"Particle charge and mass have the same basis in relativistic rotational motion."

While the technical details may be different, I agree with this.

Chian Fan ,

according to my model, the property "charge", as we know and use it, has a wave background, the same as the basic particle mass from the Higgs-field, the Vacuum Expectation Value. The common fundament is gravitation as a by-product of how particles are built.

Imagine a propagating wave in spacetime. Spacetime increases any wave's period length by a very tiny ratio K, per its propagation period.

This causes a forward redshift and a very tiny reflection of energy. Because all periods contemporaneously send back their very tiny ratios of the forwarded energy, in sum, for a sphere oscillator, all its previously propagated energy returns back to its focus, keeping the oscillation running.

Thus, at each point in the oscillator's environment, inflow minus outflow energy is always zero. But if a second oscillator with its own propagation and energy-backflow superposes, then its focus will be displaced a bit towards the other oscillator: gravitation.

The waves of the energy-backflow are influenced by the energy-backflow of the other oscillator, in a way that they deflect them to a focus a very tiny bit aside the current one.

Due to the intrinsic redshift, the wave period's length of the energy arriving at the oscillator's focus has a difference to the oscillator's wave period length of exactly twice the smallest wave period length. This is resonant with the smallest possible wave period length, the Planck length 2ℓₚₗ.

This resonance can generate a dense tile pattern of ℓₚₗ vortices on the surface of the oscillator, i.e. at a radius, which is the very first oscillator's resonance with the focus at all, at VEV=246.21965(6)GeV, the Higgs-field energy.

Allow ħc/(G∙mᵥₑᵥ²)≈2.5∙10³³ such vortices on this VEV-sphere, i.e. the sphere with the radius related to the energy of the vacuum (VEV=246.21965(6)GeV). This VEV-sphere is related to the HIGGS-field, like a basic pattern for all other particles, which then are resonances of this VEV-sphere oscillator.

Then, since all particles with property charge have the same number of vortices on their basic VEV-sphere, each rotating in the same direction, each of them radiating a spiral: there is exactly one single charge strength, for electron, muon, proton, W⁺⁻, etc.

Repelling and attracting is a result of encountering rotating spirals, depending on their mutual rotation direction.

Why is the charge force so big related to gravity? Imagine, each of these vortices is the source of a spiral. Imagine further, two opposite spirals turn counter-wise: they fully match and their mutual energy-backflows attract gravitationally. But there are ≈2.5∙10³³ such vortices on the basic VEV-sphere. This huge amount increases a single gravitational effect dramatically, because each of these spirals' backflow-energy deflects all other energy-backflows contemporaneously.

Additionally, spiraling propagation has a special property, which is related to the factor α (fine-structure constant), which here can be explained very easily:

Since within a spiral, neighboring phases in propagation direction need to have a similar phase angle of their radiation, it is needed to have a near-integer circumference. But 2π is far away from being integer - thus, with 861/(2π)≈137 (plus relativistical correction) this condition is fulfilled.

By-the-way: 861=Σ₁⁴¹, which also is a very interesting mathematical reason for this circumference.

Preprint FineStructureConstant

The problems what are fundamental Nature forces, including Electric Force, what are particles, antiparticles, including electron and positron, what are charges of the Forces, and not only,

- all of which are fundamentally transcendent in mainstream philosophy and science, and so the problems above principally cannot be solved/clarified in mainstream physics

- can be and are , really rigorously scientifically rationally solved or clarified only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, two main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, [ in the paper section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” can be passed since this is more comprehensively given in section 6.“Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” in other paper below],

- and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

The model is based on the SS&VT really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, compact, however essentially informative, introduction in the conception see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception ,

- where [in the conception] fundamentally transcendent in the mainstream fundamental phenomena/notions, including, “Energy” [though only at application n to informational system “Matter” and so in physics] and “Inertia” are rigorously scientifically defined.

Really the thread question was already rather in detail considered in series of SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO47What_is_Force_a_Field_Where_is_the_Force_Field_How_does_it_appear_Is_the_Force_Field_a_Regulating_Effect_of_the_Energy-Momentum_Field

- so more see the links above, here only a note:

Energy, E, and Inertia [in Matter is by Newton definition is measured as “inertial mass” , m] fundamentally are completely universal properties/parameters of everything in Matter, that exist independently on other fundamental parameters, including any charge of any Force, so the equation E=mc2 is fundamentally universal as well;

Including in this thread case – there cannot be any specific “the energy of the charge”. Any charge of any Force, including Electric one, fundamentally cannot have and radiate energy, though in all Forces fields, including in this case , classical and quantum EDs, theories, it is postulated that the charges constantly and always radiate “fields”, and that the fields contain energy, and so, say, in this case “electron has some electromagnetic mass”

- what is fundamentally wrong. More see the links above, SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Classical_unified_field_theory_with_interesting_properties

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Quantum_gravity_nature_and_origin are relevant to this thread question

Cheers

Dear Chian Fan ,

This is a good question.

