Quinta Essentia

QUINTA ESSENTIA
A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering
PART 3
METRIC ENGINEERING
&
THE QUASI-UNIFICATION
OF PARTICLE PHYSICS
To Oliya
RESEARCH NOTES
Key Words: Balmer Series, Bohr Radius, Buckingham Theory, Casimir Force, ElectroMagnetics,
Equivalence Principle, Eulers Constant, Fourier Series, Fundamental Particles, General
Relativity, Gravity, Harmonics, Hydrogen Spectrum, Newtonian Mechanics, Particle Physics,
Physical Modelling, Planck Scale, Polarisable Vacuum, Quantum Mechanics, Zero-Point-Field.
2nd Edition
Project Initiated: July 1, 1996
Project Completed: October 12, 2005
Revised: Thursday, 24 November 2011
RICCARDO C. STORTI1
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
rstorti@gmail.com
Copyright 2011: Delta Group Engineering (dgE): All rights reserved.
SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS
The physical characteristics derived herein (from 1st principles), based upon a single paradigm [i.e.
the application of Buckingham Theory (BPT) and Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DATs)]
may be articulated as follows (many of which are experimentally verified or implied),
1. The spectral quantisation of gravity.
2. The application of the spectral quantisation of gravity to Metric Engineering principles.
3. The experimentally implicit validation of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity.
4. The formulation of the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) Spectrum.
5. The experimentally implicit validation of the EGM Spectrum by the calculation of highly
precise physically verified fundamental particle properties.
6. The Quasi-Unification of particle physics illustrating that all fundamental particles may be
described as harmonic multiples of each other.
7. The Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) equilibrium radius.
8. The experimental Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of the Proton.
9. The classical RMS charge radius of the Proton.
10. The experimental Proton Electric Radius.
11. The experimental Proton Magnetic Radius.
12. The experimental Mean Square (MS) charge radius of the Neutron.
13. The conversion of the conventional representation of the experimental Neutron MS charge
radius to a more intuitively meaningful positive form.
14. The experimental Neutron Magnetic Radius.
15. The precise experimental graphical properties of the Neutron charge distribution.
16. The experimental mass-energies and radii of all Quarks and Bosons consistent with the
Particle Data Group (PDG) and ZEUS Collaboration (ZC).
17. The charge radii of all Neutrinos, consistent with the interpretation of experimental data
from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO).
18. The experimental mass-energy of the Top Quark as defined by the D-Zero Collaboration
(D0C) based upon the observation of Top events.
19. The Photon mass-energy threshold consistent with PDG interpretation of experimental
evidence.
20. The Photon and Graviton mass-energies and radii consistent with Quantum Mechanical
(QM) expectations.
21. The derivation of the Fine Structure Constant in terms of Electron and Proton radii.
22. The derivation of in terms of Neutron, Muon and Tau radii.
23. The derivation of the Casimir Force based upon the spectral quantisation of gravity.
24. The optimisation of an energy / gravitational experiment associated with the Casimir Force.
25. An experimentally implicit definition of the Planck Scale.
26. An experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr Radius.
27. The experimental Hydrogen atom emission / absorption spectrum (Balmer Series).
28. The prediction of three new Leptons and associated Neutrino's.
29. The prediction of two new Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVBs).
30. A physically implicit value and limit for at the QM level subject to uncertainty
principles.
31. A physically implicit value and limit for the Euler-Mascheroni Constant at the QM
level subject to uncertainty principles.
32. The formulation of a single mathematical algorithm incorporating (1 - 31).
Note: where possible, calculated results have been compared to physical measurement. Cognisant
of experimental uncertainty, many predictions herein may be considered to be exact.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Particle physics is a rapidly expanding and highly dynamic sphere of knowledge supporting
a landscape of constantly changing hues. Experimental boundaries are being shifted with exciting
reductions in uncertainty at a staggering pace. This text develops the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic
(EGM) construct to define relationships between the distributions of mass-energy over space-time
of fundamental particles. The EGM construct was finalized in 2004 and tested against published
PDG data of the day (i.e. 2005 values).
Particle Data Group (PDG) Mass-Energy Ranges (2006)
Annually, the PDG reconciles its published values of particle properties against the latest
experimental and theoretical evidence. The 2006 changes in PDG mass-energy range values not
impacting EGM are as follows:
1. Strange Quark = 70 < msq(MeV) < 120.
2. Charm Quark = 1.16 < mcq(GeV) < 1.34.
3. W Boson = 80.374 < mW(GeV) < 80.432.
4. Z Boson = 91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897.
Electron Neutrino and Up / Down / Bottom Quark Mass
The EGM construct relates mass to size in harmonic terms. However, contemporary
Physics is currently incapable of specifying the mass and size of most fundamental particles
precisely and concurrently. Subsequently, EGM is required to approximate values of either mass or
radius to predict one or the other (i.e. mass or size). Hence, the EGM predictions articulated in
Particle Summary Matrix (3.2, 3.4) denote values based upon estimates of either mass or radius.
Consequently, some of these results are approximations and subject to revision as new
experimental evidence regarding particle properties (particularly mass), come to light. The 2006
changes in PDG mass-energy values affecting these results are shown below. In this data set, the
EGM radii are displayed as a range relating to its mass-energy influence.
Note: the average value of EGM Up + Down Quark mass from these tables [i.e. 5.2574(MeV)]
remains within the 2006 average mass range specified by the PDG [i.e. 2.5 to 5.5(MeV)].
Particle
Electron Neutrino (
e)
Up Quark (uq)
Down Quark (dq)
Bottom Quark (bq)
EGM Radii x10-16(cm)
EGM Mass-Energy
(utilized)
ren < 0.0811

0.5469 < ruq < 0.7217
0.7217 < rdq < 1.0128
1.0719 > rbq > 1.0863
PDG Mass-Energy
Range (2006 Values)
PDG Mass-Energy
Range (2006 Values)
men(eV) < 2
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
The predicted radii ranges above demonstrate that no significant deviation from 2005 EGM
values exist. This emphasizes that the EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles is a
robust formulation and is insensitive to minor fluctuations in particle mass, particularly in the
absence of experimentally determined Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii.
Therefore, we may conclude that the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified
results within the SM to high computational precision.
Top Quark Mass

Dilemma
The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and D-ZERO (D0) Collaborations have recently
revised their world average value of Top Quark mass (mtq) from 178.0(GeV/c2) to
172.0(GeV/c2) in 2005, [80, 81] to 172.5 in early 2006, then to 171.4 in mid 2006. [85]
Note: since the precise value of mtq is subject to frequent revision, we shall utilize the late 2005
value in the resolution of the dilemma as it sits between the 2006 values, resulting in an EGM
construct error of approximately < 3.640(%) rather than the < 0.280(%) displayed in
Particle Summary Matrix 3.1.
Resolution
The EGM method utilizes fundamental particle RMS charge radius to determine mass.
Currently, Quark radii are not precisely known and approximations were applied in the formulation
of mtq displayed herein. However, if one utilizes the revised experimental value of mtq =
172.0(GeV/c2) to calculate the RMS charge radius of the Top Quark rtq, based upon Proton
harmonics, it is immediately evident that a decrease in rtq of < 1.508(%) produces the new
world average value precisely. The revised radius calculation may be performed simply (the
denominator of the proceeding equation), producing a result of 0.9156x10-16(cm).
The decrease in Top Quark RMS charge radius (relative to its approximated value in
chapter 3.12) based upon the new world average Top Quark mass may be determined as follows,
r tq
1 = 1.5076 ( % )
GeV
172.
2
c
1 .
r .
9
mp
140
where,
(i) r, mp and rtq denote the RMS charge radius and mass of the Proton and the initial
approximation of the RMS charge radius of the Top Quark respectively (see chapter 3.12).
(ii) r = 830.5957 x10-16(cm), mp = 1.67262171 x10-27(kg) and rtq = 0.9294 x10-16(cm).
Note: the mid 2006 value for revised mtq modifies the error defined above to < 1.65(%).
Therefore, since the change in rtq is so small and its experimental value is not precisely known,
we may conclude the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified results within the
SM to high computational precision.
The revised Top Quark Mass presented above is not definitive. Other experimental efforts
have produced slightly different results in favour of the EGM construct. However, this text utilises
the presented measurement as a quasi-certain boundary limit. Subsequently, the reader is
encouraged to review the latest experimental results utilising the Cornell University Library in [86].
The following keywords produce a robust suite of experimentally based scientific papers for the
review of recent developments:
i. ALEPH, ALICE, ANTRES, ATHENA, ATLAS, BABAR, BELLE, BES, CCFR,
CDF, CDF II, CKM, CLAS, CLEO, CMD2, CMS, COMPASS, D0 (D-ZERO),
DELPHI, DISTO, E143, E787, E949, FOCUS, G-2, H1, HERA-B, HERMES, KLOE,
KTev, L3, LEP, NA48, NA50, NA52, NEMO, New Muon, NOMAD, NuTev, OPAL,
PHENIX, SELEX, SLD, SNO, STAR, Tevatron, TOTEM, TWIST, UA8, ZEUS.
ii. Collaboration, Electroweak, Flavour, Working Group.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Generally speaking, it is difficult for readers of literature to fully appreciate the effort and
commitment involved in producing a book of any description or function if the reader has not
travelled the publication path. It is a milestone which involves the support of many people, the sum
of professional life experience and a society by which to gain these attributes.
Writing any scientific or engineering text has its unique set of difficulties based upon the
fundamental need for all material contained within it to be factually correct, not simply personal
opinion. In the case of novels, one may extensively draw upon ones own perceptions and views
without the level of factual scrutiny associated with the scientific method.
In my specific case, this document and the scientific material contained herein could not
have been possible without the support network of many people, both directly and indirectly. For
instance, an author of scientifically based literature requires at least some degree of formal
education. One cannot simply commence writing scientific based literature without knowing and
understanding the facts to be presented.
Firstly, I must acknowledge the enormous and deciding financial scarifies made by my
parents (Alberto and Nives) in providing the academic foundation from which this text is derived.
The years of arduous labour involved in precipitating my skills into this text, would not have been
possible without their help and support. I would not have acquired the tools necessary for
completion of this personal milestone without them.
Secondly, the encouragement provided by my sister (Mary) cannot be overstated. Without
her boundless optimism, I would not have had the stamina to complete this journey. As I mentioned
previously, it is difficult for the non-author to fully appreciate the focused psychology required to
complete such a protracted work of completely original content as this text.
Finally, I would like to thank the following list of colleagues, friends and organisations:
Colleagues
A. Prof. P. Jarvis
University of Tasmania
For providing positive feedback on this body of work.
Dr. V. Karmanov
(Lead Researcher)
Lebedev Physical Institute

For persistence in understanding, an open mind, great encouragement,
professional guidance, providing challenges and provoking the
formulation of appendices 3.G and 3.I.
E. Prof. R. Kiehn
University of Houston
For providing great encouragement, recognising the scientific
potential of Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) and whose thoughts I
value deeply.
Prof. G. Modanese
University of Bolzano
For recognising the scientific potential of the EGM construct.
Dr. H. Puthoff
EarthTech International, Inc.

For providing much of the inspiration for the EGM construct.
Prof. C. Rangacharyulu
University of Saskatchewan
For providing great encouragement, recognising the scientific
potential of EGM and whose thoughts I value deeply.
Publications
Chapters herein have been re-printed with the permission of:
Physics Essays Publication:
2012 Woodglen Cres., Ottawa
Ontario K1J 6G4, Canada
Authors:
Riccardo C. Storti
Todd J. Desiato
The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE) and are taken from the symposia
proceedings of the 50th SPIE conference: The Nature of Light: What is a Photon? Proceedings
Volume 5866 (pg. 207 217)
Authors:
Riccardo C. Storti
Todd J. Desiato
ARTICLE
3.1
OVERVIEW
Albert Einstein: 1879 1955
DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Overall
To derive solutions (from a single paradigm) for the design and construction of localised gravity
modification experiments for application to off-the-shelf ElectroMagnetic (EM) simulation
packages. The solutions presented are based upon well established engineering principles and tested
against the derivation of fundamental particle property characteristics for validity.
Articles
Article 3.1:
To present an introduction and summary of all the material contained herein.
Article 3.2:
To derive engineering principles for localised gravity modification experiments.
Article 3.3:
To verify the engineering principles derived by application to fundamental questions

in Physics, facilitating the derivation of experimentally verified results from a single
paradigm.
Appendices
App. 3.A:
To present a summary of key equations derived herein.
App. 3.B:
To present the formulations, derivations, characteristics and proofs utilised in the

preceding articles.
App. 3.C:
To present a set of analytical simplifications utilised in the preceding articles.
App. 3.D:
To present a computational sub-routine for the numerical derivation of Lepton radii,

complimenting derivations described in preceding articles.
App. 3.E:
To present a computational sub-routine for the numerical derivation of Quark and

Boson mass-energies and radii, complimenting derivations described in preceding
articles.
App. 3.F:
To visualise the harmonic principles derived and applied to the preceding articles.
App. 3.G:
To present the derivation of certain ElectroMagnetic characteristics of the Neutron

and Proton based upon the outputs of the preceding articles.
App. 3.H:
To present an explanation for the missing Neutrinos associated with the Standard
Model in particle Physics and the lack of detection of the appropriate number of
Solar Neutrinos.
App. 3.I:
To present a derivation of the emission / absorption spectrum of the Hydrogen atom

based upon the methods developed in the preceding articles.
App. 3.K:
To present a complete computational algorithm / simulation capable of generating all

the results and claims contained within this document. This also confirms the lack of
numerical errors presented in the preceding articles.
App. 3.L:
To present a simplified calculation engine / algorithm based upon the preceding

appendix to reduce computational error and improve accuracy. This also confirms
the lack of numerical errors presented in the preceding articles.
App. 3.M:
To present a simplified calculation engine / algorithm based upon the preceding

appendix to minimise computational error and improve accuracy. This is achieved by
the utilisation of a more advance computational / simulation environment and also
confirms the lack of numerical errors presented in the preceding articles.
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Scientific Achievements
Recent Developments
2
3
Article 3.1:
7
8
10
20
21
30
39
40
Chapter 3.0:
Overview
Document Purpose and Objectives
Errata
Errata
Glossary of Terms (by chapter)
Definition of Terms
Spiral Galaxy (Photograph - NASA)
History of the Universe (CERN)
Introduction
1
General
2
EGM Construct Process Summary
3
Particle Summary Matrices
43
65
68
Article 3.2: Derivation of Engineering Principles

Fundamental Engineering The Pyramids at Giza (Photograph)
Chapter 3.1: Dimensional Analysis
Chapter 3.2: General Modelling and the Critical Factor
Chapter 3.3: The Engineered Metric
Chapter 3.4: Amplitude and Frequency Spectra
Chapter 3.5: General Similarity
Chapter 3.6: Harmonic and Spectral Similarity
Chapter 3.7: The Casimir Effect
83
84
85
97
107
115
125
145
159
Article 3.3: Application of Derived Engineering Principles

Advanced Engineering Mankind on the Moon (Photograph)
Chapter 3.8: Derivation of the Photon Mass-Energy Threshold
Chapter 3.9: Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron)
Chapter 3.10: Derivation of the Photon and Graviton Mass-Energies and Radii
Chapter 3.11: Derivation of Lepton Radii
Chapter 3.12: Derivation of Quark and Boson Mass-Energies and Radii
Chapter 3.13: The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an
Experiment to Test the Negative Energy Conjecture
167
168
169
175
183
189
195
Appendices
App. 3.A:
App. 3.B:
App. 3.C:
App. 3.D:
App. 3.E:
App. 3.F:
App. 3.G:
Key Artefacts
Formulations, Derivations, Characteristics and Proofs
Simplifications
Derivation of Lepton Radii
Derivation of Quark and Boson Mass-Energies and Radii
Harmonic Representations
1
Conversion of the Neutron Positive Core Radius
2
Derivation of the Neutron Magnetic Radius
3
Derivation of the Proton Electric Radius
4
Derivation of the Proton Magnetic Radius
5
Derivation of the Classical Proton RMS Charge Radius
9
205
219
227
243
245
247
251
255
261
262
262
262
App. 3.H:
App. 3.I:
App. 3.J:
Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Associated Neutrino Radii

Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) and an
Experimentally Implicit Definition of the Bohr Radius
Glossary of Terms (alphabetical order)
263
265
269
Bibliography 3
276
Numerical EGM Simulations

App. 3.K:
MathCad 8 Professional (Complete Simulation)
App. 3.L:
MathCad 8 Professional (Calculation Engine)
App. 3.M:
MathCad 12 (High Precision Calculation Results)
279
281
365
387
Experimentally Verified or Implied Algorithms, Calculations and Derivations

1 Derivation of Photon and Graviton Mass-Energies and Radii (chapter 3.10)
2 Mathematical Algorithm for the Calculation of All Lepton Radii (App. 3.D)
3 Mathematical Algorithm for the Calculation of All Quark and Boson
Mass-Energies and Radii (App. 3.E)
4 Derivation of the Proton Electric and Magnetic Radii and the Neutron Magnetic
Radius (App. 3.G)
5 Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) (App. 3.I)
6 MathCad 8 Professional (Complete Simulation) (App. 3.K)
7 MathCad 8 Professional (Calculation Engine) (App. 3.L)
8 MathCad 12 (High Precision Calculation Results) (App. 3.M)
255
265
281
365
387
Index
395
Periodic Table of the Elements
402
Notes
183
245
247
42, 64, 82, 96, 105, 106, 124, 143, 144, 157, 158, 173, 174, 188, 194, 203, 204,
242, 254, 264, 268, 280, 282, 364, 366, 388, 393, 394, 405-407
ERRATA
10
DETAIL OF CONTENTS
Scientific Achievements
Recent Developments
2
3
Article 3.1:
7
8
10
20
21
Overview
Document Purpose and Objectives
Errata
Errata
Glossary of Terms (by chapter)
Definition of Terms
Alpha Forms
Amplitude Spectrum
Background Field
Bandwidth Ratio
Beta Forms
Buckingham Theory
Casimir Force
Change in the Number of Modes
Compton Frequency
Cosmological Constant
Critical Boundary
Critical Factor
Critical Field Strengths
Critical Frequency
Critical Harmonic Operator
Critical Mode
Critical Phase Variance
Critical Ratio
Curl
DC-Offsets
Dimensional Analysis Techniques
Divergence
Dominant Bandwidth
EGM
EGM Spectrum
Energy Density
Engineered Metric
Engineered Refractive Index
Engineered Relationship Function
Experimental Prototype
Experimental Relationship Function
Fourier Spectrum
Frequency Bandwidth
Frequency Spectrum
Fundamental Beat Frequency
Fundamental Harmonic Frequency
General Modelling Equations
General Relativity
General Similarity Equations
Gravitons
Graviton Mass-Energy Threshold
11
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Group Velocity
Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency
Harmonic Cut-Off Function
Harmonic Cut-Off Mode
Harmonic Inflection Mode
Harmonic Inflection Frequency
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength
Harmonic Similarity Equations
IFF
Impedance Function
Kinetic Spectrum
Mode Bandwidth
Mode Number
Number of Permissible Modes
Phenomena of Beats
Photon Mass-Energy Threshold
Polarisable Vacuum
Polarisable Vacuum Beat Bandwidth
Polarisable Vacuum Spectrum
Potential Spectrum
Poynting Vector
Precipitations
Primary Precipitant
Radii Calculations by EGM
Range Factor
Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations
Refractive Index
Representation Error
RMS Charge Radii (General)
RMS Charge Radius of the Neutron
Similarity Bandwidth
Spectral Energy Density
Spectral Similarity Equations
Subordinate Bandwidth
Unit Amplitude Spectrum
ZPE
ZPF
ZPF Spectrum
ZPF Beat Bandwidth
ZPF Beat Cut-Off Frequency
ZPF Beat Cut-Off Mode
1st Sense Check
2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations
2nd Sense Check
3rd Sense Check
4th Sense Check
5th Sense Check
6th Sense Check
Physical Constants
Mathematical Constants and Symbols
Solar System Statistics
12
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
Chapter 3.0:
Spiral Galaxy (Photograph - NASA)

39
History of the Universe (CERN)
40
Introduction and Document Statistics
1
General
1.1
Introduction
Laying the Foundations
43
The EGM Approach
47
EGM Achievements
49
EGM Formulation Tips
52
Tips for Applying EGM to Particle Physics
53
Accidental Particle Property Predictions by EGM 53
1.1.1 Current Problems
1.1.1.1 Physics
54
1.1.1.2 Mathematics
55
1.1.2 How EGM Works
55
1.2
Key Results and Findings
PV and ZPF
61
Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant
61
All Other Particles
62
The Casimir Force
63
The Experimentally Implicit Planck Scale
63
The Prediction of New Particles
63
The Experimentally Implicit Bohr Radius
64
1.3
Building an Experiment
64
2
EGM Construct Process Summary
Modelling Foundations
65
The Casimir Force
65
Mass-Energy and Radii of Photons and Gravitons
65
Mass-Energy and Radii of all other Standard Model Part. 66
The Planck Scale
66
Theoretical Particles Beyond the Standard Model
67
Designing and Constructing an Experiment
67
The Bohr Radius
67
3
Particle Summary Matrices
3.1
Detailed Summary Matrices
68
3.2
Concise Matrix
EGM Harmonic Representation of Particles
79
Refined EGM Ch. Radii and Mass-Energies of Part. 79
Periodic Table of Elementary Particles
80
Article 3.2: Derivation of Engineering Principles

Fundamental Engineering The Pyramids at Giza (Photograph)
Chapter 3.1: Dimensional Analysis
Abstract
Process Flow 3.1
1
Introduction
2
Theoretical Modelling
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Formulation of Groupings
3.2
Technical Verification of Groupings
4
Domain Specification
4.1
General Characteristics
13
83
84
85
86
87
88
88
89
90
4.2
Chapter 3.2:
Chapter 3.3:
Chapter 3.4:
Precipitations of the General Form

4.2.1 Frequency Domain Precipitation
4.2.2 Displacement Domain Precipitation
4.2.3 Wavefunction Precipitation
5
Experimental Relationship Functions
6
The Polarisable Vacuum Model
6.1
Refractive Index
6.2
Superposition
6.3
Constant Acceleration
6.4
Complex Fourier Series
7
Conclusions
General Modelling and the Critical Factor
Abstract
Process Flow 3.2
1
Introduction
1.1
Hypothesis to Be Tested
1.2
What Is Derived?
2
2.1
Primary Precipitant
2.2
Interpretations of the Primary Precipitant
3
3.1
Separation of Primary Forms
3.2
3.3
Critical Factor
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Poynting Vector
4.2
Poisson and Lagrange
5
Conclusions
The Engineered Metric
Abstract
Process Flow 3.3
1
Introduction
1.1
Description
1.2
Critical Ratio
1.3
Metric Engineering
2
2.1
Mathematical Similarity
2.2
Critical Factor
2.3
Critical Ratio
3
3.1
Engineering the Relationship Functions
3.2
Engineering the Refractive Index
4
Physical Modelling
5
Metric Engineering
5.1
Polarisable Vacuum
5.2
Engineered Metrics
6
Engineered Metric Effects
7
Conclusions
Amplitude and Frequency Spectra
Abstract
Process Flow 3.4
1
Introduction
14
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
94
95
97
98
99
99
100
102
102
103
103
104
104
105
107
108
109
109
109
109
111
111
112
112
113
113
114
114
114
115
116
Chapter 3.5:
1.1
General
1.2
Harmonics
1.3
Experimentation
2
2.1
Time Domain
2.2
Displacement Domain
3
3.1
Constant Acceleration
3.2
Frequency Spectrum
3.3
Energy Density
3.4
Spectral Characteristics
3.4.1 Cut-Off Mode and Frequency
3.4.2 Zero-Point-Field
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Polarisable Vacuum
4.2
Test Volumes
4.3
Test Object
5
Sample Calculations
5.1
Background Gravitational Field
5.1.1 Fundamental Frequency
5.1.2 Frequency Bandwidth
5.2
Applied Experimental Fields
5.2.1 Mode Bandwidth
5.2.2 Engineering Considerations
6
Conclusions
General Similarity
Abstract
Process Flow 3.5
1
Introduction
1.1
General
1.2
Harmonics
2
3
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Phenomena of Beats
3.2.1 Frequency
3.2.2 Wavelength
3.2.3 Group
3.2.3.1 Velocity
3.2.3.2 Error
3.2.4 Beat Bandwidth Characteristics
3.2.4.1 Frequency
3.2.4.2 Modes
3.2.4.3 Critical Ratio
3.3
Critical Boundary
3.3.1 Frequency
3.3.2 Mode
3.4
Bandwidth Ratio
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
4.1.1 Overview
4.1.2 GSEx
15
117
117
117
117
118
118
118
119
120
121
121
121
122
122
122
122
123
123
125
126
127
127
127
127
128
129
129
129
130
130
130
131
131
131
132
132
Chapter 3.6:
Chapter 3.7:
4.2
Qualitative Limits
5
Metric Engineering
5.1
Polarisable Vacuum
5.2
Design Considerations
5.2.1 Range Factor
5.2.2 Sense Checks and Rules of Thumb
6
Engineering Characteristics
6.1
Beat Spectrum
6.2
Considerations
6.3
EGM Wave Propagation
6.4
Dominant and Subordinate Bandwidths
6.5
Kinetic and Potential
7
Conclusions
7.1
Conceptual
7.2
Physical Modelling Characteristics
Harmonic and Spectral Similarity
Abstract
Process Flow 3.6
1
Introduction
1.1
General
1.2
Practical Methods
1.3
Objectives
1.4
Results
2
3
3.1
Design Matrix
3.2
Engineering Considerations
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
4.2
Visualisation of HSEx Operands
4.3
Reduction of HSEx
4.4
Visualisation of HSEx R
4.5
4.6
4.7
Critical field Strength
4.8
DC-Offsets
5
Maxwells Equations
5.1
General
5.2
Critical Frequency
6
Conclusions
The Casimir Effect
Abstract
Process Flow 3.7
1
Introduction
2
3
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
The Casimir Force
4.2
4.3
Refinement of Classical Casimir Equation
5
Conclusions
16
134
135
136
136
138
138
139
139
140
140
141
145
146
147
147
147
147
148
149
150
150
151
153
153
155
155
156
156
156
157
157
159
160
161
161
163
164
165
166
166
Article 3.3: Application of Derived Engineering Principles

Advanced Engineering Mankind on the Moon (Photograph)
Chapter 3.8: Derivation of the Photon Mass-Energy Threshold
Abstract
Process Flow 3.8
1
Introduction
2
3
Physical Modelling
4
Conclusions
Chapter 3.9: Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron)
Abstract
Process Flow 3.9
1
Introduction
2
2.1
Sense Checks and Rules of Thumb
2.2
The Proton
3
3.1
Derivation of Proton and Neutron Radii
3.1.1 Numerical
3.1.2 Analytical
3.2
Derivation of Electron Radius
3.2.1 Numerical
3.2.2 Analytical
3.3
Derivation of the Fine Structure Constant
3.4
Electron Cut-Off Frequency
3.5
Refinement of Electron Radius
3.6
Derivation of Electron Scattering Mass
3.7
Harmonic Cut-Off Frequencies
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Electron
4.2
Proton
4.3
Neutron
5
Experimentation
6
Conclusions
Chapter 3.10: Derivation of the Photon and Graviton Mass-Energies and Radii
Abstract
Process Flow 3.10
1
Introduction
2
3
4
Physical Modelling
5
Conclusions
Chapter 3.11: Derivation of Lepton Radii
Abstract
Process Flow 3.11
1
Introduction
2
3
3.1
Electron Radius
3.2
Muon - Tau Radii and the Fine Structure Constant
3.3
Neutrino Radii
4
Physical Modelling
17
167
168
169
170
171
171
172
173
175
176
177
177
177
178
178
179
180
180
180
180
180
181
181
181
182
182
182
183
184
185
185
186
186
187
189
190
191
191
191
192
192
193
5
Conclusions
Chapter 3.12: Derivation of Quark and Boson Mass-Energies and Radii
Abstract
Process Flow 3.12
1
Introduction
2
2.1
Statistical Considerations
2.2
Generalised Similarity
2.3
Relative Similarity
3
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Quark Radii
4.2
Quark Mass
4.3
Refinement of Top Quark Radius
4.4
Boson Radii
5
Conclusions
Chapter 3.13: The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an
Experiment to Test the Negative Energy Conjecture
Abstract
Process Flow 3.12
1
Introduction
2
The Planck Scale
2.1
Convergent Bandwidth
2.2
Planck Characteristics
2.3
Experimental Relationship Functions
2.4
Experimentally Implicit Values of Planck Char.
2.5
Impact of Experimentally Implicit Values
3
3.1
Background
3.2
Leptons
3.3
Quark / Bosons
4
4.1
Background
4.2
Bandwidth Ratio
4.3
Optimal Separation
5
Physical Modelling
5.1
Inflection Wavelength
5.2
5.3
6
Conclusions
Appendices
App. 3.A:
Key Artefacts
Refractive Index and Experimental Relationship Function
Summation of sinusoids producing a constant function
Critical Factor
General Modelling Equation1
General Modelling Equation2
Critical Ratio
Gravitational amplitude spectrum
18
193
195
196
197
197
198
198
199
199
200
201
201
202
205
206
207
207
207
209
210
210
211
211
212
212
214
214
214
215
215
216
219
219
219
219
220
220
220
220
220
App. 3.B:
Gravitational frequency spectrum

Harmonic cut-off mode
Harmonic cut-off function
Harmonic cut-off frequency
Critical Boundary
EGM Spectrum
Spectral Similarity Equations4,5
DC-Offsets
Critical Frequency
Harmonic Inflection Mode
Critical Mode
Harmonic Inflection Frequency
EGM Casimir Force
Photon mass-energy threshold
The Fine Structure Constant
Proton and Neutron radii
The mass-energy of a Graviton
The mass-energy of a Photon
The radius of a Photon
The radius of a Graviton
Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio
Electron, Muon and Tau radii
Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino radii
Quark and Boson harmonic representations
Quarks and Bosons as harmonic multiples of the Electron
Planck Scale Experimental Relationship Functions
Approximation of the radius of a free Photon, relating physical
properties of the Lepton family
Theoretical particles (Lepton / Quark / Boson)
The optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment
to test the negative energy conjecture
Neutron Charge Distribution
Neutron Charge Density Radius Intercept
To Neutron Mean Square Charge Radius Conversion Equation
From Neutron Mean Square Ch. Radius Conversion Equation
Neutron Magnetic Radius
Proton Electric Radius
Proton Magnetic Radius
Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius
The 1st Term of the Balmer Series
Formulations, Derivations, Characteristics and Proofs
Chapter 3.2
Chapter 3.3
Chapter 3.4
Chapter 3.5
Chapter 3.6
Chapter 3.7 - 3.9
19
220
220
220
220
221
221
221
221
221
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
223, 224
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
224
224
224
224
224
225
225
225
225
225
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
227
230
230
234
235
240
App. 3.C:
App. 3.D:
App. 3.E:
App. 3.F:
App. 3.G:
App. 3.H:
App. 3.I:
App. 3.J:
Simplifications
Harmonic cut-off mode
Derivation of Lepton radii
Derivation of Quark and Boson mass-energies and radii
Harmonic Representations
1
2
3
4
5
Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Associated Neutrino radii
Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) and an
Experimentally Implicit Definition of the Bohr Radius
Glossary of Terms (alphabetical order)
243
243
244
245
247
251
255
261
262
262
262
263
265
269
Bibliography 3
276
Numerical EGM Simulations

