Mu/Ru does not have to be limited to the visible universe, but is accessible through observational data.

Effectively.

c happens to be the escape velocity of an electron and positron pair within complex configuration Y-space as they acquire their invariant rest mass and invariant unit charges as they decouple from a destabilizing photon of energy 1.022 MeV or more.

Put in perspective in this recently published paper:

Article From E=mc2 in normal space to E=m0cIcK in the complex config...

André Michaud : "c happens to be the escape velocity of an electron and positron pair"

I am quite happy about your statement in view of some previous suggestions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_gravitational_potential_responsible_for_both_the_mass-energy_equivalence_and_the_electromagnetic_properties_of_space

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_E_mc2_the_potential_energy_of_a_mass_m_at_the_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_universal_gravitational_potential_determine_the_dimension_of_elementary_particles

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

Thanks for linking your paper that I'll read with interest and as a non-theorist try to understand ...

We are certainly not at the Centre of the Universe. We are not at the Centre of the Milky Way either. Moreover, we are not even at the Centre of the Earth or the Centre of the Sun. In Galileo's times, the Universe, as in Ancient Greece, was considered simply as a three-dimensional volume in which the stars, the Sun with planets, and the Moon were located on a stationary celestial sphere. Galileo worked with this model. His calculations are related to a three-dimensional flat (Euclidean) space. Galileo calculated the acceleration of free fall for bodies falling down onto the Earth. He showed that all bodies fall onto the surface of the Earth with the same acceleration of free fall, g. The condition c^2 = 2GM/R refers to the Schwarzschild metric, which describes the gravitational field of a spherical body in an empty space-time. This means that when the above condition is satisfied, the proper time for the observer stops (gravitational collapse takes place), and the energy of the gravitating body becomes maximum. But all this has nothing to do with the escape velocity. Escaping from the Earth, we remain in the gravitational field of the Sun, but not the Universe. And the Schwarzschild sphere can be simultaneously considered as 1) a place where time stops for the observer; 2) a place of maximum concentration of the gravitational field. It is quite possible that it is the energy of the collapsars that makes up the gravitational energy of the Universe. It is also the energy of the Universe, which, together with rotation, moves our Universe.

André Michaud : "So it could henceforth be strongly asserted that the electron mass is effectively electromagnetic in nature."

I take this from below Fig.1 of your recent paper. Shouldn't this statement apply to other elementary particles as well? In my proton model, see reference beow, I started from the idea that energy can occur either in propagating, i.e. electromagnetic, or in localized form, i.e. as equivalent rest mass, which is accounted for by setting ℏω = mc2. If the proton model leads to realistic values for radius and magnetic moment, I regard this as a kind of confirmation of the above idea.

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

Johan K. Fremerey

Dear Johan,

You wrote: "I take this from below Fig.1 of your recent paper. Shouldn't this statement apply to other elementary particles as well?"

Of course. This is what this paper either explains directly, or refers to the previous papers that explains this for the other elementary particles of which all atoms are made.

You wrote: " I started from the idea that energy can occur either in propagating, i.e. electromagnetic, or in localized form, i.e. as equivalent rest mass,"

Yes. This is what has been observed and experimentally confirmed.

You wrote: " which is accounted for by setting ℏω = mc2."

Note that from the formal record, the dimension of mc2 is "joules", which is symbolized by E. This already is a continuous quantum of electromagnetic energy "substance" stabilized in the configuration spaces as the rest mass of the electron, as analyzed in this article, and in all previous articles of the project.

You wrote: " If the proton model leads to realistic values for radius and magnetic moment, I regard this as a kind of confirmation of the above idea."

Actually, as mentioned in the article, with reference to the experimental data that confirm it from the SLAC experiments of the 1960's the proton proper is not an elementary particle as such, but a "system of elementary particles", each of which is actually an elementary particle, each directly made of a continuous quantum of electromagnetic energy "substance" stabilized as each their local rest masses.

If interested, further on in this paper, reference is given to the former paper published in an engineering journal in 2013 that explains, from the trispatial geometry perspective, how protons and neutrons come into being:

Article The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3- Spaces Model

Overall, your conclusion that all elementary particles – really elementary particles, i. e. those directly made of continuous amounts of the electromagnetic energy "substance" – is correct, and confirmed by all experimental data collected to date.