I dare to say that the presence of electric charge in a particle, for example an electron, does not give it additional energy. The energy of electrostatic interaction arises only when opposite charges are separated from each other or like charges are brought closer. That is, this energy arises precisely when work is done on charges with the help of external forces.

This explanation, I think, does not contradict either the process of electron-positron annihilation, or stability of the hydrogen atom without its transformation into the neutron. Even in the relativistic Dirac equation for electron, one can, with some desire, interpret the trembling of the wave function as a rapid transformation of electron into positron and back. Without any additional energy.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

Thank you very much for bringing up a big concept, which seems to work the same way according to quantum field theory. Electromagnetic fields are particles that carry interactions, and when there is no object to act upon, it looks like electrons are just electron fields, and there are no electromagnetic fields, and therefore no electromagnetic energy left.

However, it is difficult to deny that electromagnetic fields are something that actually exist. What we still need to address is the puzzling problem that the electron has both fields, an electron field that constitutes itself, and an electromagnetic field that is there for the purpose of interaction. The charge seems to exist for the purpose of assisting the electron to interact, yet that interaction is lost again in the fermions in the nucleus and replaced with something else. I don't quite understand it.

Best Regards， Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan ,

I could tell you even more about the electron and its properties. Especially about how the properties of the electron directly stem from the structural (geometric) properties of the space inside the atomic nucleus. And how these properties of the electron are manifested (realized) in the surrounding electromagnetic space. But all this makes no sense within the framework of generally accepted physical concepts. We are not ready to accept any new geometric concepts of discrete physical spaces.

Therefore, I will be happy to participate in your interesting discussions, but I will have to be brief.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

Thank you for taking the topic to a deeper place. I browsed through your list of papers and will take the time to read them carefully if ‘Toward a new physics: the physics of discrete spaces’[1] represents your point of view. Expect me to gain new knowledge and ideas.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

------

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363847410_Toward_a_new_physics_the_physics_of_discrete_spaces

Dear Chian Fan ,

"Toward a new physics" is the first option. Now I know much more. But everything is in pieces and is not ready for publication yet.

I hope that soon I will "put everything on the shelves" and publish it.

Sincerely yours, Duin Mikhail.

Chian Fan

Charge is a physical entity of its own. We cannot assign energy to a charge. But electric and magnetic fields contain an energy density. This energy density is proportional to the field strength squared.

This means that the field energy depends on the spatial distribution of the charge. Even the relative movement of charges has something to do with energy because the strength of the magnetic field depends on moving charges (currents).

I regard a charge as energy along with a spin, and a charge is a definition in physics and chemistry. The answer to the question, "Where does the energy of the charge go?" is to make the field like a gauge field, which must be a tensor, not a vector.

The thread question is rigorously scientifically rationally answered in the SS post on page 1,

Cheers

Dear Dr. Sergey Shevchenko

Thank you for your reply. More than ten years ago, I visited the Uklina embassy in Tokyo, Japan; the purpose was to tell that I could change radioactive caesium to stable barium in the contaminated Fukushima soils with my developed water. But I forgot why I selected the embassy. I was a nuclear physicist, although I retired now.

The electric charge and the mass of the electron are caratheristics of vacuum. When a positron and an electron are annihilated it is like a transformation of vacuum energy to full quantum electromagnetic energy.

Dear Dr. Sunao Sugihara,

- thanks for your interest to Uklina [seems Ukraine], and rather probably your visit to the embassy was since Ukraine has similar to Fukushima soils Chermobyl soils problem, however I as a rule comment only mainstream physics and don’t comment some alternative approaches, as that is in your other post.

So in this case I only say that I also was educated in experimental nuclear physics,

- however that isn’t enough at any attempt to solve/clarify any really fundamental problem. That is fundamentally possible only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,; while really they all can be scientifically defined only together, are really scientifically defined,

- what were/are a couple of thousands of years problems/subjects for study by the philosophy, however in mainstream philosophy and so in nature sciences, including physics, the phenomena are completely transcendent/ uncertain/irrational . Just so, say, really when mainstream physics addresses to some fundamental problem, completely logically inevitably nothing besides some strange transcendent mental constructions appear.