App. 3.K:
MathCad 8 Professional (Complete Simulation)
App. 3.L:
MathCad 8 Professional (Calculation Engine)
App. 3.M:
MathCad 12 (High Precision Calculation Results)
279
281
365
387
Index
395
402
Notes
42, 64, 82, 96, 105, 106, 124, 143, 144, 157, 158, 173, 174, 188, 194, 203, 204,
242, 254, 264, 268, 280, 282, 364, 366, 388, 393, 394, 405-407
ERRATA
20
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Acronyms
BNL
BPT
CCFR
CERN
CHARM-II
D0C
DAT
DELPHI
DONUT
E734
EGM
EM
EP
ERF
FNAL
FS
GME1
GME2
GMEx
GPE
GR
GSE1
GSE2
GSE3
GSE4
GSE5
GSEx
HERA
HSE1
HSE2
HSE3
HSE4
HSE5
HSEx
IFF
IHEP
INFN
LANL
LEP
LHS
MCYT
MEXT
MS
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Buckingham Theory
Chicago Columbia Fermi-Lab Rochester
European Organisation for Nuclear Research
Experiment: study of Neutrino-Electron scattering at CERN
D-Zero Collaboration: an international research effort of leading scientists utilising
facilities at FNAL in Illinois, USA
Detector with Lepton, Photon and Hadron Identification
Experiment: a search for direct evidence of the Tau Neutrino at Fermi-Lab
Experiment: a measurement of the elastic scattering of Neutrino's from Electrons and
Protons (at BNL)
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics: a mathematical method based upon the modification of the
vacuum polarisability by the superposition of EM fields
ElectroMagnetic
Experimental Prototype
Experimental Relationship Function
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FERMI-LAB)
Fourier Series
General Modelling Equation One
General Modelling Equation Two
Generalised reference to GME1 and GME2
Gravitational Potential Energy
General Relativity
General Similarity Equation One
General Similarity Equation Two
General Similarity Equation Three
General Similarity Equation Four
General Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to GSE1, GSE2, GSE3, GSE4 or GSE5
Hadron Electron Ring Accelerator in Hamburg, Germany
Harmonic Similarity Equation One
Harmonic Similarity Equation Two
Harmonic Similarity Equation Three
Harmonic Similarity Equation Four
Harmonic Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to HSE1, HSE2, HSE3, HSE4 or HSE5
If and only if
Institute of High Energy Physics
National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy)
Los Alamos National Laboratories
Large Electron-Positron storage ring
Left hand side
Ministry of Science and Technology (Spain)
Ministry of Science (Japan)
Mean Square
21
NIST
NuTeV
PDG
PV
RFBR
RHS
RMS
SK
SLAC
SM
SNO
SSE1
SSE2
SSE3
SSE4
SSE5
SSEx
TRISTAN
US NSF
USDoE
ZC
ZPF
General Symbols
Symbol
B
c
E
G
H
h
h-bar
i
J
k
L
M
M0
ME
mh
National Institute of Standards & Technology

Neutrino's at the Tevatron
Particle Data Group: an international research effort of leading scientists
Polarisable Vacuum
Russian Foundation for Basic Research
Right hand side
Root Mean Square
Super-Kamiokande Collaboration
Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre
Standard Model in particle physics
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Spectral Similarity Equation One
Spectral Similarity Equation Two
Spectral Similarity Equation Three
Spectral Similarity Equation Four
Spectral Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to SSE1, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4 or SSE5
Particle collider at the Japanese High Energy Physics Laboratory (KEK)
United States National Science Foundation
United States Department of Energy
ZEUS Collaboration: an international research effort of leading scientists utilising
facilities at HERA
Zero-Point-Field
Description
Units
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector
T
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Velocity of light in a vacuum
m/s
Velocity of light in a vacuum (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Energy: Ch. 3.3
J
Magnitude of Electric field vector
V/m
Magnitude of Electric field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Universal Gravitation Constant
m3kg-1s-2
Hydrogen
Magnetic field strength
Oe
Height: Ch. 3.4
m
Planck's Constant (plain h form)
Js
Planck's Constant (2 form)
Complex number
Initial condition
Vector current density
A/m2
Wave vector
1/m
Length
m
Mass
kg or eV
Zero mass (energy) condition of free space
Mass of the Earth
Planck Mass
22
MJ
MM
MS
Q
r
RE
RJ
RM
RS
S
t
r
Ce
CN
CP
h
0
Ce
CN
CP
h
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Sun
Magnitude of Electric charge
Arbitrary radius with homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Generalised notation for length (e.g. r /2): Ch. 3.1
Generalised notation for length (locally) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Magnitude of position vector from centre of spherical object with
homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Reciprocal of the wave number: Ch. 3.1
Mean radius of the Earth
Mean radius of Jupiter
Mean radius of the Moon
Mean radius of the Sun
Poynting Vector
Time
Plate separation of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Practical changes in benchtop displacement values
An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration: Ch. 3.2
Fine Structure Constant
Permittivity of a vacuum
Wavelength
Electron Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Wavelength
Proton Compton Wavelength
Planck Length
Permeability of a vacuum
Charge density
Field frequency
Field frequency (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.2
Electron Compton Frequency
Neutron Compton Frequency
Proton Compton Frequency
Planck Frequency
kg or eV
C
m
W/m2
s
m
m/s2
F/m
m
N/A2
C/m3
Hz
Specific Symbols by Chapter

EGM Construct - Ch. 3.1: Dimensional Analysis
Symbol
a
a
F(k,n,t)
f(t)
F0(k)
In,P
K0(r,X)
K0(X)
Description
Magnitude of acceleration vector
Mean magnitude of acceleration over the fundamental period in a FS
representation in EGM
Complex FS representation of EGM
Magnitude of the ambient gravitational acceleration represented in the time
domain
Amplitude spectrum / distribution of F(k,n,t)
Macroscopic intensity of Photons within a test volume
ERF by displacement domain precipitation
Generalised ERF
23
Units
m/s2
W/m2
K0(
,r,E,B,X) ERF by wavefunction precipitation
K0(
,X) ERF by frequency domain precipitation
The intensity of the background PV field at specific frequency modes
Kn,P
Refractive Index of PV
KPV
Field harmonic (harmonic frequency mode)
n, N
Polarisation vector
P
Transformed value of generalised length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
rc
Local value of the velocity of light in a vacuum
vc
All variables within the experimental environment that influence results and
X
behaviour including parameters that might otherwise be neglected due to
practical calculation limitations, in theoretical analysis
Dimensional grouping derived by application of BPT
Symbol
a1
a2
ax(t)
B0
c0
D
E0
K1
K2
KC
r0
1
x
1
x
0
0
Symbol
BA
BPV
EA
EPV
g00
g11
EGM Construct - Ch. 3.2: General Modelling and the Critical Factor
Description
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation One
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation Two
Arbitrary acceleration in the time domain
Amplitude of applied Magnetic field: Ch. 3.6
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Velocity of light (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Experimental configuration factor: a specific value relating all design
criteria; this includes, but not limited to, field harmonics, field orientation,
physical dimensions, wave vector, spectral frequency mode and
instrumentation or measurement accuracy
Amplitude of applied Electric field: Ch. 3.6
Energy (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of Electric field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
ERF formed by re-interpretation of the primary precipitant
Critical Factor
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
The subset formed, as N , by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to 1 and 2
A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration
Spectral energy density
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
EGM Construct - Ch. 3.3: The Engineered Metric
Description
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
Tensor element
Tensor element
24
W/m2
C/m2
m
m/s
Units
m/s2
T
m/s
V/m
J
V/m
(V/m)2
T-2
Pa
m
m/s2
Pa/Hz
Hz
Units
T
V/m
g22
g33
kA
KEGM
kPV
KR
L0
m0
nA
nPV
Ug
Z
aPV
g
K0(
,X)
K1
K2
KC
t
t0
Ug
UPV
Tensor element
Tensor element
Harmonic wave vector of applied field
Harmonic wave vector of PV
Critical Ratio
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Mass (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Harmonic frequency modes of applied field
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
Initial state GPE per unit mass described by any appropriate method
Impedance function
Change in the magnitude of the local PV acceleration vector
Change in magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration vector
Engineered Relationship Function by EGM
Change in K1 by EGM
Change in K2 by EGM
Change in Critical Factor by EGM
Change in time (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in time (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) per unit mass induced by
any suitable source
Change in energy density of gravitational field
EGM Construct - Ch. 3.4: Amplitude and Frequency Spectra

Symbol
Description
BPV
Amplitude of fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
CPV(1,r,M)
CPV(nPV,r,M) Amplitude spectrum of PV
EPV
K0(
PV,r,EPV,BPV,X) ERF equivalent to K0(,r,E,B,X)
Permissible mode bandwidth of applied experimental fields
Nr
Harmonic cut-off mode of PV
n
Poynting
Vector of PV
S
Rest mass-energy density
Um
Field energy density of PV
U
Frequency bandwidth of PV
PV
Harmonic cut-off function of PV
Generalised reference to PV(nPV,r,M)

PV
Fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
PV(1,r,M)
Frequency
spectrum of PV
PV(nPV,r,M)
Harmonic cut-off frequency of PV
1/m
1/m
m
kg
(m/s)2
m/s2
(V/m)2
T-2
Pa
s
(m/s)2
Pa
Units
T
m/s2
V/m
W/m2
Pa
Hz
Hz
EGM Construct - Ch. 3.5: General Similarity

Symbol
n ZPF
n
RError
St
Description
ZPF beat cut-off mode
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) of
Representation error
Range factor
25
Units
%
Pa
St
St
St
St
GME1
GME2
GMEx
nS
UPV
v
vr
r
R
S
ZPF
r
PV
ZPF
1st Sense check

3rd Sense check
4th Sense check
2nd Sense check
Change in GME1
Change in GME2
Generalised reference to changes in GME1 and GME2
Change in the number of ZPF modes
Change in rest mass-energy density
Terminating group velocity of PV
Group velocity of PV
Change in harmonic cut-off wavelength of PV
Change in harmonic wavelength of PV
Bandwidth ratio
Similarity bandwidth
ZPF beat bandwidth
Beat bandwidth of PV
Beat frequency of PV
Wavelength of PV
ZPF beat cut-off frequency
Critical boundary
Symbol
BC
Brms
DC
EC
Erms
HSE4A R
HSE5A R
HSEx R
KEGM H
KPV H
KR H
nB
nE
Ug H
K0 H
C
B
C
E
EGM Construct - Ch. 3.6: Harmonic and Spectral Similarity

Description
Critical Magnetic field strength
Root Mean Square of BA
Offset function
Critical Electric field strength
Root Mean Square of EA
Time average form of HSE4 R
Time average form of HSE5 R
Generalised reference to the reduced form of HSEx
Harmonic form of KEGM
Harmonic form of KPV
Critical harmonic operator (based upon the unit amplitude spectrum)
Harmonic Mode Number of the ZPF with respect to BA
Harmonic Mode Number of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic form of Ug
Harmonic form of K0
Relative phase variance between EA and BA
Critical phase variance
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to BA
Critical frequency
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to EA
m/s2
Pa
m/s
m
Hz
m
Hz
Units
T
%
V/m
(m/s)2
c
Hz
EGM Construct - Ch. 3.7: The Casimir Effect

Symbol
A
APP
Description
1st Harmonic term
Parallel plate area of a Classical Casimir Experiment
26
Units
m2
D
FPP
FPV
KP
NC
NT
NTR
NX
StN
PV
H
HR
X
Symbol
bq
cq
dq
e, e-
g
H
Km
KS
KX
K
K
L2
L3
L5
mbq
mcq
mdq
me
men
mgg
mH
mL(2)
mL(3)
mL(5)
mn
mp
mQB(5)
mQB(6)
msq
mtq
muq
Common difference
The Casimir Force by classical representation
The Casimir Force by EGM
A refinement of a constant in FPP
Critical mode
Number of terms
The ratio of the number of terms
Harmonic inflection mode
nth Harmonic term
Change in the local value of the Cosmological Constant by EGM
The sum of terms
The ratio of the sum of terms
Harmonic inflection frequency
Particles Physics: Ch. 3.8 - 3.13
Description
Bottom Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Charm Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Down Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Charge
Electron: subatomic / elementary particle in the SM
Exponential function: mathematics
Gluon: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Magnitude of gravitational acceleration vector
Higgs Boson: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Experimentally implicit Planck Mass scaling factor
Neutron MS charge radius by EGM
Neutron MS charge radius (determined experimentally) in the SM
Experimentally implicit Planck Length scaling factor
Experimentally implicit Planck Frequency scaling factor
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Bottom Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Charm Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Down Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Electron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Electron Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) by EGM
Higgs Boson rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Rest mass (energy) of the L2 particle by EGM
Neutron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Proton rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Rest mass (energy) of the QB5 particle by EGM
Strange Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Top Quark rest mass (energy) according (energy) to PDG
Up Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
27
Hz2
Hz
Units
m/s2
m2
kg or eV
mW
mZ
m
m
mg
m
m
mn
m
mn
n
p
QB5
QB6
rBoson
rbq
rcq
rdq
re
ren
rgg
rH
rL
rp
rQB
rsq
rtq
ru
ruq
rW
rxq
rZ
r
r
r
rn
r
r2
r3
r5
rM
rx
r
rE
rM
r
rn
sq
W Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG

Z Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Electron rest mass (energy) in high energy scattering experiments
Photon rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Photon rest mass (energy) by EGM
Muon rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Muon Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Tau rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Tau Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Neutron: subatomic particle in the SM
Proton: subatomic particle in the SM
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Generalised RMS charge radius of a Boson by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Bottom Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Charm Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Down Quark by EGM
Classical Electron radius in the SM
RMS charge radius of the Electron Neutrino by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Higgs Boson utilising ru
Average RMS charge radius of the r, r and r particles
Classical RMS charge radius of the Proton in the SM
Average RMS charge radius of the QB5 / QB6 particles by EGM utilising ru
RMS charge radius of the Strange Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Top Quark by EGM
Heisenberg uncertainty range
RMS charge radius of the Up Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the W Boson utilising ru
Generalised RMS charge radius of all Quarks as determined by the ZC
within the SM
RMS charge radius of the Z Boson by utilising ru
RMS charge radius of the Electron by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Photon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon Neutrino by EGM
Neutron RMS charge radius (by analogy to KS)
RMS charge radius of the 2 particle by EGM
Neutron Magnetic radius by EGM
Generalised reference to r2, r3 and r5
RMS charge radius of the Proton by EGM
Proton Electric radius by EGM
Proton Magnetic radius by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau Neutrino by EGM
Strange Quark: elementary particle in the SM
28
kg or eV
rBoson
rQuark
r
5th Sense check

6th Sense check
A positive integer value representing the harmonic cut-off frequency ratio
between two proportionally similar mass (energy) systems
Top Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Up Quark: elementary particle in the SM
W Boson: elementary particle in the SM
Z Boson: elementary particle in the SM
RMS charge diameter of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge diameter of the Photon by EGM
Photon: elementary particle in the SM
Mathematical Constant: Euler-Mascheroni (Euler's) Constant
Graviton: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Muon: elementary particle in the SM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L2 particle by EGM
Electron Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Muon Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Tau Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Tau: elementary particle in the SM
Average mass (energy) of all Quarks by EGM
Average mass (energy) of all Quarks according to PDG
Average RMS charge radius of all Bosons in the SM utilising ru
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks by EGM
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks and Bosons by EGM utilising ru
Symbol
E
mAMC
mx
nq
Qe
rBohr
rx
R
E
A
B
Appendices
Description
Electronic energy level
Atomic Mass Constant
Imaginary particle mass
Quantum number
Classical Bohr radius
Bohr radius by EGM
Rydberg Constant
Change in electronic energy level
1st term of the Balmer Series by EGM
Classical Balmer Series wavelength
Reduced mass of Hydrogen
St
St
St
tq
uq
W
Z
gg
g
, 2
3
5
e
, mQuark
29
kg or eV
m
Units
J
kg or eV
C
m
J
m
kg or eV
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Alpha Forms x
An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
Amplitude Spectrum
A family of wavefunction amplitudes.
The amplitudes associated with a frequency spectrum.
See: Frequency Spectrum.
Background Field
Reference to the background (ambient) gravitational field.
Reference to the local gravitational field at the surface of the Earth.
Bandwidth Ratio R
The ratio of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
Beta Forms x
A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
Buckingham Theory (BPT)
Arrangement of variables determined by DAT's into groupings. These groupings
represent sub-systems of dimensional similarity for scale relationships.
Minimises the number of experiments required to investigate phenomena.
See: DAT's.
Casimir Force FPP
Attractive (non-gravitational) force between two parallel and neutrally charged mirrored
plates of equal area.
Change in the Number of Modes nS
The difference between the ZPF beat cut-off mode and the Mode Number at the Critical
Boundary as a function of the Critical Ratio.
See: Mode Number n.
See: Critical Ratio KR.
Compton Frequency Cx
The generalised definition of Compton frequency applied globally herein is:
Cx = mxc2 / h-bar = 2m
2 xc2/ h = 2c
2 2/ Cx.
This is the only equation in which the h-bar form of Planck's Constant is used.
A constant introduced into the equations of GR to facilitate a steady state cosmological
solution.
See: General Relativity.
Critical Boundary
Represents the lower boundary (commencing at the ZPF beat cut-off frequency) of the
ZPF spectrum yielding a specific proportional similarity value.
See: Zero-Point-Field Beat Cut-Off Frequency ZPF.
30
Critical Factor KC
A proportional measure of the applied EM field intensity (or magnitude of Poynting
Vectors) within an experimental test volume.
The ratio of two experimentally determined relationship functions.
Critical Field Strengths EC and BC
RMS strength values of applied Electric and Magnetic fields for complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field.
See: Background Field.
Critical Frequency C
The minimum frequency for the application of Maxwell's Equations within an
experimental context.
Critical Harmonic Operator KR H
A representation of the Critical Ratio at ideal dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity utilising a unit amplitude spectrum.
Critical Mode NC
The ratio of the critical frequency to the fundamental harmonic frequency of the PV.
See: Critical Frequency C.
See: Fundamental Harmonic Frequency PV(1,r,M)
Critical Phase Variance C
The difference in phase between applied Electric and Magnetic fields for complete
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field.
Critical Ratio KR
A proportional indication of anticipated experimental configurations by any suitable
measure. Typically, this is the magnitude of the ratio of the applied EM experimental
fields to the ambient background gravitational field.
Curl
The limiting value of circulation per unit area.
DC-Offsets
A proportional value of applied RMS Electric and / or Magnetic fields acting to offset
the applied function/s.
Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's)
Formal experimentally based research methods facilitating the derivation, from first
principles, of any number or combination of parameters considered important by an
experimentalist.
See: BPT.
Divergence
The rate at which density exits a given region of space.
31
Dominant Bandwidth
The bandwidth of the EGM spectrum which dominates gravitational effects.
See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)
A method of calculation (not a theory) based upon energy density.
Being a calculation method, it does not favour or bias any particular theory in the
Standard Model of particle physics.
Developed as a tool for engineers to modify gravity.
The modification of vacuum polarisability based upon the superposition of EM fields.
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum
A simple but extreme extension of the EM spectrum (including gravitational effects)
based upon a Fourier distribution.
Energy Density (General)
Energy per unit volume.
Engineered Metric
A metric tensor line element utilising the Engineered Refractive Index.
Engineered Refractive Index KEGM
An EM based engineered representation of the Refractive Index.
Engineered Relationship Function K0(,X)
A change in the Experimental Relationship Function resulting from a modification in the
local value of the magnitude of acceleration by similarity of applied EM fields to the
background gravitational field.
Experimental Prototype (EP)
Reference to the gravitational acceleration through a practical benchtop volume of
space-time in a laboratory at the surface of the Earth.
Experimental Relationship Function K0(,X)
A proportional scaling factor relating an experimental prototype (typically herein, it is
the local gravitational field or ambient physical conditions) to a mathematical model.
Fourier Spectrum
Two spectra combined into one (an amplitude spectrum and a frequency spectrum)
obeying a Fourier Series.
See: Amplitude Spectrum.
See: Frequency Spectrum.
Frequency Bandwidth PV
The bandwidth of the Fourier spectrum describing the PV.
See: Fourier Spectrum.
See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
Frequency Spectrum
A family of wavefunction frequencies.
The frequencies associated with an amplitude spectrum.
32
See: Amplitude Spectrum.
Fundamental Beat Frequency r(1,r,r,M)

The change in fundamental harmonic frequency of the PV across an elemental
displacement.
See: Fundamental Harmonic Frequency PV(1,r,M).
Fundamental Harmonic Frequency PV(1,r,M)
The lowest frequency in the PV spectrum utilising Fourier harmonics.
General Modelling Equations (GMEx)
Proportional solutions to the Poisson and Lagrange equations resulting in acceleration.
General Relativity (GR)
The representation of space-time as a geometric manifold of events where gravitation
manifests itself as a curvature of space-time and is described by a metric tensor.
General Similarity Equations (GSEx)
Combines General Modelling Equations with the Critical Ratio by utilisation of the
Engineered Relationship Function.
Gravitons g
Conjugate Photon pairs responsible for gravitation. This is an inherent mathematical
conclusion arising from similarity modelling utilising a Fourier distribution in Complex
form and the PV model of gravity considerate of ZPF Theory (due to harmonic
symmetry about the 0th mode).
Graviton Mass-Energy Threshold mg
The upper boundary value of the mass-energy of a Graviton as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
Group Velocity
The velocity with which energy propagates.
Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency
The terminating frequency of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
Harmonic Cut-Off Function
A mathematical function associated with the harmonic cut-off mode and frequency.
See: Harmonic Cut-Off Mode n.
See: Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency .
Harmonic Cut-Off Mode n
The terminating mode of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
33
Harmonic Inflection Mode NX

The mode at which the phase variance between the Electric and Magnetic wavefunctions
describing the PV in a classical Casimir experiment begins to alter dramatically.
A conjectured resonant mode of the PV in a classical Casimir experiment.
See: Casimir Force FPP.
Harmonic Inflection Frequency X
The frequency associated with the harmonic inflection mode.
See: Harmonic Inflection Mode NX.
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength X
The wavelength associated with the harmonic inflection frequency.
Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx)
A harmonic representation of General Similarity Equations utilising the Critical
Harmonic Operator.
A family of equations defined by relating the experimental prototype to a mathematical
model (General Similarity Equations).
See: Critical Harmonic Operator KR H.
See: General Similarity Equations (GSEx).
IFF
If and only if.
Impedance Function
A measure of the ratio of the permeability to the permittivity of a vacuum.
Resistance to energy transfer through a vacuum.
Kinetic Spectrum
Another term for the ZPF spectrum.
See: ZPF Spectrum.
Mode Bandwidth
The modes associated with a frequency bandwidth.
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) n
The ratio of the Critical Boundary frequency to the fundamental frequency of the PV.
The harmonic mode associated with the Critical Boundary frequency.
Number of Permissible Modes Nr
The number of modes permitted for the application of Maxwell's Equations within an
experimental context, based upon the harmonic cut-off frequency.
Phenomena of Beats
The interference between two waves of slightly different frequencies.
Photon Mass-Energy Threshold m
The upper boundary value of the mass-energy of a Photon as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
34
Polarisable Vacuum (PV)

The polarised state of the Zero-Point-Field due to mass influence.
Characterised by a Refractive Index.
Obeys a Fourier distribution.
A bandwidth of the EGM Spectrum.
See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM).
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth
The change in harmonic cut-off frequency across an elemental displacement.
See: Phenomena of Beats.
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum
Another term for the Fourier spectrum applied by EGM to describe the PV harmonically.
A bandwidth of the EGM Spectrum.
See. Fourier Spectrum.
Potential Spectrum
Another term for the PV spectrum.
See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum.
Poynting Vector
Describes the direction and magnitude of EM energy flow.
The cross product of the Electric and Magnetic field.
Precipitations
Results driven by the application of limits.
Primary Precipitant
The frequency domain precipitation.
See: Precipitations.
Radii Calculations by Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)
Radii calculations by EGM represent the radial position of energetic equilibrium
between the energy density of a homogeneous spherical mass with the ZPF.
The radii predictions calculated by EGM coincide with the RMS charge radii of all
charged fundamental particles.
See: Zero-Point-Field (ZPF).
Range Factor St
The product of the change in energy density and the Impedance Function.
An at-a-glance tool indicating the boundaries of the applied energy requirements for
complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background field.
See: Energy Density.
35
See: Impedance Function.
Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)

See: 2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations.
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx R)
A simplification of the Harmonic Similarity Equations by substitution of RMS
expressions for the time varying representations of applied Electric and Magnetic field
harmonics.
A simplification of the Harmonic Similarity Equations facilitating the investigation of
the effects of phase variance [on a modal (per mode) basis].
Refractive Index KPV
Characterisation value of the PV.
Representation Error RError
Error associated with the mathematical representation of a physical system.
RMS Charge Radii (General)
The RMS charge radius refers to the RMS value of the charge distribution curve.
RMS Charge Radius of the Neutron r
The RMS charge radius of a Neutron r is so termed by analogy to the Neutron Mean
Square charge radius KX which is typically represented as a squared length quantity
fm2. Therefore, the dimensional square root of KX represents r by analogy.
r represents the cross-over radius (the node) on the Neutron charge distribution curve.
Similarity Bandwidth S
The difference between the ZPF beat cut-off frequency and the critical boundary
frequency.
A measure of similarity between the background gravitational field spectrum and the
applied field frequencies (commencing at the ZPF beat cut-off frequency).
See: Critical Boundary .
See: Zero-Point-Field Beat Cut-Off Frequency ZPF.
Spectral Energy Density 0()
Energy density per frequency mode.
Spectral Similarity Equations (SSEx)
A representation of the complete spectrum of the PV utilising the 2nd Reduction of the
Harmonic Similarity Equations by application of similarity principles.
Subordinate Bandwidth
The EM spectrum.
See: Dominant Bandwidth.
Unit Amplitude Spectrum
A harmonic representation of unity (the number one) utilising the amplitude spectrum of
a Fourier distribution.
36
Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE)
The lowest possible energy of the space-time manifold described in quantum terms.
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF)
The field associated with ZPE.
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Spectrum
The spectrum of amplitudes and frequencies associated with the ZPF.
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth ZPF
The difference between the ZPF beat cut-off frequency and the fundamental beat
frequency.
See: Fundamental Beat Frequency r(1,r,r,M).
See: Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Frequency ZPF.
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Frequency ZPF
The terminating frequency of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Mode n ZPF
The terminating mode of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
1st Sense Check St
A common sense test relating the ZPF beat bandwidth to the Compton frequency of an
Electron.
See: Compton Frequency Cx.
See: Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth ZPF.
2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)
A time averaged simplification of the Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations.
2nd Sense Check St
A common sense test relating the PV beat bandwidth to the Compton frequency of an
Electron.
See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth .
3rd Sense Check St
A common sense test relating the harmonic cut-off mode across an elemental
displacement.
See: Harmonic Cut-Off Mode n.
4th Sense Check St
A common sense test relating the representation error across an elemental displacement.
See: Representation Error RError.
5th Sense Check St
A common sense test relating the harmonic cut-off frequency of a Proton to the
Compton frequency of a Proton.
37
6th Sense Check St

A common sense test relating the harmonic cut-off frequency of a Neutron to the
Compton frequency of a Neutron.
Physical Constants [1]
Symbol
c
G
0
0
h
h-bar
Ce
CP
CN
C
C
me
mp
mn
m
m
re
rp
h
mh
th
h
eV
Description
Planck's Constant
Muon Compton Wavelength
Tau Compton Wavelength
Electron rest mass
Proton rest mass
Neutron rest mass
Muon rest mass
Tau rest mass
Classical Electron radius
Classical Proton RMS charge radius
Planck Length
Planck Mass
Planck Time
Planck Frequency
Electron Volt
NIST value utilised by EGM

7.297352568 x10-3
299792458
6.6742 x10-11
8.854187817 x10-12
4 x10-7
6.6260693 x10-34
1.05457168 x10-34
Units
None
m/s
m3kg-1s-2
F/m
N/A2
Js
= h / (me,p,n,, c)
9.1093826 x10-31
1.67262171 x10-27
1.67492728 x10-27
1.88353140 x10-28
3.16777 x10-27
2.817940325 x10-15
0.8750 x10-15
= (Gh/c3)
= (hc/G)
= (Gh/c5)
= 1/th
1.60217653 x10-19
kg
kg
s
Hz
J
Mathematical Constants and Symbols

Euler-Mascheroni Constant (Euler's Constant) [2] = 0.5772156649015328
Refers to an intersection.
Refers to a union.
Or refers to a process: leads to.
Solar System Statistics [3]
Symbol
MM
ME
MJ
MS
RM
RE
RJ
RS
Description
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Earth
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Sun
Mean Radius of the Moon
Mean Radius of the Earth
Mean Radius of Jupiter
Mean Radius of the Sun
38
Value utilised by EGM Units

7.35 x1022
kg
24
5.977 x10
1898.8 x1024
1.989 x1030
1.738 x106
m
6.37718 x106
7.1492 x107
6.96 x108
SPIRAL GALAXY
39
CERN (http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/cern/others/PHO/photo-di/9108002.jpeg)
40
CHAPTER
3.0
Introduction and Document Statistics

Statistic
Appendices
Significant Equations
Significant Figures
Images
Pages
Tables
Words (approx.)
41
Value
13
458
47
27
407
67
64000
NOTES
42
GENERAL
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Laying the Foundations

Since the early 20th century,
gravitational physics has been dominated by
Albert Einsteins concept of General Relativity
(GR) where space-time is defined as a manifold
described by geometric events. Gravitational
influence on the manifold is represented by
space-time curvature and is typically visualised
by analogy to a bowling ball on a trampoline.
The mat deflects under the weight of
the bowling ball and denotes the curvature of
the space-time manifold actioned by the object.
It is also visualised by the path of light around
a massive gravitational object as being bent.
GR has proven to be a useful and reliable tool
by which to map and predict the interaction of
large scale mass systems.
GR has two main issues associated with its
application as a practical engineering tool. Firstly and most
importantly, at least planetary sized masses are required to
affect the state of the manifold in any practical and
meaningful way to engineers. A non-practical / non-viable
approach is to bombard a region of space-time with a
sufficient level of ElectroMagnetic (EM) energy, in the
appropriate manner, to alter its geometric state.
The second main issue is

complexity. [4] As can be clearly seen
from the analytical representation of
only a portion of Einsteins field
equations (left), it is unwieldy and can
only be solved in practical application
terms by numerical methods involving
powerful computers.
Einsteins equations do have a
shorthand representation utilising
Tensors (e.g. G = 8T), but this is
for scientific communication purposes
and still requires numerical evaluation
43
by computers in order to visualise the interaction of gravitational systems.