This should be formally confirmed in the coming years, even for the charged and massive subcomponents of protons and neutron in the new Electron Ion Collider (EIC) that should enter service in the coming years. Reference to the published project are given on page 539 of the recently published paper.

The Electron-Ion Collider. Brookhaven National Laboratory.

https://www.bnl.gov/eic/

Burkert, V.D. (2022) Precision Studies of QCD in the Low Energy Domain of the EIC. arXiv:2211.15746v1 [nucl-ex] 28 Nov 2022.

Preprint Precision Studies of QCD in the Low Energy Domain of the EIC

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Dear André,

thanks a lot for your kind and inspiring comments. I didn't get clear about where the escape velocity comes in, would you kindly explain?

Regards, Jan

Johan K. Fremerey

Dear Johan

You ask: " I didn't get clear about where the escape velocity comes in, would you kindly explain?"

The escape velocity c at which the electron-positron pair actually separate from the energy quantum of a 1.022 MeV destabilized photon is reached at the same moment when both particles reach the exact amount of energy of 0.511 MeV on their final circular decoupling orbit, which are the electromagnetic energy "substance" quanta that will constitute their actual stable rest masses within configuration electrostatic Y-space.

The complete mechanics of the whole process is explained in this article published in an engineering journal in 2013:

Article The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model

Their LC and EB-fields equations are also provided in this paper.

If interested in other articles of the trispatial geometry project, the model is now completely described, and all articles, all formally published and in open access, are available from this index:

Article INDEX -Electromagnetic Mechanics (The 3-Spaces Model)

If you have any other specific question about these developments, I will try to answer them.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud : "when both particles reach the exact amount of energy of 0.511 MeV on their final circular decoupling orbit"

Dear André,

I like this as it apparently comes close to the idea of a propagation-(ℏω)-to-localization-(mc2)-transition that I tried to explain by the mechanical analogue of a spinning cylinder in my cited proton model. I just wonder if it is purely accidental that the potential level of the transition happens to coincide with the cumulative gravitational potential c2 = 2GMu/Ru of all masses within the visible universe.

Johan K. Fremerey

Dear Johan

Effectively, we seem to have been drawing conclusions along converging lines.

About the gravitational potential of all masses in the visible universe, I have not explored very far in this direction, so I have no real opinion about this.

Over the course of my project, I limited my analyses to the converging conclusions that were drawn and could be further drawn about the inner electromagnetic structures and interactions of truly elementary particles at the subatomic level from the converging data gathered over time, including the data that I collected myself with my 1998 experiment.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud : "when both particles reach the exact amount of energy of 0.511 MeV on their final circular decoupling orbit"

When looking the other way round, a localized mass m may escape from the "material" world only after transition into the state of radiation, ie at the "escape" speed of light.

I apologize for trying to approach physical phenomena in a rather intuitive manner. This is mainly due to my poor background in theoretical physics. I very much appreciate your skills in theoretical physics, in particular, in the realm of elementary particles.

After having been involved with the realization of an experiment proposed by James C. Keith, see references below, I rather tend to think about local effects due to interaction with distant masses of the universe. Keith on the basis of relativistic theories in fact predicted a measurable (!) deceleration of high speed rotors due to retarded gravitational interaction with large external masses via the long-range gravitational potential in support of Ernst Mach's old idea from the late 1800s, see page 11 of Keith's paper. I wonder if you might possibly have access to Keith's theoretical perception.

Article Significant Deviation of Rotational Decay from Theory at a R...

Research A second look at experimental data suggesting gravity speed ...

Johan K. Fremerey

Dear Johan

You wrote: "When looking the other way round, a localized mass m may escape from the "material" world only after transition into the state of radiation, ie at the "escape" speed of light"

No need to apologize for anything really. All angles need to be explored.

Note that in the case of mass reconverting to photon state moving at c, this was experimentally observed and proven only for electron-positron pairs as in positronium decay or direct head-on collision, as in the FERMILAB photograph provided as Figure 1 of my last paper.

I know about your experiments. I even put your 1973 paper in reference in one of my previous articles:

Article Gravitation, Quantum Mechanics and the Least Action Electrom...