So for me and [also nuclear physicist] VV Tokarevsky it was necessary to be some philosophers, who the definitions problem solved in the “The Information as Absolute” convention, an introduction see in the “response” URL link in SS post on page 1.

The conception is the base of the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, again the links see in the page 1 post.

Including, again, the problem “what are fundamental Nature forces”, what includes problems “what are the Forces charges and fields” , etc., is the really fundamental problem, which, correspondingly, solved in the mainstream only by ad hoc postulating of some assumptions that fit the theories with experiments, principally without any scientific answers – why and how the postulates really correct when are as they are,

- and so in the mainstream the Forces classical fields contain energy, in QFTs the Forces mediators are some transcendent “virtual” particles, etc.

While really, as that is quite rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model above, the at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces act at/in particles interactions as exchanging by real mediators, at that all these Forces act really by the same one scheme, etc.,

For you, as for nuclear physicist, seems professionally would be more interesting than this thread topic, to know what is Nuclear Force, see section 6 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics , last sub- sections after the Gravity and Electric Forces sub-sections.

Cheers

If I misunderstood" the links see in the page 1 post ", it is sorry to say.

However, I only wanted to do it in my published paper (through pure review), so I completed our discussions by citing the papers from 2013 to 2024 here.

1. “Deactivation of Radiation from Radioactive Materials Contaminated in a Nuclear Power Plant Accident.” Water 5: 69-85 (2013).

2. “Model for Transmutation of Elements using Weak Energy of Water Leading to Faster Disintegration of Radionuclides.” Water 10: 82-98 (2018).

3. “Visualization of the Water, Improved Diseases, and Nuclear Changes.” Sci. Set. J of Physics. 2023, pp. 01- 06.

4. “Unified Theory of the Five Forces Adding the Fifth-Force by Pico Hydrogen-Like Particles in the Water,” J Earth and Environmental Sci. Res., 2024Volume 6(5): 1-5

We can continue to ask, if the charge contains energy, what form of energy is it? If it is the same as the electric field energy, then when all the energy of the charge is contained in the electric field outside of it, what should the ‘charge’ itself be? And if not, which implies that the charge contains two types of energy, how is the electric field energy bound to the charge energy?

Dear Chian Fan ,

Here is an interesting analogy with emission of photon.

In order for the photon to be emitted, the electron in the atom must not simply lose energy by moving to a lower level. He must also change the direction of his spin to the opposite. That is, make a rotation through an angle π so that the spin change is equal to a whole unit, like that of photon. Why does this happen exactly like this? Further there will be assumptions, and I, as the author, have the right to this.

This happens because such behavior is required by the discrete structure of the electromagnetic space surrounding the atom. By rotating its spin, the electron provokes the emergence of a ring of electric displacement in the surrounding space, coupled with a ring of magnetic flux, which successively transform into each other as the photon moves. It remains to add that even in this case, the photon could not have arisen if the surrounding space had been somehow different and did not have the structure necessary for the emergence of a photon. This is the main thing.

The same thing happens when an electron (muon, tau lepton) leaves the nucleus of an atom or when an electron-positron pair is formed. It is the discrete structure of space inside the nucleus, together with the corresponding symmetries there, that allows a charged particle to arise simultaneously with the spin and mass necessary for it. The particle arises as a discrete element of the space that generates it. And all because the space inside the nucleus is arranged in such a way that protons and neutrons in the nucleus coexist together, exchanging negative pions during collisions. Which are not only the result of a collision, but also reflect the structure of nuclear space. Namely: a pair of a u-quark and an antiquark arises inside the neutron. The first remains in the neutron and turns it into a proton due to the fact that the second, together with the d-quark, forms a negative pion and is transferred to the proton, turning it into a neutron. A mirror process is also possible with the formation of a positive pion in a proton, but this process is energetically less favorable. Thus, the emergence of a charge in the particle is a consequence of a specific, in some respects mirror structure of space inside the nucleus. But the very fact of the emergence of charges requires their separation in space and, naturally, the work (energy) necessary for this.

Additionally, we note that the three-quark structure of the proton and neutron, as well as their inseparability into individual quarks, are also a consequence of the special structure of nuclear space, as is the "particle-antiparticle" structure for bosons-pions.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Chian Fan "We can continue to ask, if the charge contains energy, what form of energy is it?"