Complexity becomes even more problematic if less idealised systems are considered. That
is, the absence of symmetries in the system under consideration causes the solution to swell into
thousands of terms in each equation.
Hence, it is discouragingly apparent that GR is not an engineering tool of choice by which to
modify the space-time manifold, in any practical sense, on a laboratory test bench. So what can we
do about it? What can we do to engineer the space-time manifold, or at the very least, develop
experiments to assess if the space-time manifold can indeed be modified utilising existing
equipment and engineering methodologies?
To even begin to answer these questions, we must first establish what investigative tools to
use. A thorough search of the scientific literature will find volumes of information stating scientific
opinions of what gravity is based upon personal interpretation by the individual author, but
absolutely no specific literature exists defining what gravity is factually and unmistakably known to
be. This is self evident in the fact that humanity does not currently know how to engineer gravity
beyond physically arranging masses.
Commonsense compels us to establish a way forward based upon the notion that any
practical benchtop experimental configuration would involve applied sinusoidal EM fields.
Unfortunately, there are no other practical and effective methods of delivering energy to a region of
space-time, so our first decision is actually made for us by the world that we currently live in. By
recognising this boundary, we accept by necessity, the existence of unification between Electric,
Magnetic and gravitational forces. We shall term this unification, Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM).
Given that we have, by necessity, established the existence of EGM, we must also establish
an engineering definition. In order to facilitate this, we should determine if any physical models
exist, other than GR, which are wavefunction based and bias engineering methodologies as our
intention is to investigate gravitational acceleration based upon the superposition of applied
sinusoidal EM fields. An effortless search of the scientific literature reveals that a flat region of
space-time (a region of zero gravitational strength) may be described by a Zero-Point-Field (ZPF).
The ZPF may be described as an endless sea of randomly orientated Photons /
wavefunctions at the Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE) ground state (incrementally above zero) in
accordance with Quantum Mechanical (QM) models. The ZPF may be well visualised (below) by
the ripples on a pond during light rain. The ripples are analogous to the Photons / wavefunctions of
the ZPF and the randomly co-ordinated raindrops are analogous to their orientation. So, how we can
give a ZPF description to gravity at the surface of the Earth?
To answer this question and
facilitate a method by which we can
assign a ZPF description to the surface
of the Earth (which cannot be at the
ZPF ground state of free space
because the gravitational acceleration
is non-zero), we require an additional
model, other than GR and ZPF
Theory.
Again, an effortless search
reveals the Polarisable Vacuum (PV)
model of gravity to be a practical
alternative to GR, at minimum,
isomorphic in the weak field.
Image depicting ZPF analogy to pond ripples,
44
The PV model of gravity, as the name suggests,

acts to polarise the ZPF analogous to the field lines
produced by a magnet (right). Because the vacuum is
polarised at the surface of the Earth, the orientation of
the gravitational vector is straight down and gravity
may be usefully described as a one dimensional (1-D)
phenomenon in human experience.
In other words, gravity in human experience is
not three dimensional (3-D). The importance of this
realisation is of paramount significance as it greatly
simplifies the mathematics involved within EGM. So,
between what we understand of ZPF Theory, the PV
model of gravity and the EGM method thus far, we
have partially deduced a suite of tools for investigative
engineering.
Image depicting PV analogy to field lines,
The magnitude of gravitational acceleration
may be usefully approximated to being a constant
mathematical function at all points vertically across
a room. This may be decomposed into a spectral
family of constituent harmonics utilising a simple
Fourier distribution. The lower spectral limit is
termed the fundamental frequency PV(1,r,M),
whilst the upper spectral limit is termed the
harmonic cut-off frequency .
Image depicting Fourier harmonics,
The image above depicts a Fourier representation of a square wave for PV(1,r,M) and the
first 15 harmonics. A usefully approximate Fourier description of any function involves the near
infinite summation of harmonics. The physical problem that is intended to be described by
application of this method may be over a displacement domain, or simply in the time domain
without any intention to be representative of wave propagation.
In the case of gravity, we may apply a Fourier description to a specific mathematical point
above the surface of the Earth, by considering the wavefunctions at that point as being pseudopropagating. That is, we can mathematically regard them as propagating wavefunctions, without
an actual physical requirement to do so.
This concept is reinforced by the fact that the collective behaviour of the entire spectrum of
wavefunctions at the mathematical point under consideration will have a group velocity of zero due
to the mathematical summation at that point to a constant value. That is, the wavefunction
mathematically cannot propagate. This agrees with physical observation since gravitational waves
are not observed to propagate from planetary bodies. Hence, a pseudo-propagating representation
in the Fourier domain is a useful engineering tool.
Therefore, the magnitude of gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth may be
mathematically described in the Fourier domain by the magnitude of the square wave depicted in
the preceding image. Subsequently, by applying a Fourier series to practical human experience, we
can determine the spectral composition of the polarised state of the ZPF at the surface of the Earth
to great precision. We shall define the resulting Fourier representation as the PV spectrum.
The next step in assessing if the space-time manifold can indeed be modified is to study the
best example of space-time available to us: the practical volume of space-time on a laboratory test
bench! To achieve this, we shall reverse engineer the volume utilising Dimensional Analysis
Techniques (DATs) and Buckingham Theory (BPT).
45
The following statement is a verbatim quotation from [5, 6]

Dimensional Analysis is a conceptual tool often applied in physics, chemistry, and
engineering to understand physical situations involving a mix of different kinds of physical
quantities. It is routinely used by physical scientists and engineers to check the plausibility of
derived equations. Only like dimensioned quantities may be added, subtracted, compared, or
equated.
When like or unlike dimensioned quantities are multiplied or divided, their dimensions are
likewise multiplied or divided. When dimensioned quantities are raised to a power or a power root,
the same is done to the dimensions attached to those quantities. The dimensions of a physical
quantity is associated with symbols such as M, L, T which represent mass, length and time, each
raised to rational powers. For instance, the dimension of the physical variable speed is distance /
time (L/T) and the dimension of force is mass distance / time (ML/T). In mechanics, every
dimension can be expressed in terms of distance (which physicists often call length), time and
mass, or alternatively in terms of force, length and mass.
Depending on the problem, it may be advantageous to choose one or another set of
dimensions. In ElectroMagnetism, for example, it may be useful to use dimensions of M, L, T, and
Q, where Q represents the quantity of electric charge. The units of a physical quantity are
defined by convention, related to some standard; e.g. length may have units of meters, feet, inches,
miles or micrometres; but length always has dimension L whether it is measured in meters, feet,
inches, miles or micrometres.
In the most primitive form, dimensional analysis may be used to check the correctness of
physical equations: in every physically meaningful expression, only quantities of the same
dimension can be added or subtracted. Moreover, the two sides of any equation must have the same
dimensions. For example, the mass of a rat and the mass of a flea may be added, but the mass of a
flea and the length of a rat cannot be added.
Furthermore, the arguments to exponential, trigonometric and logarithmic functions must be
dimensionless numbers. The logarithm of 3(kg) is undefined, but the logarithm of 3 is 0.477.
It should be noted that very different physical quantities may have the same dimensions: work and
torque, for example, have the same dimensions, M L2T-2.
An equation with torque on one side and energy on the other would be dimensionally
correct, but cannot be physically correct! However, torque multiplied by an angular twist measured
in (dimensionless) radians is work or energy. The radian is the mathematically natural measure of
an angle and is the ratio of arc of a circle swept by such an angle divided by the radius of the circle.
The value of a dimensional physical quantity is written as the product of a unit within the
dimension and a dimensionless numerical factor. When like dimensioned quantities are added,
subtracted or compared, these dimensioned quantities must be expressed in consistent units so that
the numerical values of these quantities may be directly added or subtracted. But, conceptually,
there is no problem adding quantities of the same dimension expressed in different units.
BPT forms the basis of the central tool of Dimensional Analysis. This theorem describes
how every physically meaningful equation involving n variables can be equivalently rewritten as
an equation of n-m dimensionless parameters, where m is the number of fundamental
dimensions used. Furthermore, and most importantly, it provides a method for computing these
dimensionless parameters from the given variables, even if the form of the equation is still
unknown.
BPT is a systematic method of Dimensional Analysis, whereby variables that are relevant to
a particular situation are formed into dimensionless groups. The number of dimensionless groups
equals the original number of variables minus the number of fundamental dimensions present in all
the variables. This analysis reduces the degrees of freedom for a physical situation and can be used
to guide experimental design programs.
Proofs of BPT often begin by considering the space of fundamental and derived physical
units as a vector space, with the fundamental units as basis vectors and with multiplication of
physical units as the vector addition operation and raising to powers as the scalar multiplication
46
operation. Making the physical units match across sets of physical equations can then be regarded
as imposing linear constraints in the physical unit vector space.
Two systems for which these parameters coincide are called similar; they are equivalent for
the purposes of the equation and the experimentalist whom wishes to determine the form of the
equation can choose the most convenient one. BPT uses linear algebra: the space of all possible
physical units can be seen as a vector space over rational numbers if we represent a unit as the set of
exponents needed for the fundamental units (with a power of zero if the particular fundamental unit
is not present). Multiplication of physical units is then represented by vector addition within this
vector space. The algorithm of BPT is essentially a Gauss-Jordan elimination carried out in this
vector space.
In 1941, Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor used
Dimensional Analysis to estimate the energy
released in an atomic bomb explosion. The first
atomic bomb was detonated in New Mexico on
July 16, 1945. In 1947, movies of the explosion
were declassified, allowing Sir Taylor to
complete the analysis and estimate the energy
released in the explosion, even though the
energy release was still classified! The actual
energy released was later declassified and its
value was remarkably close to Taylor's estimate.
Taylor supposed that the explosive
process was adequately described by five
physical quantities, the time t since the
detonation, the energy E which is released at a single point in space at detonation, the radius
R of the shock wave at time t, the ambient atmospheric pressure p and density . There are
only three fundamental physical units in this combination (MLT) which yield Taylor's equation.
Once the radius of the explosion as a function of the time was known, the energy of the explosion
was calculated.
End of verbatim quotation.
The EGM Approach
We shall utilise BPT to relate gravitational acceleration, EM acceleration by the
superposition of applied fields, ZPF Theory and the PV model of gravity via Einsteins equivalence
principle. Dimensionally, there is no difference between gravitational and EM acceleration. The
equivalence principle provides a well accepted vehicle for the logical application of BPT and
DATs to gravity. Much of Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics is built form the application of
BPT and DATs. BPT facilitates the ability to string together any number of variables in a way that
permits one to test ones own idea. So, it is really a mix between science and art. There is nothing
wrong with any grouping formed utilising BPT, it is simply a question of how well a grouping
tends to fit physical observation.
The BPT formalism affords an engineer the ability to phrase the dynamics of an
Experimental Prototype (EP) in multiple ways resulting in an equation describing the system
mathematically. BPT provides the mathematical syntax upon which an equation may be
constructed. An engineer designs one yielding a robust depiction of the EP. Parameters may be
included or removed from the construct until an appropriate mathematical model is formulated.
To derive the PV spectrum, we take the standard ZPF spectral energy density equation that
describes the energy density in a region of space as a smooth cubic distribution and combine it with
a Fourier distribution. This yields the beginning and endpoint of the spectrum. In other words,
objects with mass polarise the ZPF which may be described as a Fourier distribution at the surface
of the object. The surface is the equilibrium boundary between the energy contained within the
47
object and the polarised state of the ZPF surrounding it.

The difference between the EGM, PV and ZPF spectra is that the EGM spectrum
commences incrementally above 0(Hz) and approaches the Planck Frequency. The PV spectrum
is mass specific and represents a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum commencing at a non-zero
fundamental frequency. The EGM and PV spectra follow a Fourier distribution. The ZPF spectrum
has the same frequency bandwidth of the EGM spectrum, but does not follow a Fourier distribution.
So, the EGM spectrum is the polarised form of the ZPF spectrum, whilst the PV spectrum is an
object specific subset of the EGM spectrum following a Fourier distribution.
Note: the EGM spectrum is a simple, but extreme, extension of the EM spectrum.
ElectroMagnetic spectrum,
DATs and BPT bring to the research and design table, the following key elements: [7]
It helps to assess the reasonableness of a model and which variables it should
contain.
It reduces the number of variables and parameters to a minimum.
It reduces the number of needed experiments, on computers as well as in the
laboratory.
It provides the fundamental theory behind experiments on scale models.
It is a systematic method for the analysis of problems.
It forces you to make estimates and to understand the problem.
It helps you understand what is important and what is not.
It produces dimensionless equations with small (or large) parameters.
It facilitates a reverse engineering approach to gravity if a region of space-time on
a laboratory test bench is considered to be the Experimental Prototype (EP) for the
mathematical model produced by the application of DATs and BPT. Subsequently,
the mathematical model can be applied to the EP for scaling purposes, leading to
gravity control experiments.
Note: DATs and BPT should be applied before numerical computations are done.
We develop a dynamic, kinematic and geometric equivalent of the ZPF, expressed in
Fourier terms, which describes gravity at the surface of the Earth as a PV. The EGM spectrum is a
simple, but extreme, extension of the EM spectrum. In the same way that radio waves, visible light,
ultra violet, x-rays and gamma rays exist, gravitational waves exist as a spectrum of frequencies.
The EGM spectrum is in fact the EM spectrum (subject to a Fourier distribution) but with an end
point approaching the Planck Frequency at conditions of maximum permissible energy density.
48
Typically, for the surface of the Earth for example, the vast majority of gravitational waves
exist well above the Terahertz (THz) range. It is extremely important to note that gravity does not
exist as a single wave; it exists as a spectrum of frequencies with a group propagation velocity of
zero. EGM does not differentiate between EM and gravitational spectra but does predict the
endpoint as being far above what we currently measure the EM spectrum to be.
EGM Achievements
We may indirectly test the validity
of the EGM model with respect to gravity
by utilising EGM to determine fundamental
particle properties such as mass and radii.
If we are able to make mathematical
predictions for these characteristics which
can be experimentally verified (as a litmus
test), it follows that the EGM method is
qualitatively and quantitatively validated.
As it turns out, much in terms of
mass and radii that is currently known in
particle physics can be derived from first
principles utilising EGM. In other words,
the mathematical predictions made by the
EGM method with respect to particle mass
and radii have been experimentally
verified, or at the very least (if not yet
experimentally verified), satisfy Particle
Data Group (PDG) mass-energy ranges.
We are able to show utilising the EGM method that all
particles (relative to an arbitrary selected base / reference
particle) can be described as harmonic multiples of each other
and indeed, all matter may be described in terms of Photons.
For example, all flavours of Quarks may be described as exact
harmonic multiples of the Up or Down Quark.
Alternatively, they may also be described as exact harmonic
multiples of the Electron. None of the particle predictions
made herein, or EGM for that matter, contradict the Standard
Model (SM) of particle physics in any way. Most importantly,
EGM is the simple recognition of a mathematical pattern in
nature.
The amplitude spectrum within a Fourier series is
comprised of an inverted harmonic series. The frequency
spectrum within a Fourier distribution is a typical arithmetic
sequence. If we assume that nature is truly quantum, we are
able to find the fundamental spectral frequency and possess a
method by which to describe the entire spectrum. This results
in a very neat and complete harmonic description of the
Universe. Effectively, the harmonic representation is the
power of one (the number 1 represented harmonically with
a Fourier distribution).
It is possible to characterise objects with mass, say
planets, by their spectral signature. This could be either the
49
terminating or average spectral frequencies. Either way, it is characteristic of a spectral signature.

The EGM model looks at mass and fields as harmonic wavefunction radiators. That is not to say
that the Earth (for example) physically radiates waves because they are not detected radiating from
planetary bodies.
There is a mathematical argument for this as well as a common sense argument. The
common sense argument being that the group velocity of the spectrum must be zero and that is why
we do not detect waves being radiated. The mathematical argument is that because each
mathematical point away from the object / planet is physically known to be in a constant
gravitational state, the summation of a near infinite number of waves under a Fourier distribution
results in a group propagation velocity of zero, which concurs with physical observation.
Consequently, in the fullness of time,
humanity may be able to develop gravitational
telescopes that may be tuned to specific
frequencies relating to masses etc. Alternatively,
if the principle could be proven and the
technology developed, it would be possible to
differentiate between a genuine incoming
ballistic missile threat and a highly reflective
radar decoy with 100(%) accuracy.
EGM, in effect, means that Electricity,
Magnetism and gravity have been unified from
the sub-atomic level up to objects about the
size of Neutron Stars, with approximately a
5(%) error based upon the change in the
Cosmological Constant in terms of energy
density over small practical laboratory benchtop
displacement values.
We apply a calculated value of ZPF beat cutoff frequency ZPF to derive the Casimir Force to
high computational precision at the surface of the
Earth (physically verified) and illustrate it to be
different in other gravitational fields such as on the
surface of other planets. Currently, its classical
representation depicts its value as being constant
throughout the Universe, independent of gravitational
field strength.
We show that the modes excluded from the
plates (typically more modes are excluded on planets
with lower gravitational field strengths) create a
pressure imbalance that is responsible for the Casimir
Force. This means that planets with greater
gravitational field strengths have a compressed
bandwidth which is shifted toward the upper end of the
EGM spectrum.
Hence, there are fewer low frequency modes
and a greater number of higher frequency modes that
simply pass through the plates, for gravitational fields
of higher strength (its terminating spectral frequency
will be greater).
50
Note: EGM can also be utilised to produce repulsive Casimir Forces in accordance with current
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models.
As mass increases, the PV spectrum is
compressed (like a spring) such that the number of
modes within that spectrum approaches unity and
PV(1,r,M) = in the case of a Planck particle.
This was not a design goal in EGM development, it
is a consequence of good mathematical formulation
and has not been pre-empted in any way.
By contrast, in free space where the spacetime manifold is completely flat (by analogy: the
spring is decompressed due to the absence of
mass), the ZPF is comprised of an infinite number
of modes with tending towards zero.
That is, the ZPF spectrum is infinitely
broad but bounded by a low frequency end-point.
This arises from the notion that the fundamental
harmonic frequency of a completely (or nearly
completely) flat space-time manifold is extremely
low [incrementally above 0(Hz)].
For the sake of argument, the ZPF may have a fundamental frequency of 10-N(Hz)
(where N denotes a very large number), in which case if the harmonic cut-off mode n was
near infinite, say the 10Nth mode, then is still only 1(Hz)! The same method is used to
describe particle properties and to calculate the Casimir Force. Currently, no other methods are
known to exist that can derive the Casimir Force from particle properties or vice versa based upon
ZPF Theory or the PV model of gravity.
One particular mathematical constant used in EGM is called Eulers
constant (Leonhard Euler (right): 1707 1783). This is a purely
mathematical construct and currently has no physical meaning at the
quantum level. We apply to calculate n and which is utilised
to produce experimentally verified fundamental particle properties.
Consequently, if the mass-energy of a Photon m can be
physically verified, the relevant equation may be transposed and solved for
Eulers Constant. Therefore, it may be possible to determine the natural
physical limit of Eulers Constant at the quantum level, implying that
mathematics itself has a natural physical limit!
EGM is also able to determine an
experimentally implicit calculation of the Planck
Scale [Max Planck (left): 1858 1947]. By EGM
estimation, the Planck Scale is about 16(%) too
small and the Bohr radius [Niels Bohr (right):
1885 1962] is about 0.35(%) too large. The
experimentally implicit calculation of the Bohr
radius is based upon the ZPF equilibrium state of
the Hydrogen atom. This also leads to the first
term of the Balmer series for the emission /
absorption spectrum of the Hydrogen atom and by
inference, the entire series may be derived.
51
EGM Formulation Tips

Note: apply financial investment logic, i.e. you will only find high return investments if you look
where nobody else is looking to invest.
Therefore, one should keep the following in mind:
1. GR is correct, but it is an ineffective engineering tool.
2. Nature follows basic mathematical patterns.
3. Planetary geometry may be usefully approximated to spherical.
4. Consider a volume of space-time on a practical laboratory benchtop and reverse engineer
the gravitational contents of that volume.
5. Dont try to describe what things actually are, only how we perceive them to be.
6. Gravity is a 1-D phenomenon in human experience. No human being has ever directly
experienced gravity as being 3-D, even though astronomical observation shows it to be.
7. Be practical: IFF gravity can be controlled artificially, then by necessity, it must be EM in
nature because ElectroMagnetism is the only practical tool available to us.
8. The EGM formulation process is an engineering approach where useful approximations are
better than unworkable exact statements. It is better to be approximately correct, than very
precisely wrong.
9. Imagine that all mass radiates a spectrum of Photons existing as conjugate pairs in
accordance with Fourier mathematics in complex form.
10. Relate gravitational and EM acceleration via the equivalence principle.
11. The equivalence principle is a relativistic manifestation of DAT's and BPT.
12. Gravity arises from a change in energy density and physically manifests in terms of an EM
Poynting Vector.
13. Humanity does not factually know the true nature of EM waves.
14. Recognise that the classical representation of an EM wave (i.e. a sinusoid) is merely a
human representation of observed effects described mathematically.
15. If Electricity, Magnetism and gravity can be unified utilising sinusoidal wavefunctions, then
the relationship between the volume of space-time to be reverse engineered and the
mathematical model applied to describe it (i.e. sinusoidal wavefunctions), is ideal because it
would actually be relating the same system twice.
16. Assume that unification manifests at the most fundamental level possible in nature such that
all systems may be usefully described as linear at this level.
17. Recognise that, under ideal conditions, the relationship function typically determined
experimentally when applying DATs and BPT (i.e. relating the experimental prototype to
the mathematical model) has a value of unity.
18. DAT's and BPT are geometrically based. Since GR is also geometrically based, there is an
obvious connection between GR, DAT's and BPT.
19. Assume that a ZPF equilibrium point exists (the point where the energy inside the object is
in balance with the field energy outside the object).
20. Recognise that everything in nature behaves as a system.
21. Controls systems engineering principles should be considered at all times.
Controls systems engineering is all
about, as the name suggests, controlling
the behaviour of machines, systems or
situations. It is an extremely important
function in the sphere of engineering.
Without such a field of study, we
wouldnt have much of what we
currently know.
Image depicting feedback control loop,
52
To exist in steady state is extremely important to nature, engineers and society. Nature itself,
always wants to achieve steady state. Typically, this takes the form of the lowest possible energy
level and the way it achieves this may be represented by negative feedback control loops in many
situations. So, it is really quite important to look at things as systems and the information exchange
between the system elements, feeding back error to achieve steady state.
Tips for Applying EGM to Particle Physics
Image depicting particles in a bubble chamber,
One should keep the following in mind:
1. Recognise that there is no energy in
fundamental particles (at rest) beyond
their mass as is clearly illustrated by
Einstein (E = mc2). There is no charge
term in the equation; therefore, charge
must be a physical manifestation of its
mass in some unknown direct or
indirect manner.
2. Spherical particle geometry is the natural
shape of the lowest energy state.
3. If an observer was on the surface of a
fundamental particle, it would appear
spherical.
4. Special Relativity (SR) effects may be usefully neglected. If an observer is sufficiently far
away, ellipsoidal distinction in not possible. Considering how small the sub-atomic scale is
relative to the laboratory test bench and the human observer, supports this contention.
5. The equilibrium point of the ZPF will always be in the same frame of reference as the
particle itself; hence the particle will always be approximately spherical relative to the ZPF
equilibrium radius.
Accidental Particle Property Predictions by EGM
The possibility of the highly precise, experimentally
verified particle mass and radii predictions made by EGM to be
luck or accidental should be considered. We may apply common
sense digestion of this possibility as well as develop mathematical
arguments to determine the true likelihood of EGM predictions
being a fluke.
For simplicity and brevity, we shall consider the Proton
RMS charge radius r and the Neutron Mean Square charge
radius KX as both are regarded, by the particle physics
community, to have been precisely measured [r = 0.8307(fm)
and KX = 0.113(fm2)]. It is shown by EGM that KX may be
converted to the RMS charge radius [r = 0.8269(fm)].
Both particle radii predictions by EGM are within experimental uncertainty, so we shall
consider them to be exactly correct physical values. If we consider the radii predictions to be a
string of dimensionless digits based upon conversion of the fm scale, probability boundaries may
be conjectured and represented as follows,
r becomes 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-8-3-0-7
r becomes 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-8-2-6-9
53
If each digit in the r string has a 1 in 10 chance of coming up, the probability of getting
a string of 19 numbers correct is 1/10, 19 times. Hence, the probability of r being a fluke
match with the experimentally verified result is: P = 10-19.
Moreover, if we consider the Neutron as well, the total probability of both particles being
numerically correct in relation to experimentally verified results, is equal to the probability of both
particles being fluked and may be written as: P+ = P2 = 10-38.
In addition, if we apply the same rationale to the predictions of Electric and Magnetic radii
of the Proton and the Magnetic radius of the Neutron by EGM, the total probability PT of error
becomes even smaller. Furthermore, if we also consider the mass-energy predictions of the Top
Quark by EGM, then PT << 10-38.
Note: the total probability of the EGM method being in error and achieving experimentally verified
results by fluke is trivial and may be usefully approximated to zero (PT 0).
1.1.1 CURRENT PROBLEMS
1.1.1.1 PHYSICS
There are several major stops currently facing ZPF Theory and the SM in particle physics
that have been addressed by the development of the EGM construct herein. Some of these may be
articulated as follows:
1. Dilemma: The precise spectral composition of the ZPF is unknown.
Resolution: EGM resolves this problem by relating Fourier Harmonics to energy

density via the PV model of gravity. This precisely defines the spectral composition
of the ZPF at the surface of a solid spherical object of homogeneous mass-energy
distribution.
2. Dilemma: The SM in particle physics does not allow for the existence of any new
fundamental particles beyond current predictions.
Resolution: EGM predicts the existence of three new Leptons (and associated
Neutrino's) and two new Quarks or Bosons. However, it is likely that these are
Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVBs - force carriers).
3. Dilemma: Particle properties such as mass-energy and radii are completely unknown for
many particles.
Resolution: EGM facilitates the calculation of mass-energy and radii for all
fundamental particles.
4. Dilemma: Particle properties such as mass-energy and radii are calculated in different ways,
depending on the particle. That is, there is no uniformity of approach.
Resolution: EGM facilitates the calculation of mass-energy and radii from a common
footing. That is, a common method of solution is presented for all fundamental
particles.
5. Dilemma: The Solar Neutrino mass detected at laboratories on Earth only accounts for
about half of what should be ejected from the Sun according to the SM in particle physics.
Resolution: The prediction of additional Leptons and associated Neutrino's by EGM

may account for the absence of Solar Neutrino mass.
54
6. Dilemma: The Planck Scale is a purely theoretical construct:
Resolution: EGM produces an experimentally implicit definition of the Planck Scale.
7. Dilemma: The Bohr radius is a purely theoretical construct:
Resolution: EGM produces an experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius

based upon the ZPF equilibrium state of the Hydrogen atom. This also leads to the
first term of the Balmer series for the emission / absorption spectrum of the
Hydrogen atom and by inference, the entire series may be derived.
1.1.1.2 MATHEMATICS
The following statement is a verbatim quotation from [2]
The Euler-Mascheroni Constant (Euler's Constant ) was first defined by Euler in 1735
(using the letter C) and stated that it was worthy of serious consideration and represents the
limit of a harmonic sequence. The symbol was first used by Mascheroni in 1790.
It is not known if the constant is irrational, let alone transcendental. It is rumoured that the
famous English mathematician G.H. Hardy allegedly offered his chair at Oxford to anyone who
can prove to be irrational, although no written reference to this quote seems to be known.
Hilbert mentioned the irrationality of to be an unsolved problem that is unapproachable.
End of verbatim quotation.
Euler's Constant represents an extremely important characteristic in mathematics and cuts
across many areas including Merten's Theorem and the Reimann Zeta Function. Currently, is
only known to exist as a purely mathematical construct, therefore:
8. Dilemma: has no physical meaning:
Resolution: EGM facilitates an experimentally implicit calculation of based upon

the determination that the diameter of a Photon at rest is precisely the Planck Length.
1.1.2 HOW EGM WORKS

To understand the way in which EGM works, one requires a basic knowledge of engineering
principles. Primarily, EGM is a method of calculation (not a theory) based upon fundamental
engineering principles and techniques. It does not compete with or contradict the SM in particle
physics in any manner.
The creation and development of EGM was driven by necessity. A scan of contemporary
approaches in gravitational physics illustrates an obvious lack of mathematical tools facilitating
engineering of the space-time manifold. Or rather, engineering possibilities are obvious, but require
massive objects on a planetary, stellar or galactic scale.
Therefore, to facilitate gravity control, a new tool is required permitting engineering of the
space-time manifold. To begin the process, we must first make some basic assumptions based upon
the availability and practicality of existing tools by which we may construct further tools. We shall
use one tool to build another. EGM is nothing more than an engineering tool constructed from other
engineering tools and should be always regarded as such.
Engineering is fundamentally a practical discipline that does not search for highly precise
numerical or exact results. Instead, it aims to achieve physically meaningful quantitative solutions.
Again, practicality and common sense must prevail and, by necessity, must commence with the
assumption that any realistic attempt at gravity control must physically fit on a laboratory test
bench. There is no benefit in developing a tool requiring non-practical scales of reality.
55
Einstein brought forth the concept that mass and energy are interchangeable. This is trivially
obvious by virtue of his now famous equation (E = mc2). This, combined with practical thinking,
clearly suggests that EM radiation is the mechanism of choice. Hence, we have established the basic
requirements going forward. That is, we are necessarily bounded in research and design terms by
practical benchtop EM fields.
The next step is to find a tool that facilitates the construction of relationships tying EM
fields to acceleration. For an experienced engineer, the answer is obvious. In situations where little
has been established previously, Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's) and Buckingham's
Theory (BPT) are solid first steps. In addition to being able to connect seemingly unrelated
parameters, it also serves to minimise the number of experiments required to investigate physical
behaviour.
BPT is a similarity method that has been tried and proven experimentally for many years. In
fact, much of present day Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics knowledge may be attributed to
DAT's and BPT. Mainstream understanding of gravity is based upon GR which is a geometric
approach. It describes space-time curvature as a set of geometric artefacts resulting in what we
experience as gravity.
Assuming Einstein was correct and the enormous collective scientific effort since 1905 has
not been a poor investment, it follows that any geometrically based engineering tool is an excellent
starting point. Deeper understanding of BPT reveals that it is a method based upon dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity. Being geometric in nature makes it ideally suited to
gravitational problems in keeping with GR.
However, a strict GR approach is unwieldy and a simpler description would be highly
advantageous. Subsequently, we utilise the PV model of gravity as a substitute to GR, which is
isomorphic in the weak field, is conducive to engineering approaches and facilitates the
development of the EGM construct.
Thus far, we have established several of the baseline elements forming a skeletal EGM
structure. To add flesh, we require a way to relate the geometric output of BPT to the PV model of
gravity. The relationship between the two may be bridged by assuming the equivalence principle
applies cross discipline.
Considering the need for an EM mechanism, we shall assume that the PV model of gravity
denotes a polarised state of the ZPF representing a sinusoidal manifestation of the space-time
manifold by virtual particles, Photons or wavefunctions. Consequently, it follows that the
representation of gravity at a mathematical point by Fourier Harmonics is a useful tool by which to
represent the ZPF.
Therefore, we may relate the logic of the preceding arguments in a solution algorithm
constituting the EGM construct by five simple steps as follows,
i. Apply DAT's, BPT and similarity principles to combine Electricity, Magnetism and
resultant EM acceleration in the form of groupings.
ii. Apply the equivalence principle to the groupings formed in (i).
iii. Apply Fourier Harmonics to the equivalence principle.
iv. Apply ZPF Theory to Fourier Harmonics.
v. Apply the PV model of gravity to the ZPF.
These steps may be logically granulated according to the application of basic engineering
principles producing an iterative cascade design approach as follows,
Chapter 3.1:
Application of Dimensional Analysis Techniques and Buckingham Theory

The relationship between EM fields and acceleration is demonstrated by the
application of BPT. It is illustrated that, for physical modelling applications,
manipulating the full spectrum of the PV is not required and optimal PV
coupling may exist at specific frequency modes. This dramatically simplifies
the design of experimental prototypes and suggests that the PV may be
usefully approximated to a discrete wave spectrum by applying an intense
56
superposition of fields within a single frequency mode.