Best Regards, André

Escape to where?

If we accept the theory of general relativity, c is merely the speed of causality. At c time stops (in the direction of c) and space shrinks to nothing in front since nothing can outrun you, and an infinite empty void opens behind from which nothing can catch up.

So it is an escape, is sense, to a universe of two sideways dimensions, but only for things made of energy.

Matter cannot reach c. The way I try to understand that is that, in a sense, we are a whirlpool of energy. A whirlpool has to go forward and backward, so can never travel only forward at the speed of causality since it needs to take a time to go backwards as well.

Could we be traveling in other dimensions/directions at c right now? Well, the only way to tell would be by getting annihilated without warning like a hapless photon hitting the nose of my teddy bear. We do not see such phenomena in our observations, so probably not…

As for the center of the universe, any arbitrary point can be designated the center just as any point can be designated the center of the surface of a sphere. Granted, having a complex geometry rotating the universe around the nose of my teddy bear would be challenging.

The total universe is a tricky bit. One could posit endless new dimensions into which expansion occurs, but that does not really help. In the end the final dimension would have to be some sort of curves space. Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a physical one. We put it in places where our theories break down.

André Michaud

Dear André,

thanks for linking your article. The suggestions for possible causes of the Pioneer anomalies on page 14 of the NASA presentation you cite are quite interesting. I do not believe that the Keith effect is related to the Pioneer anomaly. This is because the Keith experiment runs at extremely high radial accelerations of the order 108 m/s2, and the deceleration predicted by Keth refers to a gravitational interaction of the orbiting atomic nuclei with distant masses of the universe, both features that do not apply to the Pioneer probes.

Keith's experiment is unique as it deals with gravitational interaction of accelerating masses with large external masses and thereby seems to confirm Mach's Principle.

Kind regards, Jan

Here is my attempt to answer your ORIGINAL question: While it is tempting to interpret "c" in the equation that you quote as some kind of escape velocity, it takes a General Relativistic result and then interprets it as if Galilean/Newtonian physics (Tkin = 1/2 m v^2) were applicable.

Instead, one has to clarify what you mean by "escape" and hence "escape velocity". Assuming a particle moving with c (the speed of light) away from you (in other words, a photon since no particle with mass can reach c), it will travel throughout the visible Universe at the rate of one light year per year. If the Universe were static, this means it could never escape the visible Universe, since for each year that passes, another light-year of Universe would become visible to us even if it wasn't before.

The story becomes much more complicated if you take into account that the Universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is actually speeding up with time. As a consequence, even parts of the Universe that are visible to us NOW will eventually become invisible (cross the "event horizon"), so the traveling photon could eventually reach the (now) invisible part of the Universe - many billion years in the future. This is sometimes referred to as "the big rip". In fact, it doesn't even require a particle to move with c to eventually reach a part of the Universe that is no longer visible from Earth.

Sebastian Erich Kuhn : "in other words, a photon since no particle with mass can reach c"

That's it, as already stated above: "a localized mass m may escape from the "material" world only after transition into the state of radiation, ie at the "escape" speed of light."

You wrote: "If the Universe were static, this means it could never escape the visible Universe,"

This in fact is to be expected from a black hole, when Ru = 2Mu/c2 is the Schwarzschild radius of the visible universe (subscript u).

Zoltan Vilagosh

Dear Zoltan,

You ask: "Escape to where?"

To escape on the xy plane of the complex configuration Y-space.

To develop a mental image of this, there is need to be familiar with the quaternion 3D geometry, as expanded into 3 mutually orthogonal spaces, normal X-space and complex Y and Z spaces.

Explained in this recently published article:

Article Evolution From the Complex Plane to the Quaternion Coordinat...

The decoupling of an electron-positron pair within Y-space is summarily presented in this other recently published article:

Article From E=mc2 in normal space to E=m0cIcK in the complex config...

and completely analyzed in this previous article published in 2013:

Article The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model

The speed of light is the escape velocity, but not from the observable Universe, but from the range of our perception of the surrounding world. The material body of a physical observer can be abstractly described as an object moving in the three-dimensional space at sublight speeds. Light is perceived by him as a radiation field of photons propagating at the speed of c. The physical body of a material observer cannot follow the light, but his consciousness can instantly record various natural phenomena, both natural and the results of experiments. Rapid changes in the situation on the planet, following one after another at an increasing pace, require people to also react quickly. It follows that the most reasonable way out of this situation is to recognize what is happening as new challenges from the Universe. Life on the planet is subject to many cosmic cycles and is quite stable in the middle of the cycle. But during the period of global changes on the planet, caused by its motion in a section of its galactic orbit less favorable for people, it is necessary to understand and accept the new conditions of Space.