Asking about energy associated to a charge does not make sense as an isolated question. The elementary particle is an entire indivisible object, which must be considered.

Charge, mass, spin, electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields are components of this object. We know some relations between these components but surely not all of them. We unfortunately do not know at all why elementary particles are stable.

Mikhail N Dulin "Here is an interesting analogy with emission of photon."

Yes, we know something about this analogy.

If a charge gets accelerated or if the charge configuration in an atom gets modified, the static electric field around that charge or charge configuration must be adapted to the new configuration.

The field source, the charge, adapts its static field via radiation. The energy for this radiation is taken from the acceleration process or from the process which modifies the charge configuration.

The adaptation of the static field to the new configuration is the only reason and the only impact of the radiation. A photon gets emitted if the new field configuration contains less energy compared to the old configuration. In the case of an accelerated charge, the field source always must provide the kinetic energy needed to accelerate the field with just the acceleration the field source has gotten.

Dear Wolfgang Konle ,

You are right. This is a good explanation. But it is somewhat "one-sided" from my point of view. In this explanation, "the cart is put before the horse." That is, the cause of the emission of photon is a change in the field surrounding the atom, but not the movement of the electron in the atom itself. But I would like it to be the other way around.

And of course, your explanation is purely "classical", not considering the discrete structures involved in the process of photon emission. For a particular case, this explanation turns out to be understandable and sufficient. Until an attempt is made to generalize it to many other cases involving an electron.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

"charge, mass, spin, electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields are components of this object."

That's exactly what I was trying to convey; these properties are inseparable. What we need to answer is not what is separate, but what is the relationship between them; why these properties can be bound together and what kind of model can fully describe them. And, if the electron has this property, then all other fermions should have it too.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

I suggest to take into account the existence of a cosmic field which compensates for the negative energy density of gravitational fields. The energy density of that field is extremely high, because it even must compensate for the energy density of the gravitational field around neutron stars.

The existence of that field provides a significant contribution to the stable configuration of elementary particles. I think that without considering that contribution we have no chance to understand the stability of elementary particles.

The thread question is rigorously scientifically rationally answered in the SS post and links in the post on page 1,

Including in the post and links it is rigorously scientifically rationally it is explained what are “particles”, including what are

“…"charge, mass, spin, electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields are components of this object."…”

- including that this above aren’t some components of some “objects”, that are properties and parameters ultimately just only of particles. Including, say, besides the above particles can have charges of Nuclear/Strong and Weak m Nature forces, and at that, say, fundamentallyby no means can be some “strong force masses”– as fundamentally by no means some “electromagnetic mass” – etc.

Nonetheless in the thread some - and rather vivid – strange posting of rather strange posts, where the authors have some really only transcendent imaginations about what are, first of all “particles”, rather stubbornly continues, what hinders for readers, who really want to understand what is the answer to the thread question .

Cheers

If I set "particle" with a word, the particle is an essential substance, such as the wave may generate, such as seawater. H2O is a particle originally. However, I don't precisely recognize an elementary particle except for electrons and protons in hydrogen atoms (mass is close to neutron). I have addicted to them. The hydrogen atoms form electromagnetic force inside and emit weak energy of THz; then they move the Lamor precession along with the "field" in a space. When they access radioactive substances like cesium 134 or 137 under gravity, they take radiation energy from cesiums, resulting in obtaining kinetic energy and reacting with the caesium nucleus. Finally, the radioactive cesium changed to stable barium, which we developed in Fukushima in 2011. Our articles have been published in Journals (U.S.A., England and India, 2013 through 2024). Those publishments contain other functions and evidence due to the hydrogen atom above. Therefore, hydrogen atoms relate to electromagnetic, weak, strong, gravity and "force field" (S. Sugihara et al. "Unified Theory of the Five Forces Adding the Fifth-Force by Pico Hydrogen-Like Particles in the Water", J. Ear. Environ. Sci. Res, 2024 Volume 6(5): 1-5).

Dear Wolfgang Konle

Physics introduces the existence of a universal variety of vacuum fields, electron fields, quark fields, etc., and by the principle of symmetry it makes sense that there is a universal gravitational field.