Chapter 3.2:
The development of general modelling equations and the critical factor
Chapter 3.3:
A critical factor, proportional to the Poynting Vector, is identified by

application of similarity principles. This may be determined by direct
measurement of the intensity of the EM field strength at each harmonic
frequency mode.
The development of an engineered metric
Chapter 3.4:
Engineering expressions are developed for experimental investigations

involving coupling between EM fields and gravity that may be characterised
by the magnitude of the superposition of Poynting Vectors. Based upon
dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle, it is concluded that an
engineered acceleration may be used to modify the gravitational acceleration
at the surface of the Earth by an engineered change in the value of the
Refractive Index.
The derivation of gravitational amplitude and frequency spectra
Chapter 3.5:
It is concluded that the delivery of EM radiation to a test object may be used

to alter the weight of the object. If the test object is bombarded by EM
radiation, at high energy density and frequency, the gravitational spectral
signature of the test object may undergo constructive or destructive
interference.
The development of general similarity relationships

It is concluded that the frequency dependent conditions for gravitational
similarity at the surface of the Earth are enormous.
Summarising yields:
i. The ZPF spectrum of free space is composed of an infinite number of
modes, with frequencies tending to 0(Hz).
ii. The group velocity produced by the PV at a mathematical point and
across practical values of r at the surface of the Earth is 0(m/s).
Consequently, gravitational wavefunctions are not observed to
propagate from the centre of a planetary body.
iii. Planetary mass-energy density is proportional to the spectral energy
density at its surface.
iv. Gravitational acceleration exists (at practical benchtop experimental
conditions / dimensions) as a relatively narrow band of beat frequencies
in the PHz [x1015(Hz)] range. Spectral frequency compositions below
this range [approx. less than 42(THz)] are negligible [similarity 0(%)].
v. General Similarity Equations facilitate the construction of
computational models to assist in designing optimal experiments.
Moreover, they can readily be coded into off-the-shelf-3D-EM
simulation tools to facilitate the experimental investigation process.
vi. A solution for optimal experimental similarity utilising EM
configurations exists when Maxwell's Equations at steady state
conditions are observed such that:
(a) The divergence of the applied Electric field and curl of the applied
Magnetic field is maximised.
57
(b) The magnitude and curl of the applied Electric field is minimised.
Chapter 3.6:
The development of harmonic and spectral similarity relationships
Chapter 3.7:
A number of tools that facilitate the experimental design process are

presented. These include the development of a design matrix based upon the
unit amplitude spectrum, the derivation of Harmonic and Spectral Similarity
Equations, Critical Phase Variance, Critical Field Strengths and Critical
Frequency.
The derivation of the Casimir effect

An experimental prediction is formulated hypothesising the existence of a
resonant modal condition for application to classical parallel plate Casimir
experiments. The resonant condition is subsequently utilised to derive the
Casimir Force to high precision. The results obtained suggest Casimir Forces
arise due to PV pressure imbalance between the plates induced by the
presence of a physical boundary excluding low energy harmonic modes.
Chapter 3.8:
The derivation of the Photon mass-energy threshold

It is illustrated that the PV model of gravity based upon the existence of a
spectrum of frequencies makes the following predictions,
i. The Photon mass-energy threshold for a mode normalised population of
Photons is believed to be < 5.75 x10-17(eV), based upon the physical
properties of an Electron.
ii. Experimental validation of the Photon mass-energy boundary predicted
herein may be natural evidence of Eulers Constant at a quantum level.
Chapter 3.9:
The derivation of fundamental particle radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron)

It is illustrated that the EGM model of gravity predicts experimentally
supported RMS charge radii values of a free Electron, Proton and Neutron
from an almost entirely mathematical foundation. Experimental predictions
have been derived from first principles for the RMS charge radii of a free
Electron, Proton and Neutron to high computational precision. This places
the derived value of Proton radius to within 0.38(%) of the average
Simon and Hand predictions, arguably the two most precise and widely
cited references since the 1960's.
Most importantly, the SELEX Collaboration has experimentally verified the
Proton radius prediction derived herein to extremely high precision
{[0.69(fm2)] = 0.8307(fm)}.
The derived value of Electron radius compares favourably to results obtained
in High-Energy scattering experiments conducted at LANL. It has also
been illustrated that a change in Electron mass of +0.04(%) accompanies
the High-Energy scattering measurements. This suggests that the Electron
radius depends on the manner in which it is measured and the energy
absorbed by the Electron during the measuring process.
The Fine Structure Constant is also derived, to within 0.026(%) of its NIST
value, utilising the Electron and Proton radii construct herein. In addition, it
is predicted that the terminating gravitational spectral frequency for each
58
particle may be expressed simply in terms of Compton frequencies.
Chapter 3.10: The derivation of the Photon and Graviton mass-energies and radii
The mass-energies and RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton are
derived. The results agree with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models,
implicitly supporting the limiting definition of Planck length.
Chapter 3.11: The derivation of Lepton radii

The RMS charge radii of all Leptons are derived to high computational
precision; the Fine Structure Constant is also derived to within 7.6 x10-3
(%) of its NIST 2002 value.
Chapter 3.12: The derivation of Quark and Boson mass-energies and radii
The mass-energies and RMS charge radii of all Quarks are derived in
agreement with PDG estimates, experimental observations and
generalisations made by the ZEUS Collaboration (ZC). The Top Quark
mass-energy derived is shown to be within 0.35(%) of the value concluded
by the D-Zero Collaboration (D0C).
The RMS charge radii of the W, Z and Higgs Boson are also derived and
it is illustrated that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact harmonic
multiples of the Electron. The derived harmonic relationships between the
Lepton, Quark and Boson groups, suggests that all fundamental particles
radiate populations of Photons at specific frequencies.
Chapter 3.13: The derivation of an experimentally implicit definition of the Planck Scale,
prediction of new particles and the design of an experiment to test the
negative energy conjecture
This chapter derives:
i. An experimentally implicit increase of the Planck Scale.
ii. An approximation of the RMS charge radius of a free Photon, utilising
physical properties of the Lepton family, specifically all Electron-Like
particles.
iii. The existence of three (3) new particles in the Lepton family.
iv. The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families.
v. The optimal practical benchtop configuration of a Classical Casimir
Experiment to test the negative energy conjecture.
App. 3.D:
Derivation of Lepton radii

A precise numerical result for all Lepton radii is achieved utilising the
analytical representations in chapter 3.1 - 3.12 as boundary conditions.
App. 3.E:
Derivation of Quark and Boson mass-energies and radii

A precise numerical result for all Quark and Boson mass-energies and radii is
achieved utilising the analytical representations in chapter 3.1 - 3.12 as
boundary conditions.
59
App. 3.G:
App. 3.H:
Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Neutrino radii
App. 3.I:
Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum
An essential mathematical subroutine facilitating this process is the derivation of similarity

equations. This is the most complicated procedure undertaken herein, is extremely important and
may be articulated as follows,
(DAT's)
Buckingham Theory
(BPT)

(GMEx)
Amplitude and Frequency Spectra

(CPV & PV)

(GSEx)

(HSEx)
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations

(HSEx R)
2nd Reduction of Harmonic Similarity Equations

(Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations)
(HSExA R)

(SSEx)
Fundamental Particle Properties, the Hydrogen Atom

Spectrum and the Casimir Force
60
1.2
KEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The most important results determined by the EGM construct may be categorised into five
main areas as follows:
i. Polarisable Vacuum and Zero-Point-Field.
ii. Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant.
iii. All other particles.
iv. The Casimir Force.
v. The Planck Scale and the Bohr radius.
Hence (equation numbers appear on the RHS of the page):
PV and ZPF
Gravitational amplitude spectrum CPV

G.M .
C PV n PV, r , M
(3.64)
Gravitational frequency spectrum PV

n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
.r
PV n PV, r , M
2
.
n PV
(3.67)

( r , M ) n ( r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant

Note: Euler's Constant may be calculated by: (i) physical measurement of m and (ii), the
assumption that 2 x r is precisely equal to the experimentally implicit value of the Planck
Length characterised by K x h.
The mass-energy of a Graviton mgg

mgg = 2m
The mass-energy of a Photon m

3
h .
re
(3.216)
.r e
2 .c .G.m e
512.G.m e
c .
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.220)
The radius of a Photon r

5
r r e .
m e .c
r K .
(3.225)
G.h . r
c
61
(3.274)
The radius of a Graviton rgg

5
r gg
4 .r
(3.227)
All Other Particles
.e
(3.204)
r
.e
(3.236)
Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio (the ratio of two particle spectra) St

2
r 1, M 1
M1
r 2, M 2
M2
r2
St
r1
(3.230)
Neutron Magnetic Radius rM

r dr
r
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r
(3.420)
Proton Electric Radius rE

r dr
r . ch r E
ch ( r ) d r
r
(3.423)
Proton Magnetic Radius rM
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r dr
r
Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius rp

r P r E
(3.426)
1.
2
r M
(3.429)
The first term of the Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer Series) A [by EGM] utilising the Bohr
radius rBohr and the fundamental PV wavelength PV
A
PV 1 , K .r Bohr , m p
2 .n K .r Bohr , m p
62
(3.457)
EGM Prediction versus Experimental Measurement

Particle / Atom EGM Prediction
Experimental Measurement
Proton (p)
r = 830.5957 x10-16(cm)
r = 830.6624 x10-16(cm)
rE = 848.5274 x10-16(cm) rE = 848 x10-16(cm)
rM = 849.9334 x10-16(cm) rM = 857 x10-16(cm)
rp = 875.0 x10-16(cm)
rp = 874.5944 x10-16(cm)
Neutron (n)
r = 826.8379 x10-16(cm)
rX 825.6174 x10-16(cm)
-26
2
KS = -0.1133 x10 (cm )
KX = -0.113 x10-26(cm2)
rM = 878.9719 x10-16(cm) rM = 879 x10-16(cm)
Top Quark (tq) mtq(GeV) 178.4979
mtq(GeV) 178.0
Hydrogen (H)
A = 657.3290(nm)
B = 656.4696(nm)
rx = 0.0527(nm)
rBohr = 0.0529(nm)
Particle Summary Matrix 3.1,
(%) Error
< 0.008
< 0.062
< 0.825
< 0.046
< 0.148
< 0.296
< 0.003
< 0.280
< 0.131
< 0.353
Note: rp = 875.0 x10-16(cm) [i.e. the classical RMS charge radius of the Proton] and rBohr =
0.0529(nm) [i.e. the Bohr radius] are not experimental values, they denote the official values
listed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [1]
The Casimir Force
The Casimir Force by EGM FPV is derived to within 0.01(%) of its historically predicted
value, whilst experimental evidence confirming the existence of the force has a 5(%) measure of
uncertainty. [8]
F PV A PP , r , r , M
A PP .U PV( r , r , M ) .
N C( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
.ln
N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
(3.179)
The Experimentally Implicit Planck Scale

Experimentally implicit modification factors for the Planck Scale are derived based upon
experimentally verified particle radii predictions and may be articulated as follows:
3
Such that:
i. Planck Frequency becomes:
ii. Planck Length becomes:
iii. Planck Mass becomes:
(3.270)
1
K
(3.264)
1
Km
(3.265)
K x h
K x h
Km x mh
The Prediction of New Particles

EGM predicts the existence of new particles beyond the Standard Model (SM). This
includes, but is not limited to,
i. 3 Leptons with mass-energies of 9(MeV), 57(MeV) and 566(MeV).
ii. 3 Neutrino's with mass-energies approximating the Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrinos.
63
iii. 2 Quarks or Bosons with mass-energies of 10(GeV) and 22(GeV). However, it is

likely that these are Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB's force carriers).
The Experimentally Implicit Bohr Radius
An experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius is presented in Appendix 3.I
based upon exact correlation between the first term of the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer series)
predicted by EGM, to the experimentally verified value.
1.3
BUILDING AN EXPERIMENT
An experimental configuration is presented in chapter 3.13 based upon a Classical Casimir

Experiment. It is suggested that a physical experiment, in accordance with the characteristics
presented in the proceeding table, may reveal new and exciting phenomena for further investigation
and may take several manifestations.
The primary focus of the proposed experiment is to the negative energy conjecture argued to
exist in ZPF Theory. It is currently unknown if energy can be efficiently and usefully extracted
from the ZPF, however, the experiment suggested represents a point of mathematical interest based
upon the derivation of the Casimir Force presented in chapter 3.7.
Alternatively and probably more likely, a carefully configured experiment based upon XRay Laser wavelengths may produce a gravitational effect on a test object. If this can be
experimentally observed and verified, then the EGM construct and the notion that all masses are
wavefunction radiators may be transposed from calculation methodology to physical theory.
Characteristic
r
X
Erms
Brms
4,5
Description
Value
Plate separation
16.5 x10-3
Inflection wavelength
1.8 x10-8
550
Critical Magnetic field strength 1.8 x10-6
= 0, or /2
Design Specification Matrix 3.1,
Units
m
V/m
T
c
NOTES
64
EGM CONSTRUCT PROCESS SUMMARY

Modelling Foundations:
Chapter 3.1 - 3.5
1. Assume a relationship exists between Electricity, Magnetism and resultant ElectroMagnetic

(EM) acceleration.
2. Apply Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's) and Buckingham's Theory (BPT) to
combine Electricity, Magnetism and resultant EM acceleration.
3. Apply the equivalence principle to the resultant EM acceleration.
4. Assume a Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) exists in the space-time manifold.
5. Combine ZPF Theory with the equivalence principle to conclude that gravity is a spectrum of
frequencies that can be investigated at specific conditions satisfying BPT.
6. Assume that the PV model of gravity denotes the polarisation of the ZPF by the presence of
mass.
7. Identify that the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity is a concise isomorphic
representation of General Relativity (GR) in terms of a Refractive Index.
8. Assume dimensional similarity in accordance with BPT and apply a Fourier representation of a
constant function of a mathematical point to the PV model of gravity (i.e. a gravitational field is
equivalent to a spectrum of frequencies radiating into space).
9. Assume that the radiated spectrum is equivalent to the space-time manifold described by GR.
10. Assume that the radiant energy is equal to the ZPF spectral energy (the ZPF spectrum is
considered continuous).
11. Consequently, the spectral composition of the PV is derived via an operation analogous to a
gauge transformation (spectral compression) and is determined to be finite and discrete.
12. Assume that the PV spectrum across an elemental displacement forms beats due to the
difference in spectra across the element.
13. Amalgamate the two spectra (PV and ZPF) across the elemental displacement.
The Casimir Force:

Chapter 3.6, 3.7
14. Formulate expressions for harmonic similarity between an applied EM field and the
fundamental beat frequency of the PV across an elemental displacement. Subsequently, this
leads to the formulation of expressions for spectral similarity between applied EM fields and the
complete PV spectrum.
15. Identify that the sum of all modes of a double-sided reciprocal harmonic spectrum, about the
0th mode, approaches the sum of all modes of a one-sided reciprocal harmonic spectrum with
vanishing error.
16. Consequently, the Casimir Force is derived coinciding with experimental measurement.
Mass-Energy and Radii of Photons and Gravitons:

Chapter 3.8, 3.10
17. Identify that the PV is a double-sided frequency spectrum, extending from negative infinity to
positive infinity.
18. Identify that, in the Complex Frequency domain, either side of the spectrum is a conjugate
representation of the alternate side.
65
19. Identify that the Real Component of gravitational acceleration in the PV model on the Complex
Plane is always positive.
20. Assume the PV to consist of conjugate Photon pair populations.
21. Identify that Electrons are natural Photon emitters.
22. Assume that Electrons at rest radiate populations of Photons continuously.
23. Assume that an Electron at rest has spherical geometry.
24. Assume that the amplitude spectrum of the Fourier distribution applied to the PV model of
gravity is proportional to the conjugate Photon pair population.
25. Assume that one conjugate Photon pair defines a Graviton.
26. Derive the quantity of gravitational energy being radiated as Gravitons (conjugate Photon pairs)
per fundamental harmonic spectral period.
27. Identify that, due to the mathematical nature of Fourier harmonics for constant functions,
Gravitons only exist at odd frequency modes. The sum of all even modes equals zero.
28. Identify that there are half as many odd modes as there are odd + even modes in a Fourier
distribution.
29. Identify that the Graviton to Photon mass-energy ratio equates to half the sum of a one-sided
reciprocal harmonic spectrum.
30. Consequently, the Photon mass-energy threshold is derived coinciding with experimental
observation.
31. Assume the Photon mass-energy threshold is accurately calculated.
32. Assume that the terminating spectral frequency of the PV for an Electron is equal to the
frequency of a single Photon.
33. Consequently, the Photon and Graviton mass-energies and radii are derived.
Mass-Energy and Radii of all other Standard Model Particles:

Chapter 3.9, 3.11 - 3.12
Appendix 3.D, 3.E, 3.G
34. Assuming the spectral distribution derived for the PV model of gravity is correct, it follows that
the ratio of two spectra of two solid spherical masses must be proportionally related by
similarity in accordance with BPT.
35. Identify that, at a fundamental particle level in nature, mass-energy is a unifying property.
36. Assume that the terminating spectral frequency of the PV is a proportional measure of the massenergy of a fundamental particle.
37. Formulate a generalised relationship for the ratio of two terminating spectral frequencies.
38. Identify the formation of mathematical patterns.
39. Consequently, all fundamental mass-energies and radii may be derived coinciding with
experimental measurement (where applicable).
The Planck Scale:

Chapter 3.13
40. Identify the constants used to define Planck Frequency, Length and Mass.
41. Apply standard Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's) and BPT.
42. Assume the derived spectrum describing the PV is correct.
43. Solve for experimental relationship functions.
44. Consequently, an experimentally implicit Planck Scale is derived.
66
Theoretical Particles beyond the Standard Model:

Chapter 3.13
45. Assume the ratio of two spectra of two solid spherical masses must be proportionally related by
similarity in accordance with BPT.
46. Determine the average Electron-like Lepton radii based upon previous calculations.
47. Determine the average Boson / Quark radii based upon previous calculations and available
experimentally implied or verified data.
48. Solve the spectra ratio equations for mass-energy at the appropriate harmonic conditions.
49. Consequently, multiple new particles are theorised beyond the Standard Model.
Designing and Conducting an Experiment:

Chapter 3.13
50. Assume an experimental configuration analogous to a classic Casimir experiment.

51. Determine the optimal separation distance.
52. Determine the inflection wavelength and frequency.
53. Determine Critical Field Strengths.
54. Determine Critical Phase Variance.
55. Trap EM energy by reflection at the inflection frequency and Critical Phase Variance inside the
cavity.
56. Permit the Root Mean Square (RMS) intensities of the Electric and Magnetic fields inside the
cavity to attain Critical Field Strength.
57. Ensure that the Electric and Magnetic field vectors are orthogonal inside the cavity.
58. Ensure that a standing wave forms in three dimensions (3-D) within the cavity.
59. Ensure any unexpected effects / events are observed.
The Bohr Radius:
Appendix: 3.I
60. Assume the Bohr radius defines a usefully approximate position of the ZPF equilibrium radius.
61. Assume that the fundamental wavelength of the PV spectrum of the Hydrogen atom coincides
with the longest wavelength in the Balmer series.
62. Assume that the Hydrogen atom may be usefully represented by an imaginary particle
(spherical) of Bohr radius with approximately the mass of the Atomic mass constant.
63. Assume that the ZPF mass-energy within this imaginary particle (at approximately rBohr) is
in equilibrium with the imaginary field surrounding the particle. That is, an imaginary field
exists at approximately the Bohr radius.
64. Derive the appropriate mathematical relationship.
65. Substitute the experimental value for the first term of the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer
series) into the relationship derived (considering the Planck re-scaling factor derived in chapter
3.13).
66. Consequently, an experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius is derived.
67
PARTICLE SUMMARY MATRICES
3.1
DETAILED MATRIX - UTILISING 2005 PDG DATA
Existing Particle
Proton (p)
Derived in Ch. 3.9
RMS Charge Radius x10-16(cm)

EGM Prediction: Equation (3.212)
5
. c .e
r e Ce
Mass-Energy
Harmonic Cut-Off Freq.
National Institute of Standards & Technology (r,mp) = 2.6174 x1027(Hz)
(NIST) [1]: mp(MeV) = 938.272029
2
4
c . Ce 27. h Ce
.
.
3
4
4 . CP
32.
CP
r 830.5952 0.0004
Experimental Measurement: [9]
rp = 830.6624 12
Neutron (n)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result in agreement with
experimental measurement.
NIST: mn(MeV) = 939.565360
Derived in Ch. 3.9
(r,mn) (r,mp)
2
4
c . Ce 27. h Ce
.
.
r
3
4
4 . CN
32.
CN
r 826.8898 0.0519
Experimental Measurement: [10]
r 825.4152 18.3 (see Appendix 3.G)
Interpretation:
experimental measurement.
68
Existing Particle
Electron (e)

Derived in Ch. 3.11 St = 2

utilising r from
5
Ch. 3.9
r r.
St
Muon (
)
me
11.8024
Interpretation:
scattering experiments conducted by Los
Alamos National Laboratory: [11]
NIST: m(MeV) = 105.6583692
1
St
Tau ()
8.2122
me
Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available.
NIST: m(MeV) = 1776.99
(r,m) = 6 (r,me)
(r,m) = 12 (r,mp)

utilising r therein
5
r r.
(r,m) = 4 (r,me)
(r,m) = 8 (r,mp)

utilising r therein
r r.

(r,me) = 2 (r,mp)
mp
Mass-Energy
NIST: me(MeV) = 0.510998918
1
St
.
9
m
me
12.2407
Interpretation:
69
Existing Particle
Electron Neutrino (
e) EGM Prediction: Equation (3.238)
5
Derived in Ch. 3.11
m en
utilising r therein
r en r .
0.0954
ren2 9.0971 x10-3 [x10-32(cm2)]

Experimental Measurement:
-5.5 rA2(e)[x10-32(cm2)] 9.8
Where: m = 10-100
Particle Data Group (PDG) Expectation: [12]
men(eV) < 3
Interpretation:
Satisfactory assumption in agreement with
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
an extensive review of experimental data
by Hirsch et. Al.. [13]
Mass-Energy value utilised for radius calculation:
mn(MeV) 0.19 - m
5
Derived in Ch. 3.11
m n
utilising r therein
r n r .
m

(ren,men) = (r,me)
(ren,men) = 2 (r,mp)
me
Muon Neutrino (
)
Mass-Energy
men(eV) 3 - m
(rn,mn) = (r,m)
(rn,mn) = 4 (r,me)
0.6552
rn2 4.2933 [x10-33(cm2)]

-5.2 rA2()[x10-33(cm2)] 6.8
PDG Expectation:
mn(MeV) < 0.19
(rn,mn) = 8 (r,mp)
Interpretation:
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
by Hirsch et. Al..
70
Existing Particle
Tau Neutrino (
)

5
Derived in Ch. 3.11
m n
utilising r therein
r n r .

(rn,mn) = (r,m)
(rn,mn) = 6 (r,me)
1.9587
rn2 3.8364 [x10-32(cm2)]

-8.2 rA2()[x10-32(cm2)] 9.9
Up Quark (uq)
Mass-Energy
mn(MeV) 18.2 - m
PDG Expectation:
mn(MeV) < 18.2
(rn,mn) = 12 (r,mp)
Interpretation:
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
by Hirsch et. Al..
1
Derived in Ch. 3.12
5
2
m
dq
utilising r from Ch. r
3 .r xq. 2
0.7682
m uq
3.11 and r from uq
Ch. 3.9
Interpretation:
generalised conclusions based upon
experimental data by the ZEUS
Collaboration. [14]
(ruq,muq) = 7 (r,me)
(ruq,muq) = 14 (r,mp)
St = 7
9
m uq m e . St .
r uq
r
3.5083(MeV)
PDG Expectation:
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 4
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result in agreement with PDG
expectation.
71
Existing Particle
Down Quark (dq)


utilising r from Ch.
5
3.11 and r from
1 . m dq
Ch. 3.9
r dq r uq .
St
1.0136
Interpretation:
experimental data by the ZEUS
Collaboration.
Strange Quark (sq)

5
3.11 and r from
Ch. 3.9
r sq r uq .

(rdq,mdq) = (ruq,muq)
St = 7
(rdq,mdq) = 7 (r,me)
m uq
Mass-Energy
9
m dq m e . St .
r dq
(rdq,mdq) = 14 (r,mp)
7.0166(MeV)
PDG Expectation:
4 < mdq(MeV) < 8
Interpretation:
expectation.
(rsq,msq) = 2 (ruq,muq)
(rsq,msq) = 14 (r,me)
St = 14
1
St
.
9
m sq
m uq
0.8879
Interpretation:
experimental data gathered by the ZEUS
Collaboration.
m sq m e . St
9.
r sq
(rsq,msq) = 28 (r,mp)
114.0201(MeV)
PDG Expectation:
80 < msq(MeV) < 130
Interpretation:
expectation.
72
Existing Particle
Charmed Quark (cq)


5
3.11 and r from
Ch. 3.9
r cq r uq .
1
St
.
9
m cq
1.0913
m uq

5
3.11 and r from
1 . m bq
Ch. 3.9
r bq r uq .
St
m uq

(rcq,mcq) = 3 (ruq,muq)
St = 21
(rcq,mcq) = 21 (r,me)
Interpretation:
Collaboration.
Bottom Quark (bq)
Mass-Energy
9
m cq m e . St .
r cq
(rcq,mcq) = 42 (r,mp)
1.1841(GeV)
PDG Expectation:
1.15 < mcq(GeV) < 1.35
Interpretation:
expectation.
(rbq,mbq) = 4 (ruq,muq)
(rbq,mbq) = 28 (r,me)
St = 28
2
1.071
Interpretation:
Collaboration.
m bq m e . St
9.
r bq
(rbq,mbq) = 56 (r,mp)
4.1223(GeV)
PDG Expectation:
4.1 < mbq(GeV) < 4.4
Interpretation:
expectation.
73
Existing Particle
Top Quark (tq)


5
3.11 and r from
1 . m tq
Ch. 3.9
r tq r uq .
9
St m uq
0.9294
W Boson
Derived in Ch. 3.12
St = 7
r W r uq
1
St
.
9
mW
m uq

(rtq,mtq) = 10 (ruq,muq)
St = 70
(rtq,mtq) = 70 (r,me)
Interpretation:
Collaboration.
Mass-Energy
9
m tq m e . St .
r tq
r
(rtq,mtq) = 140 (r,mp)
178.6141(GeV)
D-ZERO Collaboration: [15]

mtq(GeV) = 178.0 4.3
PDG Expectation:
169.2 < mtq(GeV) < 179.4
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result in agreement with D-ZERO
Collaboration and PDG expectation.
Mass-Energy value utilised for radius calculation: (rW,mW) = 7 (ruq,muq)
mW(GeV) (80.387 + 80.463) / 2 80.425
(rW,mW) = 49 (r,me)
PDG Expectation:
80.387 < mW(GeV) < 80.463
(rW,mW) = 98 (r,mp)
1.2835
Interpretation:
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range. [16]
Interpretation:
PDG expectation.
74
Existing Particle
Z Boson

Derived in Ch. 3.12
St = 8
r Z r uq .
1
St
(Theoretical)
Derived in Ch. 3.12

(rZ,mZ) = 8 (ruq,muq)
(rZ,mZ) = 56 (r,me)
Higgs Boson (H)
Mass-Energy
mZ(GeV) (91.1855 + 91.1897) / 2 91.1876
.
9
mZ
m uq
PDG Expectation:
91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897
(rZ,mZ) = 112 (r,mp)
1.0613
Interpretation:
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range.
Mass-Energy value utilised for radius calculation: (rH,mH) = 9 (ruq,muq)
mH(GeV) 114.4 + m
St = 9
(rH,mH) = 63 (r,me)
PDG Expectation:
5
mH(GeV) > 114.4
2
(rH,mH) = 126 (r,mp)
1 . mH
.
0.9401
r H r uq
9
Interpretation:
St m uq
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range.
75
Existing Particle
Photon ()
RMS Charge Diam. (Planck Lengths)

5
Derived in Ch. 3.8,
m
3.10
2 .r 2 .r e .
2
m e .c
Planck Length
Planck Length 4.0513 x10-35(m)

(Plain h form)
Mass-Energy
EGM Mass-Energy Threshold: Equation (3.193)
m <
512.h .G.m e
c . .r e

Not Applicable
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
m < 5.75 x10-17(eV)

PDG Mass-Energy Threshold:
m < 6 x10-17(eV)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result implicitly supports
Interpretation:
theories of Quantum Mechanics.
Mass-Energy Threshold expectation.
EGM Mass-Energy: Equation (3.220)
3
h .
re
.r e
2 .c .G.m e
512.G.m e
c .
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
m 3.2 x10-45(eV)
Graviton (g)
Interpretation:
Mass-Energy Threshold expectation.
Not Applicable
(Theoretical)
5
2 .r gg 2 . 4 .r
m gg 2 .m
Derived in Ch. 3.10
1.5 x Planck Length
6.4 x10-45(eV)
Interpretation:
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result implicitly supports Insufficient scientific opinion available.
theories of Quantum Mechanics.
76
Theoretical Particle
L2 (Lepton)

EGM Prediction: Equation (3.276, 3.278)
r r r
Derived in Ch. 3.13
10.7518
utilising results from r L
3
Ch. 3.11
Mass-Energy

(rL,mL(2)) = 2 (r,me)
St = 2
(rL,mL(2)) = 4 (r,mp)
9
m e . St .
rL
Interpretation:
m L St
9(MeV)
r
The Standard Model (SM) in particle
physics does not predict this average Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available. The SM
value.
in particle physics does not predict the existence
of the L2 particle.
Note:
L3 (Lepton)
It is possible that associated Neutrino's EGM Prediction: Equation (3.281)
(rL,mL(3)) = 3 (r,me)
exist for the L2, L3 and L5 particles
Derived in Ch. 3.13 predicted herein.
St = 3
(rL,mL(3)) = 6 (r,mp)
utilising results from
Ch. 3.11
In the proceeding Periodic Table of mL(3) 57(MeV)
Elementary Particles, L2, L3 and L5
Neutrino mass-energy values have been Interpretation:
assumed based upon radii calculations Insufficient scientific opinion available. The SM
contained in Appendix 3.H
of the L3 particle.
L5 (Lepton)
(rL,mL(5)) = 5 (r,me)
Derived in Ch. 3.13
utilising results from
Ch. 3.11
(rL,mL(5)) = 10 (r,mp)
St = 5
mL(5) 566(MeV)
Interpretation:
of the L5 particle.
77
Theoretical Particle
QB5
(Quark or Boson)

Mass-Energy

(rQB,mQB(5)) = 5 (ruq,muq)
rQB = r 1.0052
St = 5
(rQB,mQB(5)) = 35 (r,me)
Derived in Ch. 3.12
QB6
(Quark or Boson)
Interpretation:
(rQB,mQB(5)) = 70 (r,mp)
5
r
9 . QB
Satisfactory result in agreement with m
.
10(GeV)
QB St m uq St
r uq
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range, scientific
expectation and experimental evidence to
date. [16]
Interpretation:
of the QB5 particle.
(rQB,mQB(6)) = 6 (ruq,muq)
St = 6
(rQB,mQB(6)) = 42 (r,me)
mQB(6) 22(GeV)
(rQB,mQB(6)) = 84 (r,mp)
Derived in Ch. 3.12
Interpretation:
of the QB6 particle.

78
3.2
CONCISE MATRIX
EGM Harmonic Representation of Particles
Existing and Theoretical Particles Proton Harmonics Electron Harmonics

x (r,mp)
x (r,me)
Proton (p), Neutron (n)
St = 1
St = 1/2
2
1
Electron (e), Electron Neutrino (
e )
L2 (Theoretical Lepton)
4
2
6
3
8
4
Muon (
), Muon Neutrino (
)
10
5
12
6
Tau (), Tau Neutrino (
)
Up Quark (uq), Down Quark (dq)
14
7
Strange Quark (sq)
28
14
Charm Quark (cq)
42
21
Bottom Quark (bq)
56
28
QB5 (Theoretical Quark or Boson)
70
35
QB6 (Theoretical Quark or Boson)
84
42
W Boson
98
49
Z Boson
112
56
Higgs Boson (H) (Theoretical)
126
63
Top Quark (tq)
140
70
Quark Harmonics
x (ruq,muq)
St = 1/14
1/7
2/7
3/7
4/7
5/7
6/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Refined EGM Charge Radii and Mass-Energies of Particles (see Appendix 3.D, 3.E)
Existing SM Particle
Proton (p)
Neutron (n)
Electron (e)
Muon (
)
Tau ()
Electron Neutrino (
e)
Muon Neutrino (
)
Tau Neutrino (
)
Up Quark (uq)
Down Quark (dq)
Strange Quark (sq)
Charm Quark (cq)
Bottom Quark (bq)
Top Quark (tq)
W Boson
Z Boson
Higgs Boson (H)
Photon ()
Graviton (g)
EGM Radii
x10-16(cm)
r = 830.5957
r = 826.8379
r = 11.8055
r = 8.2165
r = 12.2415
ren 0.0954
rn 0.6556
rn 1.9588
ruq 0.7682
rdq 1.0136
rsq 0.8879
rcq 1.0913
rbq 1.071
rtq 0.9294
rW 1.2839
rZ 1.0616
rH 0.9403
r = Kh
rgg = 2(2/5)r
EGM Mass-Energy
(computed or utilized)
PDG Mass-Energy Range

(2005 Data)
Mass-Energy is precisely known by physical measurement

See: National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)
Note: m = 10-100
men(eV) 3 - m
mn(MeV) 0.19 - m
mn(MeV) 18.2 - m
muq(MeV) 3.5060
mdq(MeV) 7.0121
msq(MeV) 113.9460
mcq(GeV) 1.1833
mbq(GeV) 4.1196
mtq(GeV) 178.4979
mW(GeV) 80.425
mZ(GeV) 91.1876
mH(GeV) 114.4 + m
m 3.2 x10-45(eV)
mgg = 2m
79
men(eV) < 3
mn(MeV) < 0.19
mn(MeV) < 18.2
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 4
4 < mdq(MeV) < 8
80 < msq(MeV) < 130
1.15 < mcq(GeV) < 1.35
4.1 < mbq(GeV) < 4.4
169.2 < mtq(GeV) < 179.4
80.387 < mW(GeV) < 80.463
91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897
mH(GeV) > 114.4
m < 6 x10-17(eV)
No definitive commitment
New Particles
(Theoretical)
L2 (Lepton)
L3 (Lepton)
L5 (Lepton)
2 (L2 Neutrino)
3 (L3 Neutrino)
5 (L5 Neutrino)
QB5 (Quark or Boson)
QB6 (Quark or Boson)
EGM Radii
x10-16(cm)
EGM
Mass-Energy
mL(2) 9(MeV)
rL 10.7518 mL(3) 57(MeV)
mL(5) 566(MeV)
r2,3,5
m2 men
m3 mn
ren,n,n
m5 mn
rQB 1.0052 mQB(5) 10(GeV)
mQB(6) 22(GeV)
PDG Mass-Energy
Range or Threshold
Not predicted or considered
where,
(i)
K denotes a Planck scaling factor, determined to be (/2)1/3 in Ch. 3.13.
(ii)
h denotes Planck length [4.05131993288926 x10-35(m)].
(iii) rL and rQB denote the average radii of SM Leptons and Quark / Bosons (respectively)
utilized to calculate the mass-energy of the proposed new particles.
Note:
(a) A formalism for the approximation of 2, 3 and 5 mass-energy is shown in Appendix 3.H.
(b) It is shown in Ch. (3.8, 3.10, 3.13) that the RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton are
h and 1.5h respectively, in agreement with Quantum Mechanical (QM) models.
(c) The new theoretical particles are believed to be extremely short lived (unstable). Please refer
to Ch. 3.13 for the answer to some important questions in this matter. This includes:
(i)
What causes harmonic patterns to form?
(ii)
Why havent the new particles been experimentally detected?
(iii) Why is EGM a method and not a theory?
(iv)
What would one need to do, in order to disprove the EGM method?
Periodic Table of Elementary Particles (utilising 2006 PDG data)
Assuming QB5,6 to be Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB's), we shall conjecture that the
Periodic Table of Elementary Particles may be constructed as follows,
Group I
Standard
Model
Leptons
Quarks
Up
14
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
uq
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3
Down
14
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
dq
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
Electron
2
-1,1/2
e
= 0.5110(MeV)
Electron Neutrino 2
0,1/2
e
< 2(eV)
Types of Matter
Group II
Charm
42
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
cq
1.1833(GeV)
Strange
28
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
sq
113.9460(MeV)
Muon
8
-1,1/2
= 105.7(MeV)
Muon Neutrino
8
0,1/2
< 0.19(MeV)
80
Group III
Top
140
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
tq
171.4(GeV)
Bottom
56
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
bq
4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
Tau
12
-1,1/2
= 1.777(GeV)
Tau Neutrino
12
0,1/2
< 18.2(MeV)
EGM
Leptons
L2
4 L3
-1,1/2
L2
9(MeV)
L2 Neutrino
4
0,1/2
L3
57(MeV)
L3 Neutrino
6 L5
-1,1/2
6
0,1/2
3
mn
Standard Model and EGM Bosons
Photon
N/A Gluon
? QB6
84
1,Colour,1
1,Weak Charge,10-6
1,Charge,
gl
QB6
-45
< 10(MeV)
22(GeV)
3.2 x10 (eV)
Graviton
N/A QB5
70 W Boson
98
-39
-6
2,Energy,10
1,Weak Charge,10
1,Weak Charge,10-6
QB5
W
g
10(GeV)
80.27(GeV)
= 2m
L5
566(MeV)
L5 Neutrino
men
Quarks
Legend
Leptons
10
-1,1/2
10
0,1/2
5
mn
Z Boson
112
1,Weak Charge,10-6
Z
91.1875(GeV)
Higgs Boson
126
0,Higgs Field,?
H
114.4(GeV)
Bosons
Name
St
Name
St
Name
St
Charge(e),Spin,Colour
Charge(e),Spin
Spin,Source,SC
Symbol
Symbol
Symbol
Mass-Energy
Mass-Energy
Mass-Energy
where: (i) SC denotes coupling strength at 1(GeV). [17]
(ii) The values of St utilise the Proton as the reference particle. This is due to its RMS
charge radius and mass-energy being precisely known by physical measurement.
Note: the theoretical particles predicted may also be interpreted as transient states of Standard
Model particles. Please refer to Ch. 3.13 for a detailed discussion.
****** IMPORTANT ******

