain the results of quantum physics in a way that made sense. This is different from a scientist authoring a paper on the fundamental structures of the cosmos that borrows haphazardly from modern physics, but rejects both the empirical and theoretical reasons that anybody would ask about neutrinos, positrons, etc., along with what we know of them.

4) "Andrew asks why we have not considered current research about the neutrino. It is because current work published about the neutrino is silent about the neutrino's physical structure."

It isn't. See e.g., the sub-sections "Neutrino properties" and "Neutrino types" under the section "Lepton Particle Listings" in the Particle Data Group's 2012 "Review of Particle Physics (Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001). Also, I asked about the Higgs Boson discovery, because your paper posits certain things about the Higgs which can now be compared to the nearly 3 years of analysis since the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

Dear Andrew

"... but because it is perhaps the most successful physical theory of all time.". Sure, I agree with. But consider that it does not mean that modern physics is the end of physical theories.

Hossein,

Yes, every current accepted theory is the best that we've ever had in recorded history.

Such is the nature of scientific progress.

dear Hossein

a question I ask to myself is similar, and I'm thinking that the same argument can also be applied to other entities, for example: is not the electromagnetic field also an artifact that we must postulate in order to account for a "Newly and not well defined" energy container which stores the energy that disappears "here and now" and that will reappear (tha energy) "there and at another time" (the energy flow that we interpret as the Poynting element is really conceptually viewable as an HydroDynamic flow?... although the em wave or photon [as you want] has nothing that could be interpreted conceptually as the cfr. Landau)? So I would say that the electromagnetic field is (also) a conceptual artifice that serves to "square the circle", but after 2 quantization you can observe that it is constituted by photons: an electromagnetic field when viewed as a set of quantum-mechanical oscillators among the (reciprocal variables on) field E and B is constituted of quanta of energy called photons. So the photons are the constituents of something which we are not sure of the (deep) existence ... they also are not so "real" as they appear....

no mass, no position... energy in flow?

Why then dwell so much on the virtual ones? They are a mathematical trick not so different from the same that are another trick, or do we think that our human concepts are in full "overlapping" (in the casting sense) on the natural reality?

We need virtual photons coz if we go in the deep analyzing further details we have to account their existence in order to mantain all the old and established phy:

can u say why in the moller scattering at a certain time (between 2 entities; and although both unaware of each other)  there is an exchange of energy? in the form of.... a Photon? the same story could be: Bob living in Rome knows nothing about  Alice, living in Teheran, but he from Rome sends a Love letter to her? From a different view we can think at the "bosons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson) also in an "Informative Perspective" responsible of make all the rest of the universe aware that "HERE" there happened a change in the (inertialStatus---or GR speaking : geodesical status)

Aether particles.

Andrew,

I will attempt to address your questions with my responses interleaved in bold italics within your recent message in order to preserve the context of our correspondence:

Dear Frank Lucatelli:

I have some questions/comments regarding your response.

1) "The ultimate question is not how do we fix quantum mechanics, but rather how do we get closer to understanding the way that physical reality operates?"

I absolutely agree that the ultimate questions in modern physics are ontological and/or related to the nature of physics and reality, but I don't see any need to "fix" quantum mechanics. Not just because it isn't broken, but because it is perhaps the most successful physical theory of all time.

The choice of the word “fix” may have been ill-considered, maybe “augment incomplete” would have been a better choice. However, fussing over word choices in these informal correspondences seems to miss the point, which is that all scientific inquiry is an attempt to improve upon what is currently known, whether or not the improvement is a correction, expansion of understanding or a new perspective of an old viewpoint.

2) "Our focus in our "Origins" paper was upon the smallest recognized classical particles, the neutrino, photon, electron, and positron."

First, elementary/fundamental particles come in six classes or categories (one being hypothesized particles, the others being gauge/higgs bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons), and neutrinos aren't among them. Second, there are many different types of neutrinos. and even these categories are redundant. Third, none of the particles you list are classical particles. Classical particles are point-like with defined trajectories and do not exist. Classical particles cannot exhibit self-interference the way a single electron can or form diffraction patterns when sent at the double-slit screen as electrons do. Photons more or less marked the end of classical physics, in which light didn't come in discrete packets. As for neutrinos, not only do they fit nowhere in classical physics they weren't even detected until the 1950s.

It is my opinion that there are aspects of quantum mechanics that seem ad-hoc to me and that some of the “blessed truths” may be mathematical relations that bear no direct similarity to the natural way in which matter organizes itself. For example, I have been able to model nuclei geometrically, in such a way that long-known properties of chemicals match with the geometric forms that have evolved from the simple geometric system of organization that I have used. “Point particles” are such an example of mathematical constructs that fly in the face of natural forms. “Point particle” is an oxymoron, as a point cannot be a particle and a particle cannot be a point, other than for the convenience of mathematical simplicity and for separating the scales of widely diverse sizes of particles.