However, I personally prefer that the stability of elementary particles is determined by themselves. Introducing a factor from outside may give a temporary explanation, but we will pursue the source of this external factor and the meaning of its existence. For example, the Higgs mechanism explains the mass of elementary particles in terms of an external factor, which leads us to ask how the mass of the Higgs particle itself was obtained. Could it be that there are many kinds of masses in the universe with the same dimension but different in nature? The same dimensions, if they are indistinguishable mathematically, are also indistinguishable physically, in my opinion, i.e. they must be identical. We would have no doubt about the universal existence of time and space, but the additional introduction of any other field is really just the introduction of an avenue of explanation, since we cannot prove its existence. When it can't be proved it must be reduced to an axiom, but confirming the axiom is more difficult. I think one of the principles is to pursue the question indefinitely until it is so streamlined that it can no longer be asked. For example, if there are many kinds of universal fields, one must answer why this many and not that many?

......

Best Regards, Chian

Chian Fan

There are four facts, which prove the existence of a strong cosmic field.

(1) The energy density of gravitational fields is negative. Therefor the cosmic field must compensate this negative energy density because the existence of an absolute negative energy density is not possible.

(2) Accelerated masses radiate like accelerated charges. The radiation contains energy. In a closed universe this energy accumulates. The cosmic field just contains that kind of energy density, contained in the radiation exerted by accelerated masses.

(3) Accelerated masses adapt their gravitational field to the new inertial reference system, they have reached after the acceleration. If the gravitational field would have an absolute negative energy density, they could not adapt the field with an emission of a positive amount of energy.

(4) Because gravitational fields have a negative energy density, they reduce the total mass of a celestial object. The field energy content is proportional to the central mass squared.

But black holes with an unlimited high content of mass do not lose their gravitational impact on their galaxy. Therefor the gravitational field intensity must be limited. The limit is given by the cosmic field, which prevents an absolute negative energy density.

All four facts are related to the negative energy density of gravitational fields. This fact is often denied. But we know that the common gravitational field gets stronger if two masses invest kinetic energy in approaching each other. The energy source of the kinetic energy is the enhancement of the gravitational field strength.

We do not primarily need the cosmic field to explain the stability of elementary particles. But generally we must consider the existence of that field in various aspects of physics.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

Your reply led me to your question [1] ‘What would be the consequence if negative energy density cannot exist’ to understand the basis of your thinking. The existence of negative energy density implies the existence of actual negative energy. Here, I note that you list 5 consequences that could result if negative energy does not exist. But, for me, how negative energy, if it exists, can live with positive energy is the question that should be answered. Physics already has one annihilation of positive and negative matter particles, it is unlikely that another mutual annihilation exists.

Regarding the energy of the spacetime field, we usually think of the energy of free space as a zero reference, and the gravitational field of mass contains all positive energy. We can regard the gravitational field as an accessory part of matter just as the electromagnetic field is, unless waves are radiated out. Photons radiating from the sun undergo a redshift process; they then undergo a violet shift process when they arrive near the earth. The violet shift is actually an increase in the positive energy of the photon. The entire process of radiation, propagation, and absorption of photons is balanced and proves to be all positive energy.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_be_the_consequence_if_negative_energy_density_cannot_exist

Chian Fan "Physics already has one annihilation of positive and negative matter particles, it is unlikely that another mutual annihilation exists."

Yes, but anti-matter also has a positive mass.

However, the energy density of gravitational fields is negative in the sense that stronger fields contain less energy density as weaker fields. This does not mean that the energy density of gravitational fields must be negative definite. With the existence of the cosmic field the gravitational field energy density E is positive. We have E=E0-g²/(8πG). E0 is the energy density of the cosmic field. The gravitational acceleration g is the field strength of the gravitational field.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

You raise an important question, is there a mass-energy relationship, E=mc2, where m is negative mass?

The key question involved here is what exactly is mass? According to the Higgs mechanism, mass cannot be negative whether it is introduced externally or is supposed to be internal. My personal view is that there is no concept of mass when there are no interactions, and that mass only appears when interactions occur. This is exactly why it is required in gauge field theory that the mass of a particle must be 0.

The existence of negative energy could lead to many problems. Perhaps negative energy corresponds to negative time, but this may be merely virtual.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan "You raise an important question, is there a mass-energy relationship, E=mc², where m is negative mass?"

We can pagmatically answer the question:

A negative mass cannot exist because a negative inertia is impossible.

Wolfgang Konle , Chian Fan ,

"With the existence of the cosmic field the gravitational field energy density E is positive. We have E=Eₒ-g²/(8πG). Eₒ is the energy density of the cosmic field. The gravitational acceleration g is the field strength of the gravitational field."