The EGM Harmonic Representation of Fundamental Particles (i.e. Particle Summary
Matrix 3.3) is applicable to the size relationship between the Proton and Neutron (i.e. to
calculate r from r and vice-versa utilising St = 1) as an approximation only. For
precise calculations based upon similar forms, the reader should refer to Ch. 3.9 [Eq. (3.212,
3.215)].
EGM is a method and not a theory because: (i) it is an engineering approximation and (ii),
the mass and size of most subatomic particles are not precisely known. It harmonizes all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen reference particle by parameterising ZPF
equilibrium in terms of harmonic cut-off frequency .
The formulation of Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 is a robust approximation based upon PDG
data. Other interpretations are possible, depending on the values utilized. For example, if one reapplies the method presented in Ch. 3.12 based upon other data, the values of St in Particle
Summary Matrix 3.3 might differ. However, in the absence of exact experimentally measured mass
and size information, there is little motivation to postulate alternative harmonic sequences,
particularly since the current formulation fits the available experimental evidence extremely well.
81
If all mass and size values were exactly known by experimental measurement, the main
sequence formulated in Ch. 3.12 (or a suitable variation thereof) will produce a precise harmonic
representation of fundamental particles, invariant to interpretation. Particle Summary Matrix 3.3
values cannot be dismissed due to potential multiplicity before reconciling how:
i.
, which is the basis of the Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 construct, produces the
experimentally verified formulation of Eq. (3.212, 3.215) as derived in Ch. 3.9. These
generate radii values substantially more accurate than any other contemporary method. Infact, it is a noteworthy result that EGM is capable of producing the Neutron Mean Square
(MS) charge radius as a positive quantity. Conventional techniques favour the non-intuitive
form of a negative squared quantity.
ii.
is capable of producing a Top Quark mass value the SM cannot.
iii.
EGM produces the results defined in Particle Summary Matrix 3.1.
iv.
Extremely short-lived Leptons (i.e. with lifetimes of T) cannot exist, or do not exist for a
plausible harmonic interpretation.
v.
Any other harmonic interpretation, in the absence of exact mass and size values determined
experimentally, denote a superior formulation.
Therefore, EGM is a method facilitating the harmonic representation of fundamental particles.
NOTES
82
ARTICLE
3.2
DERIVATION
OF
ENGINEERING
PRINCIPLES
Edgar Buckingham: 1867 1940 [18]
83
FUNDAMENTAL ENGINEERING THE PYRAMIDS AT GIZA
84
CHAPTER
3.1
Dimensional Analysis [63]

Abstract
It is hypothesised that coupling exists between ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields and the
magnitude of the local value of gravitational acceleration g. Buckinghams Theory (BPT) is
applied to establish a mathematical relationship that precipitates a set of modelling equations
termed groupings. The groupings are reduced to a single expression in terms of the speed of
light and an experimental relationship function. This function is interpreted to represent the
Refractive Index and is demonstrated to be equivalent to the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Model
representation of General Relativity (GR). Assuming dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
between the PV and the BPT derivation, it is implied that the PV may also be represented as a
superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields. It is conjectured that by applying an intense
superposition of fields within a single frequency mode, it may be possible to modify the Refractive
Index within the test volume of an experiment. This may significantly reduce the experimental
complexity and energy requirements necessary to locally affect g.
85
Process Flow 3.1,
86
INTRODUCTION
To date, great strides have been made by General Relativity (GR) to our understanding of
gravity. GR is an excellent tool that represents space-time as a geometric manifold of events, where
gravitation manifests itself as a curvature of space-time and is described by a metric tensor. [19]
However, GR does not easily facilitate engineering solutions that may allow us to design
electromechanical devices with which to affect the space-time metric.
If mankind wishes to engineer the space-time metric, alternative tools must be developed to
compliment those already available. Subsequently, the Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)
methodology was derived to achieve this goal. EGM is defined as the modification of vacuum
polarisability by applied ElectroMagnetic fields. It provides a theoretical description of space-time
as a Polarisable Vacuum (PV) derived from the superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields.
The PV representation of GR is a heuristic tool and is isomorphic to GR by weak field
approximation. utilising EGM, EM fields may be applied to affect the state of the PV and thereby
facilitate interactions with the local gravitational field.
To demonstrate practical modelling methods of the PV, we apply Buckingham's Theory
(BPT). BPT is a powerful tool that has been in existence, tried and experimentally proven for many
years. BPT is an excellent tool that may be applied to the task of determining a practical
relationship between gravitational acceleration and applied EM fields. The underlying principle of
BPT is the preservation of dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between a mathematical
model and an Experimental Prototype (EP). [20]
Historically, BPT has been used extensively in the engineering field to model, predict and
optimise fluid flow and heat transfer. However, in principle, it may be applied to any system that is
dynamically, kinematically and geometrically founded such as the geometric space-time
manifold. Typical examples of experimentally verified groupings in fluid mechanics are Froude,
Mach, Reynolds and Weber numbers. [20] Thermodynamic examples are Eckert, Grashof, Prandtl
and Nusselt numbers. [21] Moreover, the Planck Length commonly used in theories of Quantum
Gravity shares its origins with the Dimensional Analysis Technique (the foundation of BPT). [22]
The application of BPT is not an attempt to answer fundamental physical questions but to
apply universally accepted engineering design methodologies to real world problems. It is primarily
an experimental process. It is not possible to derive system representations without involving
experimental relationship functions. We represent these functions as K0(X), where X denotes
all variables within the experimental environment that influence results and behaviour including
parameters that might otherwise be neglected due to practical calculation limitations, in theoretical
analysis.
Once the groupings have been formed, they may be manipulated or simplified as required
to test ideas and determine experimental relationship functions. Ultimately, the relationship
functions validate the system equations developed. For the proceeding BPT construct, we shall
hypothesise that:
Coupling exists between a superposition of EM fields and the local value of gravitational
acceleration.
Ideally, experimental relationship functions possess values of unity relative to the distant
observer. This indicates a loss-less relationship between the EP and the mathematical model utilised
to describe the EP. Typically, due to viscous forces and energy loss / transformation effects,
experimental relationship functions take extreme values of magnitude (i.e. large or small).
If we consider the EP to be the ambient gravitational environment (local space-time
manifold) and the mathematical model to be the PV model of gravity, then we expect all
experimental relationship functions to approach unity, as shall be demonstrated in the proceeding
construct.
87
The reasons for this are:

i. The true nature of gravity is currently unknown to physics.
ii. The mathematical descriptions used to predict gravitational behaviour are constructed from
observation of effects, not cause.
iii. A mathematical description is nothing more than just that. It is a non-physical manifestation
of human understanding. For example, GR is a Tensor based mathematical formulation only
- there is no physical evidence to validate the contention that the true nature of space-time is
physically geometric with Planck Scale grid lines radiating from cosmological objects.
iv. There can be no physical losses between two mathematical representations of the same
thing.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
BPT commences with the selection of significant parameters. There are no right or wrong
choices with respect to the selection of these parameters. Often, the experience of the researcher
exerts the greatest influence to the beginning of the process and the choice of significant parameters
are validated or invalidated by experimentation. [22]
When applying BPT, it is important to avoid repetition of dimensions. Subsequently, it is
often desirable to select variables that may be formulated by the manipulation of simpler variables
already chosen. The selected variables used in EGM are shown in table (3.1) of the following
section.
These parameters have been selected to facilitate experiments utilising EM fields and
assume that there is a physical device to be tested, located on a laboratory test bench. The objective
of the experiment is to utilise a superposition of EM fields to reduce the weight of a test-mass when
placed in the volume of space located directly above the device. Therefore, the significant
parameters are those factors that may affect the acceleration of the test-mass within this volume.
Our selection of significant parameters involves the magnitude of vector quantities and
scalars. This avoids unnecessary repetition of fundamental units in accordance with the application
of BPT methodology. [22] The significant vector magnitude parameters are acceleration, Magnetic
field, Electric field and position. The scalar quantities are Electric charge and frequency.
Since static charge on the device or the test-mass may also exert strong Lorentz forces and
therefore accelerations, the scalar value of static charge is included to determine its contribution. If
the device is small then the distance between the surface of the device and the test-mass suspended
in the volume above it is trivial and that the magnitude of the position vector is usefully constant.
Mechanical height adjustments and conventional Radio Frequency (RF) test and
measurement equipment may be used to sweep the values of position and frequency in a controlled
manner, throughout a range of practical values.
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
FORMULATION OF GROUPINGS
The formulation of groupings begins with the determination of the number of groups to
be formed. The difference between the number of significant parameters and the number of
dimensions represents the number of groups required (two).
where,
Variable
a
B
E
r
Description
Magnitude of position vector
88
Units
m/s2
T
V/m
m
Composition
kg0 m1 s-2 C0
kg1 m0 s-1 C-1
kg1 m1 s-2 C-1
kg0 m1 s0 C0

Field frequency
Table 3.1,
C
Hz
kg0 m0 s0 C1
kg0 m0 s-1 C0
Note: the traditional representation of mass (M), length (L) and time (T), in BPT methodology has
been replaced by dimensional representations familiar to most readers (kg, m and s). C denotes
Coulombs, the MKSA units representing charge.
We may write the general formulation of significant parameters as,
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
.
.
. .
a K 0( X ) .B
(3.1)
where, K0(X) represents an experimentally determined dimensionless relationship function.

Subsequently, the general formulation may be expressed in terms of its dimensional composition as
follows,
0 1
2 0
kg .m .s .C
1 0
1
K 0( X ) . kg .m .s .C
x1
. kg1 .m1 .s 2 .C
x2
. kg0 .m0 .s 1 .C0
x3
. kg0 .m1 .s 0 .C0
x4
. kg0 .m0 .s 0 .C1
x5
(Eq. 3.2)
Applying the indicial method [22] yields,
x1
x2 0
x2
x4 1
x1
x1
2 .x 2
x2
x3
solve , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 , x 5
x1 x1
2 x1
1 0
x5 0
(3.3)
Substituting the expressions for xn into the general formulation and grouping terms yields,
a
r .
K 0( X ) .
B. .r
x1
(3.4)
Note: Q has evaporated from the general formulation indicating that the acceleration derived is
not to be associated with the Lorentz force.
3.2
TECHNICAL VERIFICATION OF GROUPINGS
The formulation of groupings may be verified by a simple check of dimensionless

homogeneity as follows,
1
a
r .
1
2
(3.5)
B . .r
E
x1
(3.6)
By inspection - both groupings are dimensionless: no technical error has been made in their
formulation. [21]
89
DOMAIN SPECIFICATION
4.1
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
The application of basic assumptions regarding the practical nature of experimental

configurations enables precipitations of the general formulation. Precipitations are defined as results
derived by the application of limits, whereby the value of x1 may be calculated.
To achieve this, we shall assume that all significant parameters have been selected correctly
and that the relationship between experimental observation and the general formulation is a single
valued function - < K0(X) < . This assumption does not remove the necessity for experimental
determination, as the form of the experimental relationship function is a consequence of the
precipitation process.
Due to the practical nature of experimental investigation, and r are dominating factors
because; (i) they are repeated in both groupings; (ii) numerically, they have the largest relative
contribution to the behaviour of both groupings and (iii) experimentally, they are practical
parameters to sweep and modify.
4.2
PRECIPTITATIONS OF THE GENERAL FORM
4.2.1 FREQUENCY DOMAIN PRECIPITATION

For investigations where 0 < < , solving equation (3.4) for x1 and applying limits
yields,
Low frequency solution,
a
lim
+ . 2
0
r
B. .r
K 0( X ) .
E
solve , x 1
x1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
ln( )
( ln( B)
2 .ln( )
ln( r )
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.7)
High frequency solution,

lim

a
r .
B . .r
K 0( X ) .
E
solve , x 1
x1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
( ln( B)
ln( )
ln( r )
2 .ln( )
2
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.8)
Hence, the precipitated relationship may be expressed in form as,

a
r .
K 0( , X ) .
E
.
B .r
(3.9)
Alternatively, in a general form in terms of the acceleration as,

a K 0( , X ) .
1 . E
r B
(3.10)
4.2.2 DISPLACEMENT DOMAIN PRECIPITATION

For investigations where 0 < r < , repeating the procedure defined above yields,
Solution for small r,
90
lim
r
B. .r
K 0( X ) .
E
a
0 + r .2
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
ln( )
( ln( B)
2 .ln( )
ln( r )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.11)
Solution for large r,

lim
B . .r
K 0( X ) .
E
a
-
r .
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
ln( )
( ln( B)
ln( r )
2 .ln( )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.12)
The precipitated relationship may be expressed in form as,

a
r .
K 0( r , X ) .
E
.
B .r
(3.13)
Alternatively, in a general form as,

a K 0( r , X ) . .
E
B
(3.14)
4.2.3 WAVEFUNCTION PRECIPITATION

For PV model investigations involving transverse plane wave solutions in a vacuum,
Maxwells equations require E/B = c when r /2 in the frequency range 0 < < ,
Low frequency solution,
lim
+
0
lim
r
lim
c
a
. . r .2
B
2 .
B. .r
K 0( X ) .
E
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
ln( )
( ln( B)
ln( r )
2 .ln( )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(Eq. 3.15)
High frequency solution,
lim

lim
r
lim
c
a
. . r .2
B
2 .
B. .r
K 0( X ) .
E
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
( ln( B)
ln( )
ln( r )
2 .ln( )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(Eq. 3.16)
The precipitated relationship may be expressed in form as,
a
r .
K 0( , r , E, B, X ) .
.r
c
(3.17)
Alternatively, in general form as,

a K 0( , r , E, B , X ) .
3 2
.r
(3.18)
EXPERIMENTAL RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONS
By application of the forms obtained in the frequency, displacement and wavefunction

domains, we may determine an ideal solution for the experimental relationship functions. Applying
limits corresponding to wavefunction solutions c/r and E cB to equation (3.10) and
(3.14) yields,
91
lim
K 0( , X )
2
c .
r
1 . E
lim
K 0( , X ) .
r B
E c .B
(3.19)
E
lim
K 0( r , X ) . .
B
c E c .B
c .
K 0( r , X )
r
(3.20)
Thus,
K 0( , X ) K 0( r , X )
(3.21)
Substituting r = c into (3.18) yields,

a K 0( , r , E, B, X ) .
(3.22)
Therefore, when wavefunction solutions are applied to each precipitation, the relationship
functions are equal K0(,X) = K0(r,X) = K0(,r,E,B,X) = K0(X). The wavefunction precipitation
we require for investigations involving a superposition of waves may then be represented by,
a K 0( X) .
(3.23)
where, X represents all other physical variables not specified in the equation.
6
THE POLARISABLE VACUUM MODEL
6.1
REFRACTIVE INDEX
It is known that for complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between
groupings according to BPT, K0(X) = 1 representing ideal experimental behaviour. Since BPT is
based upon the dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between a mathematical model and an
EP, we may usefully represent the PV by the general form of equation (3.23).
In the PV model, [23, 24] the vacuum is characterised by the value of the Refractive Index
KPV. Subsequently, if we consider a, c and r in the preceding equation to be at infinity, then
K0(X) may be expressed locally by vc and rc such that a = vc2 / rc, c vc * KPV and rc
r * KPV. Hence, substituting these relationships into equation (3.23) yields an expression for
K0(X) explicitly in terms of the Refractive Index in the PV model of gravity as follows,
2
c
a K 0( X ) . substitute , c v c . K PV, r r c . K PV , a
r
vc
rc
, solve , K 0( X )
1
3
K PV
(3.24)
The equivalence principle indicates that an accelerated reference frame is equivalent to a uniform
gravitational field. Therefore, assuming a is equivalent to the magnitude of the gravitational
acceleration vector g as in the PV model, we may determine the value of K0(X) at the surface
of the Earth by using the weak field approximation to the gravitational potential [23, 24] as follows,
2
K PV K 0( X )
6.2
(3.25)
SUPERPOSITION
BPT relates the scale of two similar systems by groupings [22] and the PV background
field is assumed derivable from a superposition of applied EM fields. The groupings are
92
compared directly and scaled to determine the required applied fields. The ratio B1/E1 = 1/c
represents the velocity of light at ambient background PV conditions within the test volume and the
ratio B2/E2 = 1/vc represents the modified velocity of light vc within the test volume as
determined by the applied EM fields. Scaling of the groupings may be experimentally applied
according to equation (3.26),
B 1 . 1 .r 1
E1
x1
B 2 . 2 .r 2
E2
x1
substitute , E 1 c .B 1 , E 2 v c .B 2 , r 1 r 2 , solve , v c
2.
c
1
(3.26)
KPV may then be determined by the ratio of frequency modes between the EM fields of
the PV model and the local gravitational field. Additional notation is required to indicate the
discrete spectrum of the superposition of waves within the test volume. The subscript n and P
denote the applied spectral frequency modes and polarisation vectors respectively. Substituting a
superposition of wavefunctions, K0(X) may be constructed by design according to,
Kn , P
K 0( X )
In , P . n , P
( n , P)
Kn , P . n , P
vc
( n , P)
(3.27)
where, In,P represents the macroscopic intensity of Photons within the test volume and Kn,P is an
undetermined relationship function representing the intensity of the PV background field at each
frequency mode.
For the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) ground state of the vacuum, predicted by Quantum
Electrodynamics, Kn,P = and In,P = 0. Equation (3.27) implies that, when in a gravitational
field, the vacuum field is not in the ZPF ground state. Therefore, within the test volume at ambient
background conditions, we would generally expect Kn,P . Equation (3.27) describes the
relative change in the spectral energy density and thereby represents a modification of polarisability
of the vacuum within the test volume.
6.3
CONSTANT ACCELERATION
Fourier Series (FS), representing the summation of trigonometric functions, may be applied
to define a constant vector field a over the period 0 t 1/. A constant function is termed
even due to symmetry about the Y-Axis, subsequently; the Fourier representation contains only
certain terms and may be expressed in complex form.
We may relate the principles of Complex FS to EGM superposition by the application of
equation (3.10). Let an arbitrary transverse EM plane wave be defined by,
F( k , n , t ) F 0( k ) . e
( .n . .t ) .i
(3.28)
Where: (i) k and n denote the wave vector and field harmonic respectively, (ii) denotes the
fundamental field frequency such that,
B( k, n , t ) Re( F( k, n , t ) )
(3.29)
E( k, n , t ) Im( F( k, n , t ) )
(3.30)
Substituting equation (3.29) and (3.30) into equation (3.10) yields,
93
N
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( , X )
r
. n= N
N
B( k , n , t )
n= N
(3.31)
Acceleration
It has been numerically simulated that the effect of phase variance between superimposed field
wavefunctions may be usefully approximated to zero, when applied to equation (3.31), for field
harmonic values N 20 (approx.) [i.e. as N , a(t) constant]. This may be graphically
illustrated by (N = 20),
1
2 .
a( t )
a
t
Time
Figure 3.1,
The mean value a of equation (3.31) over the fundamental period 1/ also represents the
magnitude of the acceleration vector a as N . Hence,
1
a .
6.4
a( t ) d t
0.( s )
(3.32)
COMPLEX FOURIER SERIES
Equation (3.28) is analogous to a Fourier representation by the term F0(k), which

represents the EM amplitude distribution within the experimental environment. Subsequently, we
may write the direct equivalence of equation (3.28) to Complex FS representation by the following
expression,
1
F 0( k )
.
2
f( t )
0. ( s )
( .n . .t ) .i
dt
(3.33)
Hence, F0(k) may take the form of the complex Fourier coefficient typically denoted as Cn. [25]
This correlation may enable the experimentalist to design and control the geometry of forcing
configurations to exact analytical targets.
Therefore, it has been illustrated that we may relate Fourier approximations of a constant
vector field to EGM by the summation of EM wavefunctions representing the superposition of
waves at each frequency mode. This may be accomplished by the determination of the experimental
relationship function K0(,X).
94
Moreover, equation (3.31) represents a useful and practical relationship between

experimental observation and engineering research. By sequentially scanning field harmonics
between -N and N, values of K0(,X) may be calculated when the localised value of ambient
acceleration has been reduced. Experimental determination of the function K0(,X) will permit
engineering applications to be developed by direct scaling.
An illustrational Complex FS representation of constant acceleration magnitude a, by the
summation of harmonics over the interval 0 t 1/ may be written as follows, [25]
1
N
a( t )
n= N
.
2
0. ( s )
f( t )
e
( .n . .t ) .i
(
d t .e
.n . .t ) .i
(3.34)
Acceleration
And may be graphically illustrated by,
Re( a( t ) )
Im( a( t ) )
f( t )
t
Time
Real Terms (Non-Zero Sum)

Imaginary Terms (Zero Sum)
Constant Function (eg. "g")
Figure 3.2,
where,
Units
Variable Description
th
n
n harmonic of integer value
None
th
N
Fourier
polynomial
corresponding
to
the
spectral
frequency
mode
such
N
that - < < - Figure (3.2) displays an illustrational value of N = 10
Period over which a is constant - Figure (3.2) displays an illustrational
s
1/
value of 1/ = 1(s)
f(t)
Constant function being represented by the summation of Fourier m/s2
polynomials
Table 3.2,
Important features:
i. The Real Terms are odd numbered harmonics producing a Non-Zero Sum.
ii. The Imaginary Terms are even numbered harmonics producing a Zero Sum.
7
CONCLUSIONS
The relationship between EM fields and acceleration has been demonstrated by the
application of BPT. Equation (3.26) and (3.27) indicate that, for physical modelling applications,
manipulating the full spectrum of the PV is not required and optimal PV coupling may exist at
specific frequency modes. This dramatically simplifies the design of experimental prototypes and
suggests that the PV may be usefully approximated to a discrete wave spectrum by applying an
intense superposition of fields within a single frequency mode.
95
NOTES
96
CHAPTER
3.2
General Modelling and the Critical Factor [64]

Abstract
In chapter 3.1, by application of Buckinghams Theory, it was demonstrated how constant
acceleration may be derived from a superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields. An
experimentally determined relationship function K0(,X) was predicted which couples
gravitational acceleration to the intensity of an applied EM field, in agreement with the equivalence
principle and the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Model. The EM field was then decomposed into its
constituent frequency modes and their respective intensities to show that their summation results in
constant acceleration as the number of harmonic frequencies in the field tends to infinity. This
chapter is an extension of previous work, intended to present a hypothesis to be tested and to
demonstrate how K0(,X) may be expressed, by decomposition, as two relationship functions that
may be directly measured by experimentation. This results in two representations that are
proportional to solutions of the Poisson and Lagrange equations. It is demonstrated that the ratio of
the resulting relationship functions is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the resultant
Poynting Vector. This property, in conjunction with the orientation of the resultant Poynting Vector,
may be utilised as a practical design tool for engineering the PV by the application of off-theshelf EM modelling software.
97
Process Flow 3.2,
98
INTRODUCTION
1.1
HYPOTHESIS TO BE TESTED
It was illustrated in chapter 3.1 that an experimentally determined relationship function

K0(,X), may be used to characterise the relationship between the magnitude of the acceleration
vector a and the energy densities of discrete frequency modes N of an applied ElectroMagnetic
(EM) field. This relationship was shown to be equivalent to the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Model
approach to General Relativity (GR) [23, 26 - 30] such that the Newtonian gravitational potential is
approximated by an exponential function [30] and that a weak gravitational field may be
represented by a superposition of EM wavefunctions.
Historically, variations in the energy density are known to result in gravitation from the
solutions of Poissons equation in Newtonian gravity. [31] An equivalent result is presented in
terms of the energy densities at the discrete frequency modes of the applied EM field. The
relationship function K0(,X) may also be derived from the results of experiments that determine
other relationship functions. It is demonstrated how these experimentally determined relationship
functions may be found and used to address experimental design issues. To achieve this,
experiments must be designed that test the following hypothesis,
There are three key factors in achieving a local modification of the magnitude of the
acceleration vector a of a gravitational field. These are; (i) an increase in the energy density of
the EM field at specific frequency modes, (ii) the superposition of time varying EM fields at specific
frequency modes and (iii), the equivalence principle, which indicates that an accelerated reference
frame is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field.
It has been conjectured that if the frequency and phase of all modes in the PV where known,
then by application of the appropriate EM fields, the interaction at those modes may facilitate
destructive interference resulting in a complete cancellation of the local value of gravitational
acceleration.
However, in the hypothesis to be tested, it is assumed that it is impossible to decrease the
energy density of a gravitational field by applying an EM field to a region of space-time. Therefore,
the hypothesis requires that in any practical experiment it is only possible to increase the energy
density at specific frequency modes.
1.2
WHAT IS DERIVED?
This chapter derives three key design considerations. These are,

i. The forms, which are an inversely proportional description of how energy density may
result in an acceleration ax(t).
ii. The forms, which are a directly proportional description of how energy density may result
in an acceleration ax(t).
iii. The Critical Factor KC, which is the ratio of the experimentally determined relationship
functions K1 and K2 presented in section 3.
The key design considerations are derived from the hypothesis to be tested, which seeks to
couple gravitational acceleration to ElectroMagnetism. Dimensional Analysis was utilised in
chapter 3.1 to demonstrate that coupling may exist between ElectroMagnetism and gravity by the
application of Buckinghams Theory.
Analytical results herein suggest that the square of the magnitude of the resultant Poynting
Vector may be a useful design tool. Calculation and visualisation of the orientation and intensity of
the Poynting Vector is standard functionality in many off-the-shelf-EM simulation products. This
provides a convenient platform from which to design practical laboratory benchtop experiments.
99
The key design considerations are derived by identifying possible interpretations of equation
(3.31) that impact the hypothesis to be tested, as illustrated in section 2. Equation (3.31) is then
separated into subordinate elements based upon these interpretations, as illustrated in section 3. The
subordinate elements are then used to determine KC by solving for the ratio of the experimental
relationship functions, K1 and K2 defined in table (3.5).
2
2.1
PRIMARY PRECIPITANT
The frequency domain precipitation derived in chapter 3.1 may be written as,
N
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( , X )
r
. n= N
N
B( k , n , t )
n= N
(3.31)
where,
Variable
a(t)
E(k,n,t)
B(k,n,t)
r
n, N
k
K0(,X)
Description
Field frequency
Harmonic frequency modes
Magnitude of the harmonic wave vector
Experimental relationship function
Table 3.3,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
m
Hz
None
1/m
None
Equation (3.31) is termed the primary precipitant and may be manipulated to alternate forms
by incorporation. Incorporation is the redefinition of an as yet undetermined relationship function to
include a variable contained within the equation under consideration {e.g. equation (3.10) may be
written as a = K0(r,,X)(E/B)2}.
In our case, incorporation is utilised to visualise constant acceleration by the superposition
of EM waves to promote changes in energy density in the local space-time manifold. Fourier Series
(FS), representing the summation of trigonometric functions, may be applied to facilitate this
change by defining a constant vector field a over the period 0 t 1/.
A constant function is termed even due to symmetry about the Y-Axis, subsequently; the
Fourier representation contains only certain terms and may be expressed in complex form and
graphically illustrated for N . Firstly, visualising the applied EM forcing function yields,
100
EM Function
Re( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time
1st Harmonic (Fundamental)

2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
EM Function
Figure 3.3,
1
Im( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time

2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
Figure 3.4,
EM Wave-Function Superposition
Producing the representation where, E(t) = E(k,n,t)2 and B(t)= B(k,n,t)2.

1
2 .
E( t )
B( t )
t
Time
Electric Field Magnitude

Magnetic Field Magnitude
Figure 3.5,
101
In the PV representation, the value of the EM field at infinity replaces the fields in equation
(3.31) according to: E(k,n,t) E0(k,n,t), B(k,n,t) KPV0(k,n,t), r r0/KPV and
0/KPV hence,
N
E 0( k , n , t )
a r0
2.2
K 0 0, X
. n= N
N
3
r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(3.35)
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIMARY PRECIPITANT
The primary precipitant is subject to two interpretations. (i) It may be increased or

decreased as a function of the magnitude of E0(k,n,t), or (ii), it may be increased or decreased as a
function of the magnitude of B0(k,n,t). Subsequently, if E0(k,n,t) is constant in an experiment
we may incorporate it into the experimental relationship function as follows,
1
K 1 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
(3.36)
N
3
r 0 . K PV .
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
Incorporating B0(k,n,t) represents the second interpretation of the primary precipitant.