Neutrinos do fit within the evolution of geometric form for sub-nuclear particles, regardless of their recent discovery. Their late arrival has more to do with their infinitesimal size than does their importance in the evolution of matter. Also, whether quarks exist or not remains an unanswered question, and for my purposes, they have been completely unnecessary for the articulation of nuclear form from a geometric analysis. Further, the double-slit experiment does make sense in our model.

3) "Our preliminary work has shown us that the structural composition of not only these simplest particles but the structural composition of all nuclei may be potentially modeled, in such a way that reveals previously little-understood properties of matter."

This was why I asked the questions I did. I can propose a structural composition that can explain all reality; indeed, I can develop several. The problem is making up results that have no empirical basis and conflict with known empirical results while proposing to explain the "particles" discovered via these results (and the theories that have proved successful in explaining their dynamics, allowing modern technology and the modern world, etc.) seems interesting but of questionable value at best. I knew an individual who struggled with the idea of quantum "entities" and couldn't really conceptualize why, in modern realizations of the two-slit experiment in which we can watch electrons being detected one at a time after passing through the two-slit "screen", it is not possible to explain the diffraction pattern if the electrons were localized and had defined trajectories. However, my friend wasn't a physicist. His proposals about the nature of electrons were based mostly on an extremely limited understanding of rather basic physics and a seeming need to explain the results of quantum physics in a way that made sense. This is different from a scientist authoring a paper on the fundamental structures of the cosmos that borrows haphazardly from modern physics, but rejects both the empirical and theoretical reasons that anybody would ask about neutrinos, positrons, etc., along with what we know of them.

Science is not a democracy, nor an activity that is governed by authority. It is a quest for knowledge that conforms as best we can find out with our current understanding of the world and reasonable logic. We remain trapped between the biases of the past and the mysteries of the future.

Your question belies a misunderstanding of the nature of a-priori logic in relation to empirical discovery. A-priori logic requires that one carefully choose axioms that are widely understood to be beyond question as to their truth value. However, the axioms may be shown to be invalid through further research, but this is no different than empirical results being superseded by later experiments. Your statement, “The problem is making up results that have no empirical basis and conflict with known empirical results” is a mistatement of a-priori logic. One begins with the best foundational axioms that can be mustered and then based upon those axioms let relational logic lead one to results that are the necessary conclusions of the given axioms. A successful application of such a process is not, in my opinion, of “questionable value” but of essential importance in balancing the understanding of empirical studies. Both of these methods, a-priori logic and empiricism, are in desperate need of each other's viewpoint to remain on the straight and narrow. My posted paper: “Using Axioms to Unblock Civilization's Progress,” addresses this issue.

4) "Andrew asks why we have not considered current research about the neutrino. It is because current work published about the neutrino is silent about the neutrino's physical structure."

It isn't. See e.g., the sub-sections "Neutrino properties" and "Neutrino types" under the section "Lepton Particle Listings" in the Particle Data Group's 2012 "Review of Particle Physics (Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001). Also, I asked about the Higgs Boson discovery, because your paper posits certain things about the Higgs which can now be compared to the nearly 3 years of analysis since the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

The QMU (Quantum Momentum Unit) in our “Origins” paper was purposely given a unique name to separate it from the literature regarding the Higgs boson. We are merely suggesting that our description of the QMU is at the same scale of others work in the area of the Higgs boson. Of course, there will be differences in our descriptions of candidates at this scale. We saw our charge in our paper to present a model for the QMU that is consistent with the overall model presented in the paper. Our work is not empirical, but an exploration of the consequences or our a-priori assumptions. If you examine our assumptions you will find them to be of such a basic nature that there is little in them to argue about.

Dear Fulcoli

What is electromagnetic energy really? There are many explanations and mathematical equation about electromagnetic energy in physics. Also, concept of photon has an interesting history. Photon refers to photo-electric effect that is explained by Einstein. Einstein wrote in 1951:

“All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering  the question, What are light quanta?” 

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0602036v2.pdf

 Beside of duality concept,  in addition to carrying energy, light transports momentum and is capable of exerting mechanical forces on objects. About mass of photon; While the concept of the massless photon is an assumption, physicists have not stopped on assumption of massless. There are more attempts made to clarify the massless photon in theoretical and experimental physics. There are good theoretical reasons to believe that the photon mass should be exactly zero, there is no experimental proof of this belief. These efforts show there is an upper bound on the photon mass, although the amount is very small, but not zero.

So, let's open a new window on the concept of particle mass. There are two kinds of particles in physics;

A. Some particles like the photon move only with the speed of light c, in all inertial reference frames. Let’s call these kinds of particles as Never at Rest condition particles (NRP).

B. Other particles like the electron always move with the speed v