Isn't -g²/(8πG) related to a center mass? If yes, the "cosmic field" needs to be at least the counter part, i.e., a field +g²/(8πG) around the center mass, or even around any particle, which make up the "mass".

----

This is guaranteed in my model, which radiates the particle-related oscillational energy, and contemporaneously receives back that energy in sum, which is somehow your (particle-related) "cosmic field" lower limit. Together, the net energy around each particle is zero, as long as it is not accelerated.

If accelerated, the propagated and contemporaneously returning energy no longer mutually cancel each other out: Larmor radiation is their difference.

----

You certainly will ask for a mechanism, which produces this "reflection" of energy from the particle's oscillator radiation.

The medium itself reflects just the very tiny part K=8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴ per wave period, i.e., propagated waves get longer by K per wave period, which is a redshift, and thus reflect this part K exactly backwards. This reflection guarantees, that an undisturbed oscillator returns its propagating energy contemporaneously, if it had the chance to oscillate for a long enough time.

----

You also asked for "mass" and "inertia".

Having this model with radiation and contemporaneous returning energy in the oscillator's focus, the particle's center, we immediately can see, that, if deviating this returning energy in a way which focus slightly beside the current oscillator's focus, the oscillator accelerates.

Because of the intrinsic delay between radiation and returning, there is a kind of resistence against acceleration: this is the "inertia" of this particle's mass.

----

You also asked for a reason of the mass or energy of the Higgs-field.

This is based on the existence of a smallest possible oscillator period time, which is associated with Planck time.

This Planck oscillator also receives back its propagating energy. The redshift of the focussing energy, generated by K, is exactly that of an oscillator with the VEV, the Vacuum Expectation Value, the energy of the Higgs field.

Thus, the Higgs field is the basic resonance within the medium, beside that of the Planck-oscillator.

All further particles' energy derive from this basic resonance by division by sqrt(n), with n the particle-related integer.

----

What about "charge"?

Charge is the effect of lots (2/K) of rotating vortices on this basic VEV oscillator, no matter what particle-resonance is active -> unique elementary charge e. All vortices rotate in the same direction and thus radiate spirals with the energy VEV.

If two such spirals mutually encounter, their propagating waves either match in-between or outside both particles -> attractive vs. repelling.

----

Actually, all is based on the medium's K, which generates an energy-backflow for any propagating electrical wave.

This backflow is the reason for gravitation:

K = 2G∙mᵥₑᵥ²/(ħc) = 8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴

The huge number of vortices on the surface of the basic Higgs-field's VEV-oscillator (2/K) generates the huge (related to gravitation) force between charges, regarding the coupling factor α (Fine Structure Constant):

F_Q/F_G = α∙2h/(Zₒ∙r²) / (Gmᵥₑᵥ²/r²) = α∙ħc/(G∙mᵥₑᵥ²) = 2α/K

Andreas Schwarz "Isn't -g²/(8πG) related to a center mass?"

g applies to any mass configuration. It simply is the resulting gravitational acceleration generated by any mass configuration.

I agree with Wolfgang Konie's recognition. Without it, we might not exist on Earth.

The thread question is rigorously scientifically rationally answered in the SS post ad links in the post on page 1 [and a bit in page 3],

- while in this thread a rather vivid posting appeared of some posters that – even at that they write that they don’t understand what the words “particle”, “fundamental Nature force” “a Force field”, etc. , mean,

- they write, nonetheless, corresponding quite inevitably scientifically strange texts about these words, what looks as is rather strange.

Though they do that in other RG threads also, say, in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature

- where for really scientific and in detail answer to the thread question it would be quite sufficient a few SS posts – as that is in this thread; but the linked thread now has 67589 “answers”,

- or, say, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory

- which really for any human, who really is able to think really logically scientifically rationally, and who really understands – what in the SR, must contain only one answer “fundamentally by no means there is some scientific counterarguments against Dingle old objection to Relativity Theory”;

- from what, including, completely rigorously it follows by completely rigorous Proof by contradiction that Mater’s spacetime is absolute, etc.

- but the thread has 103629 “answers” that are full stop texts of posters who really don’t understand what words that they write mean.

Let hope that this thread will not be like the last couple above.

Cheers

Andreas Schwarz "This is guaranteed in my model..."

I cannot tell you something about your model because it is completely disjoint to my model.