1
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
r 0 . K PV
N
E 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(3.37)
where,
Variable
1
1
K1(0,r0,E0,D,X)
K2(0,r0,B0,D,X)
D
c = c0 / KPV
Description
Units
2
The subset formed, as N , by the method of incorporation m/s
applied to equation (3.35).
applied to equation (3.35).
(V/m)2
T-2
Experimental configuration factor: a specific value relating all design None
criteria. This includes, but not limited to, field harmonics, field
orientation, physical dimensions, wave vector, spectral frequency
mode and instrumentation or measurement accuracy.
Velocity of light in the PV
m/s
Table 3.4,
3.1
SEPARATION OF PRIMARY FORMS
The and forms, equation (3.36) and (3.37) respectively, may be used to generate
subset expressions with respect to the hypothesis to be tested. The subsets have been termed the first
and second alpha subsets (1,2) and the first and second beta subsets (1,2) to better characterise
anticipated results.
102
The x and x subsets and experimental relationship functions K1(0,r0,E0,D,X) and

K2(0,r0,B0,D,X) may be formulated as follows,
Var. / Eq.
Description
K 1 0 , r 0, E 0, D, X
Eq.(3.36)
x
1
Formulation
Formed by incorporation
applied to equation
(3.35) as N .
N
3
r 0. K PV .
B 0( k, n , t )
Units
m/s2
n= N
Eq.(3.38)
Formed by substitution
assuming a transverse
EM wave relationship, c0
= E0/B0 into 1.
K , r , E , D, X
. 1 0 0 0
N
3
r 0 . K PV
2
E 0( k , n , t )
n= N
c0
Eq. (3.39)
2
Formed by relating 1 to (V/m)
equation (3.35) and
solving.
Formed by incorporation m/s2
applied to equation
(3.35) as N .
N
K 1 0, r 0, E 0, D, X
K 0 0, X .
E 0( k , n , t )
n= N
Eq.(3.37)
1
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
E 0( k , n , t )
r 0 . K PV
q.(3.40)
n= N
.
3
K 2 0, r 0 , B 0 , D , X
Formed by substitution
assuming a transverse
EM wave relationship, c0
= E0/B0 into 1.
Formed by relating 1 to
equation (3.35) and
solving.
c0
2 K 2 0 , r 0 , B 0, D, X .
r 0. K PV
Eq. (3.41)
B 0( k, n , t )
n= N
K 0 0, X
N
B 0( k , n , t )
T-2
n= N
Table 3.5,
3.2
GENERAL MODELLING EQUATIONS
The subsets in table (3.5) suggest two experimental avenues with respect to the hypothesis to
be tested. These have been termed General Modelling Equations: GME1 and GME2 as follows,
Description Form
GME1
a1(r0) = (1 + 2)
GME2
a2(r0) = (1 - 2)
Table 3.6,
3.3
Equation
(3.42)
(3.43)
CRITICAL FACTOR
The resulting relationship functions may be characterised by the Critical Factor KC. It
takes the form of a squared term and is a measure of the applied EM field intensity within the
experimental test volume. The Left Hand Side of equation (3.44) KC2 is an arbitrary definition as
a consequence of its units of measure (Pa)2.
KC2 may be derived from the ratio of K1(0,r0,E0,D,X) to K2(0,r0,B0,D,X) by taking
the limit as N ,
K C K 1, K 2
K 1 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
N
E 0( k , n , t ) .
2
n= N
103
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(3.44)
The permittivity and permeability of free space, 0 and 0 respectively, may be included to
express equation (3.44) in units of energy density squared.
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
POYNTING VECTOR
Equation (3.44) illustrates that KC may be usefully approximated by proportionality to the

magnitude of the resultant Poynting Vector. Assuming a transverse EM wave relationship, the
magnitude of the Poynting Vector at a particular frequency mode is S = EH where, 0H =
B. [32]
The intensity of each field mode is the power per unit area and are summed to yield the total
intensity. This indicates the intensity of the field passing through a surface of an experimental test
volume. The resultant Poynting Vector from a benchtop experimental device may be oriented
parallel to the position vector r such that the acceleration acts to alter the magnitude of the local
value of gravitational acceleration g.
4.2
POISSON AND LAGRANGE
Table (3.6) defines two expressions that may be applied to experimental investigations
illustrating modelling significance,
N
a r0
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
2 .r 0 . K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
N
E 0( k , n , t )
2
c0 .
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
K 0 0, X
. n= N
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
c0
n= N
(Eq. 3.45)
N
a r0
2
2
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
2 .r 0 . K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
N
E 0( k , n , t )
2
c0 .
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
K 0 0, X
. n= N
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(Eq. 3.46)
Equation (3.45) is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation [31] applied to
Newtonian gravity where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy
densities. Equation (3.46) is proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting
acceleration is a function of the Lagrangian densities of the EM field harmonics in a vacuum. [32]
These demonstrate that K2(0,r0,B0,D,X) is the same in both instances. This becomes
significant when considering that the EM Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) of the quantum vacuum is
described in terms of the energy density per frequency mode (Spectral Energy Density) by,
0( )
2 .h .
c
(3.47)
where, h denotes Plancks Constant [6.6260693 x10-34(Js)] and is in (Hz). Therefore, the
functions E0(k,n,t)2 and B0(k,n,t)2 are proportional to the applied energy density at each
frequency mode with respect to specific experimental configurations.
104
c0
CONCLUSIONS
In an experiment, the value of KC2 may be determined by direct measurement of the

intensity of the EM field strength at each harmonic frequency mode. If a resulting acceleration
vector is also measured, the hypothesis to be tested as presented in section 1 is validated.
NOTES
105
NOTES
106
CHAPTER
3.3
The Engineered Metric [65]

Abstract
Engineering expressions are developed for experimental investigations involving coupling
between ElectroMagnetism and gravity. It is illustrated that an accelerated reference frame may be
derived from a superposition of applied ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields and may be characterised by
the magnitude of the Poynting Vectors. Based upon dimensional similarity and the equivalence
principle, the engineered acceleration may be used to modify the gravitational acceleration at the
surface of the Earth. An engineered change in the value of the Refractive Index corresponds to an
incremental change in the gravitational potential energy. The magnitude of this change and the
similarity between an experimental test volume and the local gravitational environment, may then
be characterised by a Critical Ratio KR such that the gravitational acceleration is reduced to
zero when KR = 1. An Engineered Refractive Index equation is derived that may be used for
EM metric engineering purposes. An engineered Polarisable Vacuum (PV) metric line element is
then presented as an example.
107
Process Flow 3.3,
108
INTRODUCTION
1.1
DESCRIPTION
To demonstrate practical modelling methods of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV), utilising

Buckingham Theory (BPT), experiments must be designed that test the hypothesis stated in
chapter 3.2. Subsequently, three key design considerations were derived and may be characterised
by two system regimes,
i. The Critical Factor KC, which is a proportional measure of the magnitude of the applied
Poynting Vectors.
ii. The General Modelling Equations (GMEx).
(a) GME1 is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian gravity
where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities. [31]
(b) GME2 is proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting
acceleration is a function of the Lagrangian densities of the ElectroMagnetic (EM) field
harmonics in a vacuum. [32]
1.2
CRITICAL RATIO
Based upon principles of similarity, as defined by BPT, [20 - 22] an engineering parameter
termed the Critical Ratio KR has been formulated to indicate proportional experimental conditions
(section 2.3). It is defined as the ratio of the applied EM fields to the change in the gravitational
field in terms of the change in energy densities.
In addition, it is shown that KR may be used to enhance the representation of the changing
experimental relationship function K0(,X) and leads to interactions with the PV as illustrated
in section 3 and 4. KR is a dimensionless parameter of the hypothesis to be tested as presented in
chapter 3.2.
1.3
METRIC ENGINEERING
An engineered metric tensor line element is developed in section 5 utilising an Engineered

Refractive Index term constructed in section 3.2. The exponential metric tensor line element as
stated in the PV representation of GR [30] is also presented and a table of metric effects articulated
in section 6.
2
2.1
MATHEMATICAL SIMILARITY
It has been illustrated in chapter 3.1 that the magnitude of an acceleration vector field a,
formed utilising BPT methodology is equivalent to the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration
vector field g by dimensional similarity and utilisation of the equivalence principle. In the PV
representation, this may be expressed as |n| by the more generalised form as follows,
a r0
K 0 0, X ( n , k)
.
r 0 . K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
B 0( k , n , t )
( n , k)
(3.35)
where, 0, E0, B0 and r0 denote physical properties as KPV 1 asymptotically at infinity

such that,
109
Variable
a(r0)
E0(k,n,t)
B0(k,n,t)
r0
0
n
k
KPV
K0(0,X)
Description
Magnitude of PV acceleration vector
Field frequency
Refractive Index
Table 3.7,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
m
Hz
None
1/m
None
By replacing E0 EPV, B0 BPV / KPV and r0 r * KPV, an engineered change in

g may be expressed in local form that may be used to solve for the applied E and B fields as
|nPV| according to,
g a PV
K 0( , X )
E PV k PV, n PV, t
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV, k PV
r
n PV, k PV
(3.48)
such that, by the application of dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle, the
acceleration may be affected by an applied EM field as follows,
N
E PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV, k PV
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV, k PV
EA k A,n A,t
N
(3.49)
nA= N
where,
Variable
g
aPV
EPV(kPV,nPV,t)
BPV(kPV,nPV,t)
EA(kA,nA,t)
BA(kA,nA,t)
nPV
kPV
nA
kA
i
K0(,X)
Description
Change of gravitational acceleration vector
Change in PV acceleration vector
Denotes initial conditions of PV
Engineered relationship function
Table 3.8,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
V/m
T
None
1/m
None
1/m
None
It shall be illustrated in section 3 that equation (3.48) may be utilised to develop an engineering
solution.
110
2.2
CRITICAL FACTOR
An engineering solution can be further advanced by application of the Critical Factor KC,
which is a measure of the applied EM field intensity within an experimental test volume. Hence, the
Change in Critical Factor KC (specifically from zero) represents a proportional measure of the
magnitude of the applied Poynting Vectors as |nA| for the local observer as follows,
K C K 1 , K 2
K 1( , r , E, D , X )
N
1
K 2( , r , B, D , X ) K
PV
EA k A,n A,t
nA= N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(3.50)
N
K 1( , r , E, D , X ) K 0( , X ) .
E A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(3.51)
K 0( , X ) .K PV
K 2( , r , B, D , X )
N
B A k A,n A,t
(3.52)
nA= N
where,
Variable
K1(,r,E,D,X)
K2(,r,B,D,X)
D
2.3
Description
Change in experimental relationship function
Change in experimental relationship function
Experimental configuration factor
Table 3.9,
Units
(V/m)2
T-2
None
CRITICAL RATIO
Practical engineering of the hypothesis to be tested may be possible by calculation of the

Critical Ratio KR. This may be defined by consideration of the equivalence principle applied to
equation (3.48) as |nPV| . Complete similarity occurs when |KR| = 1 and proportional
similarity at |KR| 1, therefore it follows that KR may be used to represent the proportional
relationships in terms of potential, acceleration, energy densities or any suitable measure as follows,
KR
U g a PV K C( r )
Ug
U PV( r )
0
0
(3.53)
where, the permittivity and permeability of free space, 0 and 0 respectively, act as the
Impedance Function Z = (0/0) and is independent of KPV in the PV representation.
Variable
Ug
Description
Units
Initial state of Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) per unit mass described (m/s)2
by any appropriate method
Change in GPE per unit mass induced by any suitable source
Ug
KC(r) Change in Critical Factor with respect to r
Pa
Pa
UPV(r) Change in energy density of the gravitational field with respect to r
Table 3.10,
111
3.1
ENGINEERING THE RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONS
For experimental investigations, we require a model from which to design and predict
behaviour in accordance with the hypothesis to be tested in chapter 3.2. In figure (3.6): (i) the
arrows pointing downwards represent a uniform gravitational field, (ii) the arrows pointing upwards
represent a uniformly applied system field, (iii) the sphere represents the experimental test volume
residing at co-ordinates (0,0,r) and (iv) the square section represents an EM flux area.
Figure 3.6,
The hypothesis to be tested assumes coupling exists between propagating transverse EM
plane waves and gravity such that the local value of g is reduced to zero and complete similarity
is achieved as [|nPV|,|nA|] . Substituting c2 EPV2/BPV2 into equation (3.48), solving for
K0(,X) and recognising that aPV g KR yields,
K 0( , X )
G.M .
r .g .
KR
KR
2
2
c
r .c
(3.54)
Hence, expressions for all experimental and Engineered Relationship Functions have been
obtained in terms of a scalar multiple of the magnitude of the resultant Poynting Vector and the
magnitudes of the superimposed EM fields.
3.2
ENGINEERING THE REFRACTIVE INDEX
The hypothesis to be tested suggests that KPV [30] may be engineered in the same manner
as K0(,X). Equation (3.54) indicates that |KR| = 1 at complete similarity between the applied
EM fields and the local gravitational field. At this condition, the magnitude of KC/Z is
proportional to the magnitude of UPV at the surface of the Earth within the test volume.
Utilising the classical weak field exponential approximation of KPV, [30] a useful
approximation for practical laboratory benchtop experiments at the surface of the Earth may be
derived as follows,
2.
K PV e
G .M
2
r .c
(3.55)
Therefore, an EM affected representation of KPV may be expressed by the Engineered Refractive

Index KEGM as follows,
K EGM K PV. e
112
2 . K 0( , X )
(3.56)
PHYSICAL MODELLING
The mathematical construct herein is based upon the modification of g by similarity of

applied EM fields to the local gravitational environment. Subsequently, we may characterise
physical modelling design criteria by the following engineering functions,
Initial Value
0
Key Characteristics
Range: - < KR <
Engineered Solution
KR
0(T )
U PV( r )
0
0
1. Configuration specific
2. Determined experimentally
-2
Ug
K C( r )
G.M .
K 0( , X)
KR
2
r .c
Range: - < K0(,X) <

0(V/m)2
U g a PV
K 1( , r , E, D , X ) K 0( , X ) .
EA k A,n A,t
nA= N
2. Determined experimentally
K 0( , X ) .K PV
K 2( , r , B , D , X )
N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
0(Pa)2
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
0(m/s2)
Change in Critical Factor

Configuration specific
Key design consideration
Change in GME1
Configuration specific
Key design consideration
K C K 1 , K 2
K 1( , r , E, D , X )
K 2( , r , B, D , X )
N
E A k A,n A,t
a 1( r )
K 0( , X )
2 .r
nA= N
N
B A k A,n A,t
E A k A,n A,t
nA= N
N
1. Change in GME2
3. Key design consideration
a 2( r )
K 0( , X )
2 .r
nA= N
N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
g .r
2.
2
c
|KR| = 1
Range: KPV 1
K PV e
|KR| > 0
Range: KEGM > KPV
G .M
2.
2
r .c
K EGM K PV. e
2 .K 0 , X , K R
2 . K 0( , X )
Normal Matter Form
Range: 0 < KEGM < KPV
K PV
K EGM
e
2 . K 0( , X )
Exotic Matter Form

Table 3.11,
5
METRIC ENGINEERING
5.1
POLARISABLE VACUUM
The exponential metric tensor line element in the PV representation of GR (in the weak field
limit) may be defined in Spherical Coordinates as follows, [30]
ds
c .dt
g .dx .dx
K PV
2
2
K PV. dr
113
2
2
r .d
2
2
2
r .sin ( ) .d
(3.57)
where,
g 00
1
K PV
(3.58)
g 11 g 22 g 33 K PV
5.2
(3.59)
ENGINEERED METRICS
The engineered metric tensor line element for weak field approximations using exponential
components may be expressed as,
ds
g .dx .dx
2
2
c .dt
K EGM
2
K EGM. dr
2
2
r .d
2
2
2
r .sin ( ) .d
(3.60)
where,
g 00
1
K EGM
(3.61)
g 11 g 22 g 33 K EGM
(3.62)
ENGINEERED METRIC EFFECTS
Engineered metric effects may be represented for the normal matter form as follows,
Variable
Velocity of Light: vc(KEGM)
Mass: m(KEGM)
Frequency: (KEGM)
Time Interval: t(KEGM)
Energy: E(KEGM)
Length Dim.: L(KEGM)
Determining Eq.
vc = c / KEGM
m = m0 * KEGM3/2
= 0 / KEGM
t = t0 * KEGM
E = E0 / KEGM
L = L0 / KEGM
Table 3.12,
KEGM > KPV (Engineered Metric)

Velocity of light < c
Effective mass increases
Redshift toward lower frequencies
Clocks run slower
Lower energy states
Objects contract
CONCLUSIONS
Engineering expressions are developed for experimental investigations involving coupling

between EM fields and gravity that may be characterised by the magnitude of the superposition of
Poynting Vectors. Based upon dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle, the engineered
acceleration may be used to modify the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth.
An engineered change in the value of the Refractive Index corresponds to a change in the
gravitational potential energy. The magnitude of this change may be characterised by KR such
that the gravitational acceleration is reduced to zero within a practical benchtop test volume when
KR = 1. This leads to KEGM which may be used for metric engineering purposes.
114
CHAPTER
3.4
Amplitude and Frequency Spectra [66]

Abstract
An experimental prediction is developed considering gravitational acceleration as a
harmonic function. This expands potential experimental avenues in relation to the hypothesis to be
tested presented in chapter 3.2. Subsequently, this chapter presents: (i) a harmonic representation of
gravitational fields at a mathematical point arising from geometrically spherical objects of uniform
mass-energy distribution using modified Complex Fourier Series (FS): (ii) characteristics of the
amplitude spectrum based upon (i): (iii) derivation of the fundamental harmonic frequency based
upon (i): (iv) characteristics of the Frequency spectrum of an implied Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) based
upon (i) and the assumption that an ElectroMagnetic (EM) relationship exists over a change in
displacement within a practical benchtop test volume.
115
Process Flow 3.4,

116
INTRODUCTION
1.1
GENERAL
A metric engineering description was presented in chapter 3.3 based upon the principles of
similarity. An engineering parameter, termed the Critical Ratio KR, has been formulated to
indicate proportional experimental conditions, which may be stated as the ratio of the applied
ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields to the induced change of gravitational field strength.
1.2
HARMONICS
To further articulate the applicability of KR, a harmonic description of gravitational fields

is developed. This acts to expand potential experimental avenues in relation to the hypothesis to be
tested as stated in chapter 3.2. Subsequently, this chapter presents:
i. A harmonic representation of gravitational fields at a mathematical point arising from
geometrically spherical objects of uniform mass-energy distribution using modified Complex
Fourier Series (FS).
ii. Characteristics of the amplitude spectrum based upon (i).
iii. Derivation of the Fundamental harmonic frequency based upon (i).
iv. Characteristics of the frequency spectrum of an implied Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) based upon (i)
and the assumption that an EM relationship exists over a change in displacement across a
practical benchtop test volume.
The proceeding construct obeys the following hierarchy,
v. A harmonic representation of the magnitude of gravitational acceleration g is developed in
section 3.1.
vi. The frequency spectrum of (v) is derived in section 3.2 by application of Buckingham
Theory (BPT) and dimensional similarity developed in chapter 3.1.
vii. The ZPF energy density is related to (vi) in section 3.3 based upon the assumption that
engineered EM changes in g may be produced across the dimensions of a practical benchtop
test volume.
viii. Spectral characteristics of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) are derived in section 3.4 based upon
(vii).
ix. A description of physical modelling criteria is presented in section 4.
x. A set of sample calculations and illustrational plots are presented in section 5.
1.3
EXPERIMENTATION
The method of solution contained herein facilitates the determination of the following PV /
ZPF experimental design boundaries at practical benchtop conditions,
i. Amplitude and frequency spectra.
ii. Poynting Vectors.
2
2.1
TIME DOMAIN
FS may be applied to represent a periodic function as a trigonometric summation of sine and

cosine terms. It may also be applied to represent a constant function over an arbitrary period by the
same method.
Since the classical PV model is a weak field isomorphic approximation of General
Relativity (GR) and the frequency spectrum is postulated to range from - < < , it follows
that FS represent a useful tool by which to describe gravity.
117
2.2
DISPLACMENT DOMAIN
The time domain modelling in the proceeding section may be applied over the displacement
domain of a practical benchtop test volume by considering the relevant changes over the dimensions
of that volume. This is illustrated by sample calculations presented in section 5.
3
3.1
CONSTANT ACCELERATION
Constant functions may be expressed as a summation of trigonometric terms. Subsequently,

it is convenient to model a gravitational field utilising modified Complex FS, according to the
harmonic distribution nPV = -N, 2 - N ... N, where N is an odd number harmonic. Hence, g
may be usefully represented by the magnitude of a periodic square wave solution as |nPV| ,
g( r, M )
G. M .
2
n PV
2 . i . .n PV .
e
. n PV
..
PV ( 1 , r , M ) t i
(3.63)
where, the wavefunction amplitude spectrum CPV is calculated to be,

C PV n PV, r , M
G.M .
2
2
.n PV
(3.64)
such that,
Variable
PV(nPV,r,M)
PV(1,r,M)
nPV
r
M
G
3.2
Description
Units
Hz
Frequency spectrum of PV
Fundamental frequency of PV
None
Magnitude of position vector from the centre of mass
m
Mass
kg
m3kg-1s-2
Table 3.13,
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM
It was illustrated in chapter 3.1 that dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle
could be applied to represent the magnitude of an acceleration vector aPV as follows,
a PV K 0 PV, r , E PV, B PV, X .
3 2
PV .r
(3.65)
where,
Variable
K0(PV,r,EPV,BPV,X)
PV
EPV
BPV
c
Description
Table 3.14,
Units
None
Hz
V/m
T
m/s
In accordance with the harmonic representation of g illustrated by equation (3.63),

K0(PV,r,EPV,BPV,X) is a frequency dependent experimental function. It was illustrated in chapter
3.1 that K0(PV,r,EPV,BPV,X) = K0(X) = KPV-3/2. Hence, an expression for the frequency spectrum
118
may be derived in terms of harmonic mode. This may be achieved by assuming the acceleration
described by equation (3.65) is dynamically, kinematically and geometrically similar to the
amplitude of the 1st harmonic (|nPV| = 1) described by equation (3.64) as follows,
aPV CPV(1,r,M)
(3.66)
The assumption associated with the preceding equation manifests by recognising that a FS is
the hybridisation of the CPV and PV distributions where, CPV decreases as nPV increases
and PV increases as nPV increases, intersecting at |nPV| = 1. Therefore, utilising equation
(3.65) and (3.66), it follows that all frequency modes may be represented by,
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
.r
PV n PV, r , M
(3.67)
Hence, the fundamental frequency (|nPV| = 1) as a function of planetary radial displacement

may be graphically represented as follows,
Fundamental Frequency
RE
PV 1 , r , M E
PV 1 , R E , M E
r
Radial Distance
Figure 3.7,
where,
Variable
RE
ME
3.3
Description
Radius of the Earth
Mass of the Earth
Table 3.15,
Units
m
kg
ENERGY DENSITY
The gravitational field surrounding a homogeneous solid spherical mass may be

characterised by its energy density. If the magnitude of this field is directly proportional to the
mass-energy density of the object, then the field energy density of the PV U may be evaluated
over the difference between successive odd frequency modes.
The reason for evaluation over odd frequency modes is due to the mathematical properties
of FS for constant functions. For such cases as appears in standard texts, the summed contribution
of all even modes equals zero. [33] Subsequently, only odd mode contributions need be considered
when modelling a constant function as follows [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
U n PV, r , M
U ( r , M ) .
n PV
n PV
(3.68)
where,
U ( r , M )
h .
4
PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
119
(3.69)
Variable
Description
U(nPV,r,M) Energy density per change in odd harmonic mode
h
Plancks Constant [6.6260693 x10-34]
Table 3.16,
3.4
Units
Pa
Js
SPECTRAL CHARACTERISTICS
3.4.1 CUT-OFF MODE AND FREQUENCY

Utilising the approximate rest mass-energy density Um of a solid spherical object, as
described by equation (3.70), an expression relating the terminating harmonic frequency mode to
r and M may be derived as follows,
U m( r , M )
3 .M .c
4 . .r
(3.70)
Assuming that |Um(r,M)| = |U(nPV,r,M)|, equation (3.70) may be related to equation (3.68) and
solved for |nPV|. Hence, we may form the harmonic cut-off mode n as follows,
n ( r, M )
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
(3.71)
where, (r,M) is termed the harmonic cut-off function,

3
108.
( r, M )
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
(3.72)
Subsequently, the upper boundary of the ZPF frequency spectrum termed the
harmonic cut-off frequency may be calculated as follows,
( r , M ) n ( r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
Therefore, n and may be graphically represented for the Earth as follows,

RE
n R E, M E
n r, M E
r, M E
R E, M E
r
Radial Distance
Cutoff Mode
Cutoff Frequency
Figure 3.8,
The derivation of equation (3.71 - 3.73) is based upon the compression of energy density to
one change in odd harmonic mode whilst preserving dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity in
accordance with BPT. The preservation of similarity across one change in odd mode is due to the
120
mathematical properties of constant functions in FS as discussed section 3.3. The subsequent

application of these results to equation (3.63) acts to decompress the energy density over the Fourier
domain yielding a highly precise reciprocal harmonic representation of g whilst preserving
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity to the Newtonian, PV and GR representations.
3.4.2 ZERO-POINT-FIELD
The cross-fertilisation of the amplitude and frequency characteristics of the Fourier
spectrum with the ZPF spectral energy density distribution is a useful tool by which to analyse
expected characteristics. This may be achieved by graphing the ZPF Poynting Vector in PV form
S as follows,
ZPF Poynting Vector
S n PV, r , M
c .U n PV, r , M
(3.74)
S n PV , R E , M E
n PV
Harmonic
Figure 3.9,
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
POLARISABLE VACUUM
The spectral characteristics of the PV at the surface of the Earth may be articulated by assuming,
i. The PV physically exists as a spectrum of frequencies and wave vectors.
ii. The sum of all PV wave vectors at the surface of the Earth is coplanar with the gravitational
acceleration vector. This represents the only vector of practical experimental consequence.
iii. A modified Complex FS representation of g is representative of the magnitude of the
resultant PV wave vector.
iv. A physical relationship exists between Electricity, Magnetism and gravity such that the local
value of gravitational acceleration may be investigated and modified utilising the equations
defined in the preceding section.
4.2
TEST VOLUMES
The application of modified FS to define the modes of oscillation of physical systems has
been experimentally verified since its development by Joseph Fourier (1768 - 1830). [34] The
representation developed in the preceding section is defined in the time domain but may also be
applied over an arbitrary displacement domain r as appears in standard engineering texts for
beams, membranes, strings, control systems and wave equations. [25, 33]
If we consider a small (experimentally practical) cubic test volume of length r to be
filled with a large number of incremental displacement elements, frequency characteristics of the
test volume may be hypothesised. Assuming each element within the test volume may be described
by sinusoids of appropriate amplitude and frequency, it may be conjectured that the system
121
interaction of the elements produces an amplitude and frequency spectrum consistent with a
modified FS representation of g over r.
The resultant wave vector at each frequency mode of the test volume is required to be
coplanar with the gravitational acceleration vector for it to be representative of physical reality.
Hence, only a line of action vertically downward through the cubic element is required for
experimental consideration. Moreover, the mathematical representation of forces acting through the
test volume is further simplified by approximating g as constant over the vertical dimension of
the test volume.
4.3
TEST OBJECT
In accordance with PV and ZPF theories, test objects are assumed to produce a gravitational
spectral signature in the same manner as the signature produced by planetary masses. Gravitational
spectral signature is defined as the spectrum of amplitudes and frequencies unique to r and M
by the application of modified FS.
5
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
5.1
BACKGROUND GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
5.1.1 FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY

The fundamental frequency mode of the PV at the surface of the Earth may be usefully
approximated as follows,
PV(1,RE,ME) 0.04(Hz)
(3.75)
5.1.2 FREQUENCY BANDWIDTH
An expression may be defined representing the frequency bandwidth of the local
gravitational field as follows,
PV( r , M ) ( r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.76)
Assuming an ideal relationship between the mathematical model and the background gravitational
field yields,
PV(RE,ME) 520(YHz)
(3.77)
where, YHz = 1024(Hz).
5.2
APPLIED EXPERIMENTAL FIELDS
5.2.1 MODE BANDWIDTH

Assuming a practical benchtop cubic element of length r possesses spectral attributes
over the displacement domain, the number of permissible modes r starting from at r
over r as |nPV| n may be approximated by,
N r( r , M ) ( r , M ) .
r
c
(3.78)
In figure (3.10),
1. The arrows pointing downwards represent a uniform gravitational field.
2. The arrows pointing upwards represent a uniformly applied system field.
3. The cube represents the experimental test volume of length r, with base residing at coordinates (0,0,r).
122
4. The square section represents an EM flux area.

5. h represents the vertical displacement above the EM flux area.
h
-X
-Y
Figure 3.10,
5.2.2 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
The factors to be considered in experimental design configurations are as follows:

i. Where feasible, the experiment should attempt to maximise the applied energy density with
preference towards the highest frequency bombardment possible.
ii. Optimal energy delivery conditions occur at the highest achievable frequencies tending
towards the harmonic cut-off mode n.
iii. Optimal experimental conditions occur when the ratio of the applied Poynting Vector to the
Impedance Function approaches unity.
iv. EM modes within the test volume are subject to normal physical influence. For example, the
fundamental frequency mode cannot exist within a typical Casimir experiment; hence, the
equivalent gravitational acceleration harmonic cannot exist. Hence, the relative contribution of
low harmonic mode numbers to g is trivial.
6
CONCLUSIONS
The delivery of EM radiation to a test object may be used to alter the weight of the object. If
the test object is bombarded by EM radiation, at high energy density and frequency, the
gravitational spectral signature of the test object may undergo constructive or destructive
interference.
123
NOTES
124
CHAPTER
3.5
General Similarity [67]

Abstract
An experimental prediction is developed considering gravitational acceleration g as a
harmonic function across an elemental displacement utilising modified Complex Fourier Series
(FS). This is evaluated to illustrate that the contribution of low frequency harmonics is trivial
relative to high frequency harmonics when considering g. Moreover, the formulation and
development of the Critical Boundary leading to the proposition that the dominant bandwidth
arising from the formation of beat spectra is several orders of magnitude above the Tera-Hertz
(THz) range, terminating at the ZPF beat cut-off frequency is presented. In addition, it is proposed
that the modification of g is dominated by the magnitude of the applied Magnetic field vector
BA and that the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) spectrum is an extension of the classical
ElectroMagnetic (EM) spectrum.
125
Process Flow 3.5,
126
INTRODUCTION
1.1
GENERAL
The Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model provides a theoretical description of space-time that
may be derived from the superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields. The space-time metric may
be engineered utilising Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM), where EM fields may be applied to affect
the state of the PV and thereby facilitate interactions with the local gravitational environment.
This chapter continues previous work leading to practical modelling methods of the PV
based upon the assumption that dimensional similarity exists between the space-time geometric
manifold and applied EM fields. In accordance with Buckingham's Theory (BPT), experiments
must be designed that tests the hypothesis stated in chapter 3.2.
1.2
HARMONICS
This chapter facilitates the following additions to the global EGM construct,
i. Derivation of the fundamental harmonic beat frequency across an elemental displacement
r, IFF r << r. This is evaluated to illustrate that the contribution of low frequency
harmonics is trivial relative to high frequency harmonics when considering gravitational
acceleration g across r.
ii. Group velocities across r.
iii. Formulation and development of the Critical Boundary leading to the proposition that the
dominant bandwidth arising from the formation of beat spectra is several orders of magnitude
above the Tera-Hertz (THz) range, terminating at the ZPF beat cut-off frequency ZPF.
iv. The development of General Similarity Equations (GSEx) applicable to experimental
investigations.
v. The proposition that the modification of g is dominated by the magnitude of the applied
Magnetic field vector BA.
vi. The proposition that the EGM spectrum is an extension of the classical EM spectrum.
2
Fourier Series (FS) may be applied to represent a constant function over an arbitrary period
by the infinite summation of sinusoids. Since the PV model of gravitation is an isomorphic
approximation of General Relativity (GR) in the weak field, it follows that FS may present a useful
tool by which to describe gravity as the number of harmonic frequency modes tends to infinity. The
frequency spectrum of the PV is postulated to range from - < PV < .
3
3.1
INTRODUCTION
The spectral composition of the PV / Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) is an important design

consideration for experimental investigations. It was illustrated that the harmonic cut-off mode n
may be quantified by a system of equations.
Taking limits of n as described in chapter 3.4 yields the free space harmonic cut-off
mode. Free space refers to a flat space-time manifold where the magnitude of the acceleration
vector is 0(m/s2): hence,
lim
r
n ( r, M )
127
(3.79)
Therefore, the spectral modelling characteristics of the PV / ZPF may be articulated as follows,
i. The free space harmonic mode bandwidth is - < nPV < +.
ii. The magnitude of the free space harmonic cut-off mode tends to infinity.
iii. The fundamental harmonic frequency of free space tends to zero.
iv. The presence of a planetary mass superimposed on the ZPF alters the free space harmonic
mode spectrum to -n(r,M) nPV +n(r,M).
v. The fundamental and cut-off harmonic frequencies of the PV / ZPF for a planetary mass
increases as r decreases according to:
PV(1,r-r,M) > PV(1,r,M), (r-r,M) > (r,M) and n(r-r,M) < n(r,M)
(r,M) YHz
(RE,M0) 0
(RE,MM) 196
(RE,ME) 520
(RE,MJ) 2x103
(RE,MS) 9x103
Table 3.17,
PV(1,r,M) Hz
PV(1,RE,M0) 0
PV(1,RE,MM) 0.008
PV(1,RE,ME) 0.0358
PV(1,RE,MJ) 0.2445
PV(1,RE,MS) 2.4841
n(r,M)
n(RE,M0)
n(RE,MM) 2.4x1028
n(RE,ME) 1.5x1028
n(RE,MJ) 7.6x1027
n(RE,MS) 3.5x1027
where, YHz = 1024 (Hz).

Variable
n(r,M)
PV(nPV,r,M)
(r,M)
nPV
r
r
M
RE
M0
MM
ME
MJ
MS
3.2
Description
Units
None
Frequency spectrum of PV
Hz
None
Magnitude of position vector relative to
m
the centre of mass of a planetary body
Magnitude of change of position vector
Mass of the planetary body
kg
Radius of the Earth
m
Zero mass condition of free space
kg
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Earth
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Sun
Table 3.18,
PHENOMENA OF BEATS [35]
3.2.1 FREQUENCY
It was illustrated in chapter 3.4 that it is convenient to model a gravitational field at a
mathematical point utilising Complex FS obeying an odd number harmonic distribution.
Subsequently, it follows that a beat frequency r spectrum forms across r since n(r,M)
n(r r,M). Hence, the change in frequency (also termed a beat) across r may be usefully
approximated by,
r n PV, r , r , M
PV n PV, r
r , M
PV n PV, r , M
(3.80)
The fundamental beat frequency occurs when |nPV| = 1 and may be expressed as r(1,r,r,M)
and the change in harmonic cut-off frequency (also termed the PV beat bandwidth across
r) becomes,
128
( r , r , M )
(r
r , M )
( r, M )
(3.81)
where, represents the harmonic cut-off frequency of the PV.