Specifically, it is necessary: ​​1) to accept the inevitability of changing the conditions of the Earth's flight in the Galaxy; 2) to pay attention to experiments and observational results that go beyond the generally accepted framework; 3) seek explanations for the new realities of our world on the path of further expansion of consciousness. In the first half of the 20th century, scientists did a lot to expand people's consciousness, in particular, they brought their consciousness out of the captivity of the three-dimensional perception of space in time. The dissemination of information at the speed of light no longer surprises anyone, but the possibility of instantaneous interaction greatly shocks scientists to the point of completely denying the very possibility of long-range action. The collapse of a body is considered as the maximum compression of matter, and not as a stop of the observer's own time, caused by the fact that in this area the body's own time has turned into its gravitational energy. (Here we are talking about the standard Schwarzschild metric.) All this follows from the General Theory of Relativity, which is given for the further development of human consciousness, and not as something created forever and not subject to expansion of the area of ​​its application.

Larissa Borissova

That's right.

I attempted to articulate this notion here :

Preprint Some thoughts on the Edge of the Universe, and Mankind

Gary Stephens

I have read your preprint. You are absolutely correct with your consideration of reference frames and the perception of light signals.

The above should have been the results of the Einstein addition of velocities formula : the C-> and c-> being the speeds (plural) of the aft-light rays on the embankment and the carriage, respectively.

On the right are the speeds (plural) of the fore light-rays on the embankment and the carriage, respectively.

This latter formula is not given in Einstein's paper.

Of course when looked upon like this-- the idea that the speed of light is fixed is shown to be "proviso" or "on condition that" we are in the "stationary frame". Going between frames, the speed of light is (transparently shown above) not fixed.

Cf. Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

If the C (left formula) and C (right formula) are the speeds of the aft and fore light rays, respectively, as seen from the perspective of the embankment (according to the Einstein addition of velocities formula) :

Then why does Einstein use c + v and c - v for these same speeds in the Einstein AE train embankment experiment? where he (supposedly) obtains the "important" result of the Relativity of Simultaneity?

Cf.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_misspeak_in_Einsteins_train_and_embankment_thought_experiment_as_described_by_Einstein_in_the_1952_edition_of_his_book

Preprint Demonstration via the Einstein Addition of Velocities formul...

According to Einstein (and his velocity addition formula) the speed of light for the man on the embankment is not "c+v" but different from "c+v," given by C above.

This is kept quiet about, mind, because when one realises the speed of light is not, in all circumstances, "fixed" --- it is then a short step to realise it is the light that alters, --- not space and time.

This is why the above relation (according to Einstein,-- confirmed in the experiment of Fizeau) is never mentioned in any text book on Special Relativity.

Why is the above equation never-ever listed in any text book on Special Relativity?

Can anyone find it in any text-book?

Preprint Demonstration via the Einstein Addition of Velocities formul...

Preprint Demonstration via the Einstein Addition of Velocities formul...

We now know, of course, both Relativity theories are flat wrong because there is no new time concept.

It has been proved by the tilting-mirror example-- and other demonstrations of other authors (notably Kılıç, for example) that the "Relativity of Simultaneity"-- the basis of the two theories is a logical impossibility.

This has now also been confirmed by the C = c result of the Einstein vel. addition formula, in which the rays in both frames have the same speed, and so traverse, the same distance, and end up at their destinations simultaneously (which turns out to be the same destination, through the logic of Relative Motion). ie. there is no dislocated simultaneity-- no "Relativity of Simultaneity".

This is further confirmed by the light rays lagging or hastening (according the the Einstein vel. addition formula) when going between frames relative to (c + v ) or (-c + v) , these latter relations are used to get the Relativity of Simultaneity-- in error. They do not describe how light move, in going between frames.