SEE, — HOW the complexities of
FIELD THEORIES HID from us, the fact that relative motion (phase) between all these spinning entities, in the micro & macro universe, gives us all the attractive and repulsive Fundamental Forces.
Field Theories in html:

Also, Field Theories in Word:

& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:

Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
Fitz's first book in 1966

Fitz's 1966 book in PDF

EVERYTHING on these links herein are FREE, & NO pop up ads with these either.

This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.



I not only THINK you are correct.

I KNOW you are correct.

I was having problems along another line with the fermions and this idea of yours completely solves it.


My problem was solving the fermion's return to the same energy state took 720 degrees of rotation.

Bosons act like they are built like two equal gyroscopes spinning in exact opposite directions, each counteracting the other exactly.

Using Ampere's 1825 Laws, fermions seem to behave exactly like ONE gyroscope that precesses in some manner only 180 degrees as the fermion rotates 360 degrees.

This is why it takes the fermion two rotations to come back to its original energy state.

Thinking along the lines I think, this shows me exactly why we have quantization.

This is important scerir, you need to publish it in your own name.

Good luck

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

web page


Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:27:47 -0700 (PDT)> wrote:

I've finally managed to derive the structure of the fermion families
from my version of ether and the fermions end up naturally quantized and
follow Fermi statistics, but I'm having a bit of a problem with the bosons.
The problem is that my theory doesn't seem to have a reason why the bosons
should be quantized.

Anyway, I began thinking about what it would be like if the world had
quantized fermions and unquantized bosons, and I came to the conclusion
that this would look pretty much like the world that we see.

That is, the photons would be unquantized vibrations of space-time,
while the fermions would be quantized vibrations. As long as we're talking
about photons, these vibrations might as well be called electricity and
magnetism or E&M. If two fermions interacted through the exchange of
energy held in the form of vibrations of space-time,

the quantization of the fermions would require the amount of energy in
the "photon" to also be quantized. In this sense, the "photon" is defined
as an exchange of energy through the vibration, not as a countable particle
as such.

This would well explain the boson statistical nature of light, that's
just what you get when you examine electric / magnetic fields and assume
that the energy is proportional to the square of the field strength.

It would also explain why the vacuum has energy: it's impossible to get
rid of vibrations that have less than enough spin energy to excite an
electron. This would also give support for the stochastic electrodynamics
(SED) interpretation of quantum mechanics, in that the leftover energy in an
empty vacuum at any given frequency would naturally be about 1/2 of the
energy of a photon.

Finally, given the ability of a photon to split into an electron/
positron pair, the presence of thermal photons would imply the presence of
the vacuum zoo the physicists use to make calculations.

I saw a mention on one of your papers to the effect that you were
looking more at low energy photons rather than gamma rays. I thought I
would comment on this from the point of view of quantized fermions and
unquantized bosons. It seems that if light were quantized, then the
emission of exactly one gamma ray would be followed by the later absorption
of exactly one gamma ray. If, on the other hand, light were only a wave,
these numbers would differ based on statistics. I'm guessing that the
answer is that the absorption of the light by one receiver causes a
reduction in the probability of any other possible receiver getting hit, and
that this reduction is done by a reduction in the E&M field. This is the
equivalent of the "wave function collapse" of QM, and of course it is a
nonlocal effect.

It would give the appearance of a quantized photon when there actually
was no reason in the theory for the photons to be quantized.

I thought for a while that I had a problem giving unquantized photons a
mass. The problem was that I give the fermions (bare) mass by having left
and right handed versions become each other.

That is, a typicle vertex has a +z moving left handed electron
annihilated, and a -z moving right handed electron created. If you set the
vertex value to "m^2", the mass of the particle, and sum Feynman diagrams,
the result is a renormalization of a massless propagator into a massive one.

The problem with this for bosons is that the presence of a vertex
implies a quantization, as without a quantization, it is impossible to
assign a vertex value. But the W+, W-, and Z paticles are massive.

I'm guessing that the solution is going to have something to do with the
vacuum creating pairs of fermionic anti particles out of, for example, a
right handed +z moving W+ wave, and then the particle / antiparticle pair
annihilating and creating a new W+ left handed +z moving W+ wave.

This would also renormalize a massless propagator into a massive one,
and would apply to unquantized bosons. This would give mass to the W+, W-,
and Z, but I have a sneaking suspicion it would give mass to high energy
photons as well. Maybe it doesn't because of the way the SU(2) symmetry
works. I'll probably work on this over the next day or two.

Anyway, I was wondering if you had any comments on this, and I also
wanted to know which of the particles other than the photon you figure
aren't actually quantized.