3.2.2 WAVELENGTH
The change in harmonic wavelength r across r may be determined in a similar
manner as follows,
r n PV, r , r , M
PV n PV, r
r , M
PV n PV, r , M
(3.82)
where,
PV n PV, r , M
c
PV n PV, r , M
(3.83)
Therefore, the change in harmonic cut-off wavelength may be given by,

( r , r , M ) c .
1
( r
1
r , M )
( r, M )
(3.84)
3.2.3 GROUP
3.2.3.1 VELOCITY
Group velocity is a term used to describe the resultant velocity of propagation of a set or
family of interacting wavefunctions. Within the bounds of this book, we consider two distinct
scenarios by which to construct the mathematical model. The first scenario concerns itself with
engineering representations at a mathematical point r.
At r, a spectrum of harmonic modes exists according to -n nPV +n. Superposition
of these modes produces the constant function g. Therefore, it follows that the group velocity at a
mathematical point is zero. Consequently, gravitational wavefunctions are not observed to radiate
from a planetary body.
The second scenario considers group velocities over a differential element r.
Recognising that the change in modal amplitude across practical values of r at the surface of the
Earth tends to zero, the group velocity vr at each harmonic frequency mode may be defined as
follows,
v r n PV, r , r , M
r n PV, r , r , M . r n PV, r , r , M
(3.85)
The terminating group velocity v is the group velocity induced by the change in
frequency at the highest harmonic mode n. Since the number of modes varies significantly with
r, the group velocity terminates with respect to the induced beat across r at the highest
common mode number n(r,M) (recalling that n increases with r). Subsequently, v
occurs at the lower harmonic cut-off mode and may be defined as follows,
v ( r , r , M ) v r n ( r , M ) , r , r , M
(3.86)
3.2.3.2 ERROR
Evaluating equation (3.85, 3.86) reveals incremental non-zero magnitudes at low harmonics
tending to zero ([vr],[v]) 0(m/s) as |nPV| n. However, the expected result is that the
group velocity is exactly zero at all modes ([vr],[v]) = 0(m/s).
However, if r , then vr is non-trivial and a mathematical statement has been
made predicting the radiation of gravitational waves from the centre of mass of a planetary body.
129
Therefore, we may consider the calculation of vr and v as being proportional measures of

the mathematical representation error RError across r.
It should be noted that the error revealed by equation (3.85, 3.86) is introduced by the
simplification that the magnitude of the amplitude of nPV is constant across r. Typically, for
practical values of r at the surface of the Earth, RError (vr v) 0(%).
3.2.4 BEAT BANDWIDTH CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.4.1 FREQUENCY
Thus far, it has been illustrated that an amplitude and frequency spectrum exists at each
mathematical point over the domain 0 < |r| < . The preceding body of work has defined certain
characteristics, including change over the domain r. However, the variation in spectral
bandwidth from r to r+r requires further consideration.
Assuming the ZPF energy across r is equal to the change in the magnitude of the rest
mass-energy density influence |UPV(r,r,M)| yields,
h .
( r , r , M )
3
ZPF
2.c
U PV( r , r , M )
r( 1, r , r , M )
(3.87)
where, the ZPF beat cut-off frequency ZPF becomes,

4
( r , r , M )
ZPF
2 .c .
U PV( r , r , M )
h
3
r( 1 , r , r , M )
(3.88)
Therefore, the ZPF beat bandwidth ZPF may be defined as,

ZPF( r , r , M ) ( r , r , M )
ZPF
r( 1, r , r , M )
(3.89)
3.2.4.2 MODES
The ZPF beat cut-off mode n ZPF corresponding to ZPF may be determined utilising
equation (3.90) developed in chapter 3.4 as follows,
1 . 2 .c .G.M .
K PV( r , M )
r
.r
3
PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.90)
where, PV(n ZPF,r,M) = (r,r,M)ZPF and |nPV| = n(r,r,M)ZPF.

n ( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
ZPF
ZPF
PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.91)
3.2.4.3 CRITICAL RATIO

KR is defined as the ratio of the applied fields to the ambient background field by any
suitable measure. Consequently, KR in terms of the ratio of energy densities may be defined by,
( r , r , M )
KR
( r , r , M )
4
ZPF
4
ZPF
r( 1 , r , r , M )
130
(3.92)
3.3
CRITICAL BOUNDARY
3.3.1 FREQUENCY
The Critical Boundary represents the lower boundary of the ZPF spectrum yielding a
specific proportional similarity value as follows,
r , r , M , K R
( r , r , M )
K R . ( r , r , M )
ZPF
4
ZPF
r( 1 , r , r , M )
(3.93)
Therefore, the similarity bandwidth S is given by,

S r , r , M , K R
( r , r , M )
ZPF
r , r , M , K R
(3.94)
3.3.2 MODE
The Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) of may be calculated by re-use of
equation (3.90) as follows,
n r , r , M , K R
r , r , M , K R
PV( 1, r , M )
(3.95)
Consequently, the change in the number of modes as a function of KR may be given by,
n S r , r , M , K R
3.4
n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
n r , r , M , K R
(3.96)
BANDWIDTH RATIO
A bandwidth ratio R may be defined relating ZPF to . This represents the

ratio of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV. R provides a
useful conversion relationship between forms over practical benchtop values of r and may be
defined as follows,
Bandwidth Ratio
R( r , r , M )
ZPF( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
(3.97)
R R E , r , M E
r
Change in Radial Displacement
Figure 3.11,
131
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
GENERAL SIMILARITY EQUATIONS
4.1.1 OVERVIEW
It was illustrated in chapter 3.2 that acceleration may be represented by the superposition of
wavefunctions. The Primary Precipitant was decomposed to form General Modelling Equations
GMEx. Therefore, for applied experimental fields (commencing from zero strength), the change in
GMEx is equal to the required change of the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector g.
GME1 is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian gravity,
where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities. GME2 is
proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting acceleration is a function of
the Lagrangian densities of the EM field harmonics in a vacuum.
Assuming proportional similarity (|KR| 1) between the ambient gravitational field across
r and the mathematical model, a family of General Similarity Equations (GSEx) may be defined
where GME1 GME2 for all r as |nPV| n ZPF and +n ZPF < +.
4.1.2 GSEx
GSE1,2 may be formed utilising the following energy balancing equations,
GME x
g 0
(3.98)
GME x
g 2 .g
(3.99)
such that,
N
EA k A,n A,t
GME x
K 0( , X )
2 .r
nA= N
(3.100)
N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
K 0( , X )
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
(3.54)
where, K0(,X) is the Engineered Relationship Function as derived in chapter 3.3, kA denotes
the applied wave vector and the permittivity and permeability of free space, 0 and 0
respectively, act as the Impedance Function.
Substituting equation (3.54, 3.100) into (3.98, 3.99) and solving for KR yields the Critical
Ratio explicitly in terms of applied fields as |nA| n ZPF such that |KR| 1 as follows,
N
2
2 .c .
KR
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
N
(3.101)
N
EA k A,n A,t
2
c .
nA= N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
132
Subsequently, proportional representations of similarity over the domain 1< |nA| <n ZPF are
significantly influenced by the magnitude of the functions EA and BA of equation (3.101) and
may be defined by GSE1,2 as follows,
N
2
2 .c .
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
1, 2
N
E A k A,n A,t
2
c .
nA= N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(3.102)
Similarly, it follows that GSE3 may be written utilising the following equation,
KR
K C K 1 , K 2
. 0
U PV( r , r , M )
0
(3.103)
where,
K C K 1 , K 2
K 1( , r , E, D , X )
.
EA k A,n A,t
K 2( , r , B, D , X ) K 2
PV n A = N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(3.50)
Substituting equation (3.50) into (3.103) when |KR| = 1 yields GSE3 as follows,
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t , r , r , M
1
3
K PV( r , M ) .U PV( r , r , M )
0
0
EA k A,n A,t
nA= N
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(Eq. 3.104)
GSE4,5 may be formed by combining GSE1,2 with GSE3 as follows,
4, 5
1,2
(3.105)
where,
Variable
GMEx
g
EA(kA,nA,t)
BA(kA,nA,t)
KC(K1,K2)
UPV(r,r,M)
c
G
Description
Change in applied acceleration vector
Change in Critical Factor with respect to changes
in experimental relationship functions
Change in energy density of the gravitational field
with respect to r, r and M
Universal Gravitational Constant
Table 3.19,
133
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
Pa
Pa
m/s
m kg-1s-2
3
4.2
QUALITATIVE LIMITS
Theoretical qualitative behaviour may be obtained for GSE1,2 by taking the limits of the
Right Hand Side (RHS) of equation (3.102) with respect to applied EM fields. By performing the
appropriate substitutions (|KR| 1 as [|nPV|,|nA|] n ZPF) the following results are obtained,
lim
lim
- B
0+
EA
1, 2
lim
lim
- E
+
0
BA
1, 2
(3.106)
(3.107)
GSE1,2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively imply that achieving complete dynamic, kinematic and

geometric similarity between the applied EM fields and g is facilitated by maximising BA
whilst minimising EA. This suggests the proposition that BA dominates the local modification
of g.
The result, |lim GSE1,2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t)| 2 as EA 0+ and BA -, arises from the
final energy density state of the PV after successful experimentation being twice the initial state.
This results in a net magnitude of acceleration of 2g and may be represented by the following
equations, where f denotes the final state of the PV for complete similarity:
N
E f k PV, n PV, t
2.
n PV, k PV
E A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(3.108)
N
B f k PV, n PV, t
n PV, k PV
2.
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(3.109)
As |nA| n ZPF, the superposition of applied wavefunctions describes the magnitudes of

the Electric and Magnetic field vectors as constant (steady state) functions. Therefore, Maxwell's
Equations (in MKS units) may define the system characteristics as follows (where: is the charge
density and J is the vector current density), [36]
.E A
E A 0 , .B A 0 ,
B A 0 .J
(3.110)
Consequently as |nA| n ZPF, optimal similarity occurs when:

i. The divergence of EA is maximised.
ii. The magnitude and curl of EA is minimised.
iii. The magnitude and curl of BA is maximised.
As the square root of the ratio of the sum of the applied fields approach c, GSE1
approaches unity as follows,
lim
N
E A k A,n A,t
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
N
nA= N
1
134
(3.111)
Similarly, the applied fields influence on GSE2 may be expressed as follows,

lim
N
E A k A,n A,t
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
N
nA= N
|Undefined| (3.112)
Consequently, characteristics of equation (3.106 - 3.112) are such that:

iv. GSE1(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively implies:
|KR| = 1 when [EA(kA,nA,t)2/BA(kA,nA,t)2] c2 as |nA| nZPF.
v. GSE1(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively implies use over the range:
0 |GSE1(EA,BA,kA,nA,t)| < 2.
vi. GSE2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively implies use over the range:
0 |GSE2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t)| < 1 1 < |GSE2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t)| < 2.
The results presented above should not be taken as definitive mathematical solutions or
experimental predictions. However, deeper consideration may suggest that GSE1 represents an
expression biasing constructive EGM interference, whilst GSE2 biases destructive EGM
interference with g. The undefined result, indicated by equation (3.112), suggests that the local
space-time manifold cannot be totally flattened in the presence of applied EM fields. The applied
fields represent energy contributions that inherently modify the geometry of the local space-time
manifold.
5
METRIC ENGINEERING
5.1
POLARISABLE VACUUM
Utilising GSE3, we may write (in terms of the applied Poynting Vector) the exponential
metric tensor line element for the PV model representation of GR in the weak field limit analogous
to the form specified in chapter 3.3 as follows,
ds
g .dx .dx
2
2
c .dt
K EGM
2
K EGM. dr
2
2
r .d
2
2
2
r .sin ( ) .d
(3.113)
g 00
1
K EGM
(3.114)
g 11 g 22 g 33 K EGM
where,
2.
K EGM e
G .M .
1
2
r .c
1.
2
GSE 3
3
K PV . e
(3.115)
K 0( , X )
(3.116)
Note:
i. KEGM is a function of the applied fields and constituent characteristics (EA,BA,kA,nA,t).
ii. |nA| >> 1.
135
5.2
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.2.1 RANGE FACTOR

The range factor St(r,r,M) is the product of UPV(r,r,M) and the Impedance
Function Z. It is a useful at-a-glance design tool that indicates the boundaries of the applied
energy requirements for experiments. The greater the magnitude of the range factor, the greater the
magnitude of applied energy required for complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
with the ambient background field and may be represented as follows,
0
St ( r , r , M ) U PV( r , r , M ) .
(3.117)
We may determine specific limiting characteristics of the range factor for an ideal
experimental solution where the upper limiting value is defined by,
3.M .c .
4.
2
lim
St ( r , 0, M )
+
r 0
1
(r
r )
1 . 0
3
0
r
St ( r , 0, M ) 0
(3.118)
The lower limiting value is defined by,

1
0
3 .M .c .
4 .
2
lim
St ( r , , M )
r
1
(r
r )
1 . 0
3
0
r
St ( r , , M )
3 . . 2. 0
Mc
3
4
.r
(3.119)
The range of |St(r,r,M)| over the domain 0 < |r| < is given by,
0
St ( r , r , M ) <
2
3 .M .c . 0
3
0
4. .r
(3.120)
5.2.2 SENSE CHECKS AND RULES OF THUMB

For non-experimentally validated engineering undertakings, it is common practice to sense
check predicted behaviour before proceeding. We may develop simple sense checks and rules of
thumb by further considering the predicted mathematical results herein, in relation to other physical
phenomena.
For example, it is widely believed by proponents of the PV and ZPF models (of gravity and
inertia respectively) that the Compton frequency of an Electron Ce represents some sort of
boundary condition. Subsequently, we may define the ratio of ZPF to Ce as the 1st Sense
Check St as defined by equation (3.121). This acts as an indicator regarding order-of-magnitude
relationships and results.
The Electron represents a fundamental particle in nature and it would seem inappropriate
that St >> 1 (ZPF >> Ce) as it would imply that the beat bandwidth of ZPF frequencies, over
practical benchtop values of r is much larger that the Compton frequency of an Electron,
contradicting contemporary belief.
Similarly, if St 0, then Ce >> ZPF and would seem to imply that, assuming Ce
is representative of a natural gravitational boundary condition, proportional similarity (|KR| 1) by
artificial means is not experimentally practical and the mathematical model derived to achieve
similarity is inappropriate. Therefore, we expect that 0 << St < 1. Hence,
136
ZPF( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
Ce
(3.121)
The 2nd Sense Check St may be defined as the ratio of the magnitude of to Ce,
therefore it follows that St St (ZPF bandwidth > the Fourier cut-off change).
St ( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
(3.122)
Ce
The 3rd Sense Check St may be defined as the ratio of the harmonic cut-off modes across
r (expected to be: 1).
St ( r , r , M )
n ( r
r , M )
n ( r, M )
(3.123)
Therefore, it follows that,

R( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
(3.124)
th
The 4 Sense Check St may be defined in terms of RError across r as follows

(expected to be: 1),
St n PV, r , r , M
v r n PV, r , r , M
v ( r , r , M )
(3.125)
Hence,
Sense Check
RE
St R E , r , M E
St r , r , M E
St r , r , M E
St R E , r , M E
r
Radial Distance
Figure 3.12 [above, Y-Axis is logarithmic scale]: Figure 3.13 [below],
Sense Check
St n PV , R E , r , M E
n PV
Harmonic
137
ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS
6.1
BEAT SPECTRUM
Characteristics of the beat PV / ZPF spectrum, over r = 1(mm), at the surface of the
Earth may be approximated according to the following table [PHz = 1015(Hz)],
Characteristic
Evaluated Approximation
Wavelength
PV(1,RE,ME) 8.4x106(km)
Change in Wavelength
r(1,RE,r,ME) 1.8(m)
Change in Cut-Off Wavelength (RE,r,ME) 0(m)
Group Velocity
vr(1,RE,r,ME) 1.3x10-11(m/s)
Terminating Group Velocity
v(RE,r,ME) 1.3x10-11(m/s)
RError 1.3x10-9(%)
Fundamental Beat Frequency
r(1,RE,r,ME) 7.5x10-12(Hz)
Change in Cut-Off Frequency
(RE,r,ME) 45(PHz)
Beat Cut-Off Frequency
(RE,r,ME)ZPF 371(PHz)
Beat Cut-Off Mode
n(RE,r,ME)ZPF 1x1019
Beat Bandwidth
ZPF(RE,r,ME) 371(PHz)
Critical Boundary Frequency
(RE,r,ME,50%) 312(PHz)
Critical Boundary Mode
n(RE,r,ME,50%) 8.7x1018
S(RE,r,ME,50%) 59(PHz)
Similarity Modes
nS(RE,r,ME,50%) 1.7x1018
Bandwidth Ratio
R(RE,r,ME) 8.2
Bandwidth Ratio (r = 17mm) R(RE,r,ME) 1
Range Factor
|St(RE,r,ME)| 88(MPa M)
Range Factor Upper Limit
|St(RE,,ME)| 2x105(GPa G)
1st Sense Check
St(RE,r,ME) 4.8x10-4
nd
2 Sense Check
St(RE,r,ME) 5.8x10-5
3rd Sense Check
St(RE,r,ME) 1
th
4 Sense Check
St(nPV,RE,r,ME) 1
Table 3.20,
6.2
CONSIDERATIONS
Some of the factors to be considered in experimental design configurations may be

articulated as follows:
i. The experimental design should attempt to maximise the applied energy density with the
highest frequency conditions possible.
ii. Optimal conditions occur approaching the ZPF beat cut-off mode n ZPF.
iii. EM modes within an experimental volume are subject to normal physical influence. The
fundamental frequency mode will not exist within a Casimir experiment. Hence, the equivalent
gravitational acceleration harmonic cannot exist.
iv. Numerical solutions to equation (3.93) indicate that greater than 99.99(%) of the EGM beat
spectrum occurs in the PHz range. KR 1 when (RE,r,ME,99.999999999999 %)
312(PHz) and ZPF(RE,r,ME) 371(PHz).
138
6.3
EGM WAVE PROPAGATION
The gravitational effect generated by a specifically applied EM field harmonic may be

conceptualised as a modified EM wave. Figure (3.14) depicts the manner in which pseudo-wave
propagation occurs. This has been termed EGM Wave Propagation and has 5 components as
follows,
i. The Electric Field Wave.
ii. The Magnetic Field Wave.
iii. The Electro-Gravitic Coupling Wave (co-planar with the Electric Field Wave).
iv. The Magneto-Gravitic Coupling Wave (co-planar with the Magnetic Field Wave).
v. The Poynting Vector indicated in Figure (3.14) as the wave propagation arrow.
Figure 3.14, not to scale:

6.4
DOMINANT AND SUBORDINATE BANDWIDTHS
The EGM spectrum is fictitious and is derived from the concept of similarity. However,
practical benefits to facilitate understanding of the concepts presented herein may be realised by the
articulation, in terms of applied experimental fields, of the conventional representation of the EM
spectrum. [37, 38]
The EGM spectrum represents all frequencies within the EM spectrum but may be
simplified into two regimes. These have been termed the dominant and subordinate gravitational
bandwidths (EGM and EGM respectively) as indicated in Figure (3.15).
Figure 3.15, not to scale:
139
At the surface of the Earth, over practical benchtop values of r, EGM is responsible
for significantly more than 99.99(%) of the spectral composition of g. Therefore, utilising table
(3.17) we may approximate the classical EM spectral representation for frequencies of Gamma
Rays at a mathematical point with displacement r as follows [YHz = 1024(Hz)],
i. 105(PHz) > > 1(YHz).
ii. g > 1(YHz).
where, g represents the gravitational frequency of the applied experimental fields for complete
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field at the surface
of the Earth.
6.5
KINETIC AND POTENTIAL
The EGM spectrum may be considered a hybrid function of an amplitude and frequency
distribution. The harmonic behaviour across an element r has been described in terms of,
i. The Fourier spectrum termed the potential spectrum and is non-physical.
ii. The ZPF spectrum termed the kinetic spectrum and is physical.
Properties of the Fourier spectrum are such that wavefunction amplitude decreases as
frequency increases, whereas properties of the ZPF spectrum dictate constant amplitude with
increasing frequency. Consequently, merging the two distributions as defined by equation (3.92)
produces engineering properties and boundaries seemingly consistent with common-sense
expectations.
The potential spectrum has the advantage of being able to fictitiously represent ZPF
behaviour at a mathematical point in addition to r. This is otherwise not possible due to the ZPF
being a physical manifestation of g and the constituent wavefunctions possess finite wavelengths.
7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1
CONCEPTUAL
The construct herein suggests that the delivery of EM radiation to a test object may be used
to modify its weight. Specifically, at high energy density and frequency, the gravitational spectral
signature of the test object may undergo constructive or destructive interference. However, the
frequency dependent conditions for gravitational similarity at the surface of the Earth are enormous:
[ 312(PHz) and ZPF 371(PHz)].
Summarising yields:
i. The ZPF spectrum of free space is composed of an infinite number of modes nPV, with
frequencies tending to 0(Hz), as illustrated in table (3.17).
ii. The group velocity produced by the PV at a mathematical point and across practical values of
r at the surface of the Earth is 0(m/s). Consequently, gravitational wavefunctions are not
observed to propagate from the centre of a planetary body.
iii. |UPV(r,r,M)| is proportional to ZPF(r,r,M).
iv. g exists (at practical benchtop experimental conditions / dimensions) as a relatively narrow
band of beat frequencies in the PHz range. Spectral frequency compositions below this
range [approximately less than 42(THz)] are negligible [similarity 0(%)].
v. General Similarity Equation (GSEx) facilitates the construction of computational models to
assist in designing optimal experiments. Moreover, they can readily be coded into off-theshelf-3D-EM simulation tools to facilitate the experimental investigation process.
vi. A solution for optimal experimental similarity utilising EM configurations exists when
Maxwell's Equations at steady state conditions are observed such that:
(a) The divergence of EA and curl of BA is maximised.
(b) The magnitude and curl of EA is minimised.
140
7.2
PHYSICAL MODELLING CHARACTERISTICS
For r << r yields:

50 .%
R E , r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
Re R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.16,
50 .%
R E , r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
Im R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.17,
50 .%
R E , r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.18,
50 .%
Re S R E , r , M E , K R
Im S R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
100 .%
S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
1
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.19,
141
50 .%
100 .%
S R E , r , M E , K R
S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.20,
n R E , r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
50 .%
Re n R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.21,
n R E , r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
50 .%
Im n R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.22,
n R E , r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
50 .%
n R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.23,
142
50 .%
100 .%
n S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
Re n S R E , r , M E , K R
Im n S R E , r , M E , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.24,
50 .%
100 .%
n S R E , r , M E , K R
n S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.25,
NOTES
143
NOTES
144
CHAPTER
3.6
Harmonic and Spectral Similarity [68]

Abstract
A number of tools to facilitate the experimental design process are presented. These include
the development of a design matrix based upon: (i) the Critical Harmonic Operator KR H based
upon a unit amplitude spectrum: (ii) the derivation of Harmonic and Spectral Similarity Equations
(HSEx and SSEx): (iii) Critical Phase Variance C: (iv) Critical Field Strengths (EC and BC) and
(v), Critical Frequency C.
145
Process Flow 3.6,
146
INTRODUCTION
1.1
GENERAL
In previous chapters, a number of practical engineering tools for application to the

Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity were derived by application of Buckingham Theory
(BPT) and dimensional analysis techniques. BPT is a well-tested and experimentally verified
method that relates a mathematical model to an Experimental Prototype (EP). The EP represents the
PV at the surface of the Earth by which all similarity conditions are referenced.
The power of BPT to facilitate and articulate the derivation of mathematical constructs has
advanced theoretical boundaries to a higher level. The tools derived have volunteered precise
calculations leading to the Critical Ratio KR and General Similarity Equations (GSE's). KR is
defined as the ratio of the sum of the magnitudes of the applied ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields, to the
magnitude of the background gravitational field. The General Modelling Equations (GMEs)
derived in chapter 3.2 exploit these definitions to produce GSEx.
1.2
PRACTICAL METHODS
Practical engineering of the hypothesis to be tested may be realised by application of the

equivalence principle with respect to KR. Complete similarity occurs when |KR| = 1 and
proportional similarity at |KR| 1, therefore it follows that KR may be used to represent
relationships in terms of potential, acceleration, energy densities or any suitable measure in
harmonic form. The harmonic representation of KR in the Fourier domain leads to a useful
engineering tool facilitating the experimental design process.
1.3
OBJECTVES
This chapter assists in the qualitative and quantitative experimental design process as
follows,
i. Harmonic representation of |KR| = 1 in the Fourier domain over an elemental displacement
r termed the Critical Harmonic Operator KR H based upon a unit amplitude spectrum.
ii. Utilisation of KR H to formulate harmonic representations of various other physical variables
for consideration in the experimental design process.
iii. Utilisation of KR H to simplify GSEx, on a modal basis, to Harmonic Similarity Equations
(HSEx).
iv. Graphical visualisation of HSEx based upon Complex Phasor Forms of the magnitude of the
applied Electric and Magnetic fields (EA and BA respectively).
v. The Reduction of HSEx into simplified ElectroMagnetic (EM) design consideration forms
HSEx R.
vi. Spectral Similarity Equations (SSE): these qualify and quantify the similarity of a singularly
applied experimental EM source to the frequencies that inhabit the ambient Electro-GraviMagnetic (EGM) spectrum.
vii. Determination of the applied EM phase requirements with respect to the background
gravitational field utilising SSEx.
viii. Assess the suitability of Maxwell's Equations to experimental investigations utilising SSEx.
1.4
RESULTS
The results obtained may be articulated by the development of a design matrix based upon,
i. The derivation of KR H.
ii. The derivation of HSEx R and SSEx.
iii. Critical Phase Variance C.
147
iv. Critical Field Strengths EC and BC (Electric and Magnetic field strengths respectively).
v. Critical Frequency C.
2
Assuming complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between the EP and the
mathematical model (|KR| =1) where the harmonic mode of the PV nPV approaches the harmonic
cut-off mode n [|nPV| n and n < ], KR has many representations. One such
representation incorporating the change in harmonic frequency modes across r shall be derived.
The spectral characteristics of the EP may be articulated at the surface of the Earth assuming
spherical geometry with uniform mass distribution,
i. The Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) physically exists as a spectrum of frequencies and wave vectors.
ii. The summed effect of all ZPF wave vectors at the surface of the Earth is coplanar with the
gravitational acceleration vector.
iii. A modified Complex FS representation of g is physically real and is representative of the
magnitude of the resultant ZPF wave vector.
iv. A physical relationship exists between gravity, Electricity and Magnetism such that the
physical interaction of applied EM fields with the PV, in accordance with the hypotheses to be
tested as defined in chapter 3.2, may be investigated and potentially modified.
It was illustrated in chapter 3.3 that, for an engineered change in g by application of BPT
and the equivalence principle, a change in the PV may be described [as |nPV| n] by,
g a PV
K 0( , X )
E PV k PV, n PV, t
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV, k PV
r
n PV, k PV
(3.48)
where,
Variable
g
aPV
EPV(kPV,nPV,t)
BPV(kPV,nPV,t)
kPV
i
K0(,X)
r
Description
Change of gravitational acceleration vector
Change in PV acceleration vector
Field frequency
Denotes initial conditions of PV
Engineered relationship function
Magnitude of position vector from centre of mass
Table 3.21,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
Hz
1/m
None
m
Subsequently, considering only the resultant ZPF wave vector relating to g in a practical
laboratory experiment, equation (3.48) may be usefully simplified by removing kPV notation and
relating it to a generalised Fourier representation of constant g over r as |nPV|
n, analogous to the form utilised in chapter 3.4,
E PV n PV, t
K 0( , X ) n PV
.
r
B
n PV
G.M .
PV n PV, t
i .
n PV
2
.n PV
.e
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
(3.126)
148
where, r denotes the beat frequency across r as defined in chapter 3.5 and K0(,X) is
the Engineered Relationship Function.
E PV n PV, t
c
n PV
B PV n PV, t
n PV
(3.127)
G.M .
K 0( , X )
KR
2
r .c
(3.54)
Substituting equation (3.127) and (3.54) into (3.126) yields the PV - EM harmonic
representation of the ideal value of the magnitude of KR for the complete reduction of g over
r in a laboratory at the surface of the Earth as |nPV| n,
K R( r , r , M )
2.
i .
n PV
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
1 .
e
n PV
(3.128)
where, i on the Right Hand Side (RHS) of equation (3.126, 3.128) represents complex number
notation and the maximum amplitude occurs at time index,
t n PV, r , r , M
1
2 . n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M )
(3.129)
Yields the unit amplitude spectrum analogous to the result previously found in chapter 3.4 as |nPV|
n(r+r),
K R n PV
3.1
DESIGN MATRIX
(3.130)
. n PV
Utilising equation (3.130) a table of expressions for the magnitude of the amplitude
spectrum of various experimental design considerate relationships may be formulated for complete
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between the EP and the mathematical model (|KR| =1)
as |nPV| n,
Description
Eng. Rel. Func.
Primitive Form
Harmonic Form
K 0( , X)
K 0 n PV, r , M , X
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
Refractive Index
2.
K EGM K PV. e
U g( r, M )
Critical Factor
KR
K PV n PV, r , M
2
r .c
K PV( r , M ) e
Engineered
Refractive Index
GPE / kg
G .M
2 . K 0( , X )
G.M .m . 1
r
m
K C( r , r , M )
U PV( r , r , M )
0
0
G.M .
K R n PV
2
H
H
r .c
K PV( r , M ) .K R n PV
K EGM n PV, r , M , K R
U g n PV, r , M
KPV H KPV
K EGM r , M , K R
U g ( r , M ) .K R n PV
K C n PV, r , r , M
Result
K0 H K0
.K n
R PV
KEGM H KEGM
Ug H Ug
U PV( r , r , M ) .K R n PV .
H
KC H KC
Table 3.22,
where, the permittivity and permeability of free space (0 and 0 respectively) act as the
Impedance Function such that,
149
Variable
UPV(r,r,M)
KC(r,r,M)
G
3.2
Description
Change in energy density of PV
Change in Critical Factor
Table 3.23,
Units
Pa
Pa
m3kg-1s-2
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Factors to be considered in experimental design configurations when applying equations

defined in table (3.22) are as follows:
i. The actual EM modes over r are subject to normal physical influence. The fundamental
frequency mode will not exist within a Casimir experiment; hence, the equivalent gravitational
acceleration harmonic cannot exist.
ii. The relative contribution of the fundamental frequency mode to the gravitational acceleration
vector g is trivial.
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
HARMONIC SIMILARITY EQUATIONS
A family of HSEx may be defined by relating the EP to the mathematical model on a modal
basis, termed discrete similarity for |r| << . Utilising GSE1,2 derived in chapter 3.5 yields
HSE1,2; formed from the ratio of KR(r,r,M) to GSE1,2 as follows,
HSE E A , B A , k A , n A , n PV, r , r , M , t
i . E A k A, n A, t
1, 2
2
c .B A k A , n A , t
.e
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
2
. n PV. c . B A k A , n A , t
(Eq. 3.131)
Similarly, HSE3 may be formed utilising the ratio of KR(r,r,M) to GSE3 as follows,
.n
( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
PV
r
2 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M ) .e
.n PV.E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
(Eq. 3.132)
Hence, HSE4,5 may be formed utilising the ratio of KR(r,r,M) to GSE4,5 as follows,
2
4 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M ) .c .B A k A , n A , t .e
4, 5
.n PV.E A k A , n A , t . E A k A , n A , t
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
2
(Eq. 3.133)
Recognising that,
i .e
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
(3.134)
Yields,
1.
1,2
E A k A, n A, t
2
2
.K
R n PV
(Eq. 3.135)
150
K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M )
3
.K n
R PV
E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
(Eq. 3.136)
4, 5
2.
2
K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M ) .c .B A k A , n A , t
E A k A,n A,t . EA k A,n A,t
2.
c B A k A,n A,t
.K n
R PV
(Eq. 3.137)
where,
St ( r , r , M ) U PV( r , r , M ) .
3 .M .c .
4 .
2
U PV( r , r , M )
Variable
EA(kA,nA,t)
BA(kA,nA,t)
c
M
4.2
0
0
1
(r
r )
(3.117)
1
(3.118)
Description
Units
V/m
T
m/s
Mass
kg
Table 3.24,
VISUALISATION OF HSEx OPERANDS
Visualisation of HSE operands - the expression inside the magnitude notation on the Right
Hand Side (RHS) of equation (3.131 - 3.133) - provides valuable information regarding the
differences between forms. For example, it shall be demonstrated that HSE4,5 suggest constructive
and destructive EM interference considerations. To achieve this, we shall utilise the following
definitions for the applied EM fields in Complex Phasor Form,
E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t
E 0.e
2 . . E n E , r , r , M .t
.
i
2
(3.138)
B A B 0, n B, , r , r , M , t
B 0.e
2 . . B n B , r , r , M .t
.i
(3.139)
Note: since g on a laboratory test bench at the surface of the Earth is usefully approximated to a
one-dimensional (1D) situation and complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between
the EP and the mathematical model (|KR| =1) is assumed, the harmonic wave vector kA has been
omitted for simplicity.
where,
E rms
E0
2
B rms
B0
2
151
(3.140)
(3.141)
Variable
EA(E0,nE,r,r,M,t)
BA(B0,nB,,r,r,M,t)
E0
B0
nE
nB
E
B
Erms
Brms
Description
Applied Electric field vector
Applied Magnetic field vector
Amplitude of Electric field vector
Amplitude of Magnetic field vector
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to BA
Table 3.25,
Units
V/m
T
V/m
T
None
c
Hz
V/m
T
Equations (3.138, 3.139) are functions in Complex Form and contain Real and Imaginary
components. For visualisation purposes, only the Real component is required. Figure (3.26)
includes a graphical representation of EA and BA for arbitrary illustrational values.
The representations for Re(HSE1,2) have been accentuated for illustrational purposes by a
large value of (180). Typically, values of 0 would be expected in accordance with classical
EM propagation, or 90 in accordance with Maxwells Equations.
Re E A 1 .
V
m
, 1 , R E , r , M E , t
Re B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , R E , r , M E , t
V
Re HSE 1 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
m
V
Re HSE 2 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
m
Electric Forcing Function

Magnetic Forcing Function
HSE 1
HSE 2
Figure 3.26,
Figure (3.27) includes arbitrary illustrational values but also contains important information
regarding . Exploratory graphical analysis demonstrates that Re(HSE3) is in-phase with
Re(HSE4) and out-of-phase with Re(HSE5) for key values (0 and 90) of . The significance
of this being that Re(HSE3) is analogous to the Poynting Vector and implies that Re(HSE4) is
representative of constructive EGM interference and Re(HSE5) is representative of destructive
EGM interference.
HSE4,5 were formed from General Modelling Equation 1 and 2 (GME1,2) as described in
chapter 3.5. GME1 is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian
gravity where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities. GME2
is proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting acceleration is a function
of the Lagrangian densities of the EM field harmonics in a vacuum.
152
Therefore, experimental investigations with the objective of reducing the local gravitational
acceleration on a test bench, by means of EGM interference, should bias engineering designs
governed by HSE5. However, designs favouring HSE4 should not be discounted and should form
part of any complete design process.
Re HSE 3 1 .
Re HSE 4 1 .
Re HSE 5 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 0 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 0 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 0 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
HSE 3
HSE 4
HSE 5
Figure 3.27,
4.3
REDUCTION OF HSEx
HSEx may be simplified by performing the appropriate substitution of equation (3.138 3.141). The simplified equations carry the subscript R (of the form HSEx R) and facilitate the
investigation of the influence of on a modal basis. This becomes important in a practical sense
because experimental investigations will involve 1 (or very few) applied forcing function
frequencies.
The reproduction of the entire background EGM spectrum would be technically difficult to
achieve. Subsequently, experimental configurations will need to consider influence very
carefully. Assuming the forcing function frequency of EA is equal to that of BA yields HSEx R as
follows,
HSE 1 , n PV
HSE 2 , n PV
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
.n PV
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
.n PV
HSE 3 E rms, B rms, n PV, r , r , M
(3.142)
1)
(3.143)
K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M )
.n PV.E rms.B rms
HSE 4 E rms , B rms , , n PV, r , r , M
4.4
1)
1
R
cos ( )
1
sin ( )
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , r , M
.HSE E
(3.144)
R
(3.145)
(3.146)
VISUALISATION OF HSEx R
Significant design information leading to complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric

similarity with the background field (|KR| =1) may be obtained by visualisation of HSEx R.
Assigning arbitrary values where required to analyse modelling behaviour facilitating the
153
experimental design process yields,

Figure (3.28) analysis:
i. Harmonic similarity is maximised at = 0 and = 90. Intuitively, this appears to agree
with expectation; these phase angles are observed in classical vacuum EM wave propagation
and Maxwell's Equations respectively.
ii. Maximum harmonic amplitude occurs at |nPV| = 1: This implies that a low frequency carrier
wave encasing a high frequency Poynting Vector maximises similarity of the applied fields
with the background gravitational field. Intuitively, this appears to agree with expectation as
the population of Photons in the ZPF is maximised at the fundamental harmonic.
iii. HSE1 = HSE2 at = 45 and = 135.
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 1_R ( , 1 )
HSE 1_R ( , 2 )
HSE 2_R ( , 1 )
HSE 2_R ( , 2 )
Phase Variance
Figure 3.28,
Note: alteration of notation is required for graphing purposes. It is a limitation of the graphing
software used herein that axial arguments may not be written precisely in the form HSE1 R(,1) etc.
Figure (3.29) analysis [Y-Axis is logarithmic]:
iv. |HSE3 R| 1 as |nPV| n ZPF: This is consistent with Poynting Vector characteristics
described in chapter (3.2, 3.3).
where,
Harmonic Similarity
Variable
n(r,r,M)ZPF
RE
ME
Description
ZPF beat cut-off mode across r at r
Radius of the Earth
Mass of the Earth
Table 3.26,
Units
None
m
kg
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , r , M E
n PV
Harmonic Mode
Figure 3.29,
154
4.5
SPECTRAL SIMILARITY EQUATIONS
The preceding sections define the requirements for complete dynamic, kinematic and
geometric similarity with any specific mode in the background EGM field. However, reproduction
of only one specific mode for experimental investigations is extremely limiting. Alternatively, it is
highly advantageous to consider the reproduction of a harmonically averaged distribution for each
HSE, termed Spectral Similarity Equations (SSE's).
SSE's are defined as a family of equations that quantify and qualify the similarity of a single
field source defined by HSE with respect to the spectrum of frequencies that inhabit the background
EGM field. SSE's differs from GSE's in that GSE's represents similarity of multiple EM sources
with respect to the background EGM field.
Therefore, utilising the HSE's above, the magnitude of the average spectral similarity per
frequency mode with respect to the applied forcing function may be generalised as follows,
1
SSE
n ( r , r , M )
1
ZPF
HSE
n PV
(3.149)
where, nPV has the odd harmonic distribution: -n ZPF, 2 - n ZPF . n ZPF.
Recognising that (with error < 6.7x10-6(%) at n ZPF > 106),
1
n ( r , r , M )
1
ZPF
ln 2 .n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
n PV
n PV
n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
(3.150)
As nPV n ZPF and n ZPF >>1: Substituting HSE's into equation (3.149) yields,
SSE 1( , r , r , M )
SSE 2( , r , r , M )
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , r , r , M
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
ln 2 .n ( r , r , M )
n ( r , r , M )
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
1) .
ZPF
(3.151)
ZPF
ln 2 .n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M ) ln 2 n ( r , r , M ) ZPF
.
.E rms .B rms
n ( r , r , M )
1
ZPF
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , r , r , M

4.6
1) .
1
cos ( )
1
sin ( )
.SSE E
3 rms , B rms , r , r , M
.SSE E
(3.152)
(3.153)
(3.154)
(3.155)
CRITICAL PHASE VARIANCE
C is defined as the phase difference between EA and BA for complete dynamic,

kinematic and geometric similarity with the background EGM field (|SSEx| = 1). Therefore, by
analyses of the preceding figures and the appropriate transformation of the preceding equations,
C may be easily determined.
For proportional solutions to the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian gravity where the
resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities, C = 0. For
proportional solutions to the Lagrange equation where the resulting acceleration is a function of the
155
Lagrangian densities, C = 90.

4.7
CRITICAL FIELD STRENGTH
EC and BC are derived utilising the reciprocal harmonic distribution describing the EGM
amplitude spectrum. Solutions to |SSE4,5| = 1 represent conditions of complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the amplitude of the background EGM spectrum. EC and
BC denote Root Mean Square (RMS) values satisfying the proceeding equation,

2
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , r , r , M
(3.156)
where,
E rms E C( r , r , M )
B rms
4.8
(3.157)
E C( r , r , M )
c
(3.158)
DC-OFFESTS
The value of EC and BC may be decreased by the application of an offset function DC.
This denotes a percentage offset of the forcing function and may be applied to facilitate a specific
experimental configuration. For example, if DC = 100(%) the value of EC and BC computed
above yield,
SSE 4 ( 1 DC) .E rms, B rms, 0, r , r , M
SSE 4 ( 1 DC) .E rms, ( 1 DC) .B rms, 0, r , r , M
SSE 5 E rms, ( 1 DC) .B rms, , r , r, M

2
1
2
SSE 5 ( 1 DC) .E rms, ( 1 DC) .B rms, , r , r, M

2
(3.159)
1
4
(3.160)
Therefore, by re-computing the value of EC and BC at |SSE4,5| = 1 a decrease in Critical Field

Strength shall be observed.
5
MAXWELLS EQUATIONS
5.1
GENERAL
By considering Maxwell's Equations in relation to the applied EM fields and the

requirements of similarity, it is possible to deduce important design characteristics for further
consideration. Maxwell's Equations (in MKS units) for time-varying fields are as follows (where,
is the charge density and J is the vector current density), [39]
.E
B
t
, .B 0 ,
B 0 .J
0 . 0 .
E
t
(3.161)
Consequently as |SSE5| 1, optimal similarity occurs when:

i. The divergence of EA is maximised.
ii. The curl of BA is maximised.
156
5.2
CRITICAL FREQUENCY
C is defined as a half wavelength over r by applied fields and represents a minimum

frequency for the application of Maxwell's Equations within this experimental context,
C( r )
c
2 .r
(3.162)
CONCLUSIONS
A number of tools that facilitate the experimental design process are presented. These
include the development of a design matrix based upon the unit amplitude spectrum, the derivation
of Harmonic and Spectral Similarity Equations (HSEx and SSEx), Critical Phase Variance C,
Critical Field Strengths (EC and BC) and Critical Frequency C.
Note: equations (3.147, 3.148) were deleted from this section due to redundancy.
NOTES
157
NOTES
158
CHAPTER
3.7
The Casimir Effect [69]

Abstract
An experimental prediction is formulated hypothesising the existence of a resonant modal
condition for application to classical parallel plate Casimir experiments. The resonant condition is
subsequently utilised to derive the Casimir Force FPP to high precision for a specific plate
separation distance of r = 1(mm); ignoring finite conductivity + temperature effects and evading
the requirement for Casimir Force corrections due to surface roughness. The results obtained
suggest Casimir Forces arise due to Polarisable Vacuum (PV) pressure imbalance between the
plates induced by the presence of a physical boundary excluding low energy harmonic modes.
159
Process Flow 3.7,
160
INTRODUCTION
A Dutch Physicist named Hendrick Casimir predicted that quantum ElectroMagnetic field
fluctuations would produce an attractive force between two neutrally charged reflective parallel
plates, inexplicable by gravitational attraction (nowadays known as the Casimir Effect). This effect
has been experimentally verified and its derivation states it to be cosmologically homogeneous.
This chapter challenges that assertion and demonstrates that it depends upon environmental
conditions (i.e. the magnitude of the ambient gravitational field strength).
Chapter 3.6 established two Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSE4A,5A R).
It shall be demonstrated that HSE4A,5A R may be utilised to describe the characteristics of Relative
Phase Variance over the range of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) harmonic nPV. Subsequently,
deriving the Casimir Force and hypothesising a calculation of the PV inflection mode and frequency
of a classical Casimir plate experiment. HSE4A,5A R presented in chapter 3.6 are as follows,
HSE 4A E rms , B rms , , n PV, r , r , M
HSE 5A E rms , B rms , , n PV, r , r , M
1
R
cos ( )
sin ( )
.HSE E
.HSE E
HSE 3 E rms, B rms, n PV, r , r , M
(3.147)
(3.148)
K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M )
.n PV.E rms.B rms
St ( r , r , M ) U PV( r , r , M ) .
3 .M .c .
4 .
2
U PV( r , r , M )
(r
(3.117)
1
r )
(3.144)
1
3
(3.118)
where, the permittivity and permeability of free space (0 and 0 respectively) act as the
Impedance Function.
Variable
HSE3 R
r
r
c
M
St
UPV
KPV
Erms
Brms
Description
Units
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equation proportional None
to the Poynting Vector of the PV
Magnitude of position vector from centre of the Earth
m
Separation distance between parallel Casimir Plates
m/s
Planetary mass
kg
Range Factor
Pa
Pa
None
Root Mean Square of EA (applied Electric Field)
V/m
Root Mean Square of BA (applied Magnetic field)
T
Table 3.27,
Spectral Similarity Equations (SSEx) were developed from HSEx. SSEx represent the
average magnitude per harmonic mode, analogous to a solution of field pressure equilibrium with
respect to the intensity of the amplitude spectrum. Of particular importance, SSE3 denotes a
proportional formulation of the ambient (i.e. required applied) Poynting Vector as follows,
161
SSE 3 E rms, B rms, r , r , M
N X( r , r , M )
K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M )
.E rms.B rms.N X( r , r , M )
n ( r , r , M )
(3.163)
1
ZPF
ln 2 .n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
(3.164)
where, denotes Eulers Constant and NX is termed the harmonic inflection mode.
Utilising equation (3.163) and assuming complete similarity between the PV and SSE3
yields the Critical Field Strengths EC and BC as follows,
(3.165)
E rms E C( r , r , M )
B rms
(3.157)
E C( r , r , M )
c
(3.158)
Substituting equation (3.157, 3.158) into equation (3.163) and solving for EC yields,
E C( r , r , M )
c .K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M )
.N X( r , r , M )
(3.166)
Therefore, utilising equation (3.147, 3.148) and assuming complete similarity between the PV and
HSE4A,5A R, an expression for 4,5 in terms of nPV for each harmonic form may be articulated as
follows,
4 E C( r , r , M ) , B C( r , r , M ) , n PV, r , r , M
Re acos HSE 3 E C( r , r , M ) , B C( r , r , M ) , n PV, r , r , M
(Eq. 3.167)
5 E C( r , r , M ) , B C( r , r , M ) , n PV, r , r , M
Re asin HSE 3 E C( r , r , M ) , B C( r , r , M ) , n PV, r , r , M
(Eq. 3.168)
Hence,
N C R E , r , M E
N X R E , r , M E
4 E C R E , r , M E , B C R E , r , M E , n PV , R E , r , M E
n PV
Figure 3.30,
where, RE and ME denote radius and mass of the Earth and NC indicates the Critical Mode
representing the condition of minimum permissible wavelength between the parallel plates over r
= 1(mm). C and PV(1,r,M) denote the Critical Frequency and fundamental harmonic
frequency respectively,
162
C( r )
N C( r , r , M )
PV( 1, r , M )
(3.169)
c
C( r )
.
2 r
(3.162)
Analysis of figure (3.30) illustrates that NX represents a point of graphical inflection

where the rate of change of 4,5 with respect to nPV is non-trivial. Notably, 4 = and 5 =
/2 over the range 1 nPV NX and are influenced by the manner in which the applied forcing
functions (EA and BA representing the PV by similarity) have been initially defined.
Since the PV cannot be uniquely described by a single mode, the arbitrary value of
initially utilised in the mathematical construct is unimportant. Hence, the phase similarity on a
modal basis may be disregarded. The Critical Phase Variance C defined in chapter 3.6 considers
the entire PV spectrum when defining the required value of for complete similarity.
Subsequently, we may conjecture that the corresponding frequency at NX relates to a resonant
condition where the Harmonic Inflection Frequency X may be defined as follows,
X( r , r , M ) N X( r , r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.170)
To derive a relationship incorporating harmonic PV characteristics with the Casimir Force

for parallel plates, we shall bring to the fore a suite of mathematical approximations resulting in a
highly precise representation of the Casimir Force. Recognising that the sum of odd modes of a
double sided reciprocal harmonic spectrum, symmetrical about the 0th mode, approaches the sum
of all modes of a one-sided reciprocal harmonic spectrum, with vanishing error, as |nPV| n ZPF
and n ZPF >> 1 according to [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
n ( r , r , M )
1
n PV
ZPF
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV
n PV = 1
ln 2 .n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
(3.171)
where,
i. The Left Hand Side (LHS) of the preceding equation denotes the summation of all odd modes
across the entire spectrum, symmetrical about the 0th mode, following the sequence:
nPV = -n ZPF, 2 - n ZPF ... n ZPF.
ii. The middle expression of the preceding equation represents the summation of all odd and even
modes on the Right Hand Side (RHS) side of the spectrum following the sequence nPV = 1, 2
n ZPF.
iii. on the RHS of the preceding equation denotes Eulers Constant.
Subsequently, the difference in sum between NX and NC may be usefully approximated as
follows,
ln 2 .N X( r , r , M )
ln 2 .N C( r , r , M )
ln
N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
(3.172)
By contrast to the preceding equations, we shall apply classical arithmetic progression to

facilitate the derivation of the Casimir Force. A Fourier distribution describing a constant function
is composed of a reciprocal harmonic series governing amplitude characteristics and an arithmetic
progression governing frequency characteristics. The interaction of these two spectral distributions
intersects at the fundamental harmonic (|nPV| = 1).
163
Subsequently, we expect that an expression relating the Casimir Force to harmonic

distributions of the PV should consider aspects of a classical arithmetic sequence and a reciprocal
harmonic series. Hence,
Let: A, D and StN denote the values of the 1st harmonic term, common difference and NTth
harmonic term respectively in a classical arithmetic sequence [40] as follows,
St N A
NT
1 .D
(3.173)
where, the number of terms NT is,

N T A , D , St N
St N
(3.174)
Hence, the ratio of the number of terms NTR relating NX to NC is,

N T A , D , N X( r , r , M )
N TR( A , D , r , r , M )
N T A , D , N C( r , r , M )
(3.175)
Considering the sum of terms yields,

H A , D, N T
NT
. 2 .A
D. N T
(3.176)
where, the ratio of the sum of terms HR relating NX to NC is,

HR( A , D, r , r , M )
H A , D, N X( r , r , M )
H A , D, N C( r , r , M )
(3.177)
Therefore, when A = 1 and D = 1,2:

N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
THE CASIMIR FORCE
N TR( 1 , 1 , r , r , M )
HR( 1 , 2 , r , r , M )
(3.178)
Analysis and consideration of the mathematical characteristics of equation (3.171 - 3.178)

facilitates the formulation of the Casimir Force FPV in terms of NX and NC [for a specific
configuration of r = 1(mm)] as follows,
A PP .U PV( r , r , M ) .
N C( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
.ln
N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
(3.179)
where, APP denotes the projected area of a parallel plate in a classical Casimir experiment.
We shall now compare the classical representation of the Casimir Force for parallel plates
FPP to the preceding equation by performing a sample calculation, [8]
F PP
.h .c .A PP
4
480.r
(3.180)
Considering a Casimir plate area equal to planetary surface area in equation (3.179), yields a result
to within 10-2(%) of the classical representation of the Casimir Force described by equation
(3.180).
164
Analysis of equation (3.179) indicates that FPP decreases with increasing ambient
gravitational environment. This concurs with chapter 3.5 and suggests the exclusion of fewer
available low frequency modes. The mathematical construct defined in chapter 3.5 states that, as
gravitational acceleration at the surface of a planetary body increases, PV(1,r,M) also increases.
Therefore, an Earth based equivalent Casimir experiment conducted on Jupiter will exclude fewer
low frequency modes preserving higher frequency modes that simply pass through the plates,
resulting in a smaller Casimir Force. By contrast, the same experiment conducted on the Moon will
produce a larger Casimir Force.
Notably, a Casimir Experiment conducted in free space will produce an extremely small force
(tending to zero) due to the lack of initial background field pressure. Since the Casimir Force arises
from a pressure imbalance, the lack of significant ambient field pressure between the plates
prevents the formation of large Casimir Forces.
4.2
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT
The Cosmological Constant is a function of the vacuum energy density, typically

symbolised by vac or UZPF. Since the vacuum energy density is modified by the presence of
gravitational fields (i.e. it becomes polarised in accordance with the PV model of gravity), one
must differentiate between the cosmological average and local value of .
The proportional change in the local value of the Cosmological Constant across small
values of r may also be approximated harmonically commencing with the definition,
8 . .G .
U PV( r , r , M )
2
3 .c
PV( r , r , M )
(3.181)
Exploratory factor analysis of PV(1,r,M), r(1,r,r,M), Um(r,M) and UPV(r,r,M)

produces the following approximate relationship for practical experimental values of r,
PV( 1 , r , M )
2
U m( r , M )
3 .
2
U PV( r , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
(3.182)
where,
U m( r , M )
3 .M .c
4 . .r
(3.70)
Hence,
( r , r , M )
9 .G.M . r( 1, r , r , M )
2.r
PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.183)
Therefore, equation (3.183) is a useful weak field approximation as illustrated by the proceeding
table defining errors with practical experimental values of r at r,
Object
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
White Dwarf: r 4200 (km) @ 3 x105 Earth Masses [41]
Red Giant: r 200 Solar Radii @ 4 Solar Masses [42]
Neutron Star: r 20 (km) @1 Solar Mass [43]
Table 3.28,
165
Mag. of error (%)

2.4545 x10-7
6.5632 x10-5
4.0931 x10-4
3.6992 x10-3
0.0238
0.1952
5.2482
Typically in engineering research, predictions and experimental expectations with less than
approximately 5(%) error are generally considered to be acceptable and useful approximations
for back of the envelope calculations. Subsequently, we may state that the Electro-GraviMagnetic (EGM) method of practical experimental modelling is useful over the range of sub-atomic
particles to Neutron Stars.
4.3
REFINEMENT OF CLASSICAL CASIMIR EQUATION
Historically, integrating from infinity to the surface of a planet derives FPP. This approach
assumes that the fundamental frequency of the ZPF at the surface of a planetary body is the same as
free space [0(Hz)]. However, there is no physical evidence to support this contention and it shall be
illustrated in proceeding chapters that non-zero fundamental frequencies lead to precise calculations
of fundamental particle mass-energy and radii.
May be utilised to refine FPP to a solution precisely satisfying equation (3.179,
3.183). By appropriately relating equation (3.179, 3.180, 3.183), a Planetary Casimir Factor KP
may be defined. KP represents a refinement of the value of 480 residing in the denominator of
FPP and takes the generalised form,
2
K P( r , r , M )
2 3
16. .r .h . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
4
N C( r , r , M )
27.c .M .r N C( r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
(3.184)
Assuming KP to be a representation of greater precision than the value of 480 in FPP, we may
re-formulate FPP to be,
F PP
.h .c .A PP
. 4
480.0436r
(3.185)
-34
where, h denotes Plancks Constant [6.6260693 x10 (Js)].

5
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental prediction has been formulated hypothesising the existence of a resonant

modal condition for application to classical parallel plate Casimir experiments. The resonant
condition was subsequently utilised to derive the Casimir Force FPP to high precision for a
specific configuration of r = 1(mm); ignoring finite conductivity + temperature effects and
evading the requirement for Casimir Force corrections due to surface roughness. The results
obtained suggest Casimir Forces arise due to PV pressure imbalance between the plates induced by
the presence of a physical boundary excluding low energy harmonic modes.
166
ARTICLE
3.3
APPLICATION
OF
DERIVED
ENGINEERING
PRINCIPLES
JeanBaptiste Joseph Fourier: 1768 1830
167
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MANKIND ON THE MOON
ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MAKIND
Neil Armstrong
168
CHAPTER
3.8
Derivation of the Photon Mass-Energy Threshold [70]

Abstract
An analytical representation of the mass-energy threshold of a Photon is derived utilising
finite reciprocal harmonics. The derived value is < 5.75 x10-17(eV) and is within 4.3(%) of the
Eidelman et. Al. value endorsed by the Particle Data Group (PDG) < 6 x10-17(eV). The PDG
value is an adjustment of theoretical predictions to fit physical observation. The derivation
presented herein is without adjustment and may represent physical evidence of the existence of
Eulers Constant in nature at the quantum level.
169
Process Flow 3.8,
170
INTRODUCTION
It shall be demonstrated that the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravitation,

complimenting General Relativity (GR) in the weak field, is capable of predicting the Photon massenergy threshold to within 4.3(%) of the Particle Data Group (PDG) prediction presented by
Eidelman et. Al. of < 6 x10-17(eV). [12]
The PDG is a collaboration of leading Nuclear and Theoretical Particle physicists funded by
the USDoE, CERN, INFN (Italy), US NSF, MEXT (Japan), MCYT (Spain), IHEP and RFBR
(Russia).
The derived Photon mass-energy threshold m, based upon the physical properties of the
Electron, may be usefully described by a finite reciprocal harmonic series representation as the
number of harmonic modes approaches infinity, producing the result m < 5.75 x10-17(eV).
The proceeding section sets the foundation from which a complete construct may be formed
based upon practical modelling methods. The use of physical modelling techniques will be shown
to be highly advantageous in the development of m.
2
The PV spectrum is conjectured to be composed of mathematical wavefunctions, over the

symmetrical frequency domain - < PV < , which physically manifest as conjugate Photon
pair populations. It shall be illustrated that the pending definition leads to a solution for the massenergy threshold of a population of Photons based upon the physical properties of an Electron as
defined by,
i. The geometry of a free Electron at rest is usefully approximated to spherical.
ii. Electrons radiate a spectrum of conjugate Photon pairs through their spherical geometric
boundary.
iii. The term conjugate Photon pair denotes a theoretical particle population involving energy
transfer resulting in the magnitude of the local acceleration vector g. The existence of
conjugate Photon pair populations requires experimental validation and is conjectured to be
equivalent to the Polarisation Electric field, 4P of a polarised dielectric medium coupled to
the source field.
iv. The modes of the PV spectrum contributing to gravitational effects exist as odd harmonics
over the domain nPV = -n, 2 - n ... n, symmetrical about the 0th mode. The even modes
(Imaginary component) of the complex Fourier function are disregarded due to null
summation for all |nPV|.
v. The amplitude spectrum of the Fourier distribution is proportional to the conjugate Photon pair
population.
We shall continue the construct by establishing a useful mathematical operator for
subsequent use. It takes the form of the average value at each harmonic mode utilising the
summation operand defined by equation (3.63) and may be generated as follows,
1
n PV. PV( 1 , r , M )
n PV. PV( 1 , r , M ) .
0 .( s )
2 .i . .n PV .
e
.n PV
..
PV( 1 , r , M ) t i
dt
4
2
n PV.
(3.186)
where, PV(1,r,M) is the fundamental harmonic frequency derived in chapter 3.4.

By considering an Electron at rest as a solid spherical particle with uniform surface and
homogeneous mass-energy distribution, we may determine the magnitude of the average power at
each odd harmonic mode.
An important aspect to this, assuming an Electron radiates a spectrum of conjugate Photon
171
pairs through its geometric boundary, is the proportional rest mass-energy power flow
c*Um(re,me) through the surface 4re2. Hence, the mass-energy power flow at each mode Ste
may be formed as follows,
St e n PV
2
4 . .r e . c .U m r e , m e
.
2
. n PV
(3.187)
where, re and me denote the classical Electron radius and rest mass (kg) respectively.
Subsequently, the magnitude of the average energy per odd harmonic period on either side of the
PV spectrum Stg is defined by,
St g n PV
St e n PV
n PV . PV 1 , r e , m e
(3.188)
th
Recognising that the PV spectrum is symmetrical about the 0 mode, we may formulate
an expression for the mass-energy of the odd harmonic conjugate Photon pair population mg.
Assuming that |nPV| = n at the spherical boundary of an Electron, an upper limit for mg may be
defined as follows,
2 .
St g n r e , m e
Ng
mg N g
(3.189)
where, Ng denotes the Photon pair population. Evaluating equation (3.189) assuming that the
population of conjugate Photon pairs is mode normalised to unity (Ng = 1) yields,
mg 1.2 x10-15(eV)
3
(3.190)
PHYSICAL MODELLING
To predict the mass-energy threshold of a Photon m, we shall utilise the conjugate Photon
pair population principles defined above. Firstly, we shall establish some useful mathematical
relationships that facilitate the concise representation of m.
It has been illustrated that the summation of the odd harmonic modes are representative of
the magnitude of the acceleration vector g. Therefore, summing the odd modes across both sides
of the spectrum leads to the following representation with vanishing error. This is proportional to
the sum of all modes on the positive side of the spectrum as |nPV| n and n >> 1 as stated in
chapter 3.7 [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
n ( r, M )
1
n PV
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV = 1
ln 2 .n ( r , M )
n PV
(3.191)
There are half as many odd modes as there are odd + even modes when |nPV| n.
Hence, we may deduce m by the following ratio,
mg 1
> . ln 2 .n r e , m e
m 2
(3.192)
Performing the appropriate substitutions and recognising that the preceding equation may be further
reduced by usefully approximating the Refractive Index KPV to unity, yields the Photon massenergy threshold to be,
m<
512.h .G.m e
c . .r e
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
172
(3.193)
Evaluating yields,
m < 5.75 x10-17(eV)
(3.194)
By comparing the value of m derived to the value for the Photon mass-energy threshold
endorsed by the PDG < 6 x10-17(eV), [12] it is apparent that m compares favourably.
4
CONCLUSIONS
It has been illustrated that the PV model of gravity based upon the existence of a spectrum
of frequencies makes the following predictions,
i. The Photon mass-energy threshold for a mode normalised population of Photons is believed to
be < 5.75 x10-17(eV), based upon the physical properties of an Electron.
ii. Experimental validation of the Photon mass-energy boundary predicted herein may be natural
evidence of Eulers Constant at a quantum level.
NOTES
173
NOTES
174
CHAPTER
3.9
Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii [71]

Electron, Proton and Neutron
Abstract
Experimental predictions are derived from first principles for the Root Mean Square (RMS)
charge radius of a free Electron and Proton, and Mean Square (MS) charge radius of a free Neutron
to high computational precision [0.0118(fm), 0.8305 0.0001(fm) and 0.8269(fm) respectively].
This places the derived value of Proton radius to within 0.38(%) of the average Simon and
Hand predictions [0.8335(fm)], arguably the two most precise and widely cited references since
the 1960's. Most importantly, the SELEX Collaboration has experimentally verified the Proton
radius prediction derived herein to extremely high precision as being {[0.69(fm2)] = 0.8307(fm)}.
The derived value of Electron radius compares favourably to results obtained in High-Energy
scattering experiments [0.01(fm)] as reported by Milonni et. Al. It is also illustrated that a change
in Electron mass of +0.04(%) accompanies the High-Energy scattering measurements. This
suggests that the Electron radius depends on the manner in which it is measured and the energy
absorbed by the Electron during the measuring process. The Fine Structure Constant is also
derived, to within 0.026(%) of its National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) value,
utilising the Electron and Proton radii construct herein. In addition, it is also illustrated that the
terminating gravitational spectral frequency for each particle may be expressed simply in terms of
Compton frequencies.
Precise2 calculations for: (i) the Neutron Mean Square (MS) charge and Magnetic radii, (ii) the
Proton Electric, Magnetic and Classical RMS charge radii are derived in Appendix 3.G.
Note: within this chapter, (i.e. Diracs Constant) is applied to Compton Frequencies, whilst
h (i.e. Plancks Constant) is utilised in Compton Wavelengths.
Shown to be in agreement with experimental observations.

175
Process Flow 3.9,
176
INTRODUCTION
It is widely hypothesised, by proponents of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) and Zero-PointField (ZPF) models of gravity and inertia respectively, that the Compton frequency of an Electron
Ce represents some sort of boundary condition. We may expand this hypothesis by recognising
that the Compton frequency of a Proton CP and Neutron CN are multiples of Ce. Hence, it
follows that CP and CN may represent natural boundary conditions.
The construct herein utilises Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) principles to facilitate the
derivation of the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of a free Electron and Proton, and Mean
Square (MS) charge radius of a free Neutron to high computational precision [r = 0.0118(fm), r =
0.8305 0.0001(fm) and r = 0.8269(fm) respectively]3.
The Fine Structure Constant may be formulated in terms of r and r to within
0.026(%) of its NIST value4 and utilised to numerically refine the derived value of r.
Subsequently, it is conjectured that High-Energy scattering measurements of r result in a change
in Electron mass me of +0.04(%). Thus, the harmonic cut-off frequency for the
Electron, Proton and Neutron are simplified to (r,me) = 2(r,mp), (r,mp) = CP2/Ce
and (r,mn) = CN2/Ce respectively. The subscripts e, denote classical and scattered
Electron parameters respectively derived herein.
2
2.1
SENSE CHECKS AND RULES OF THUMB
A series of sense checks and rules of thumb were defined in chapter 3.5 acting as indicators
for order-of-magnitude relationships and results. Considering CP and CN as hypothetical
boundaries, it follows that the Sense Checks (St and St: 5th and 6th respectively) may be
formulated utilising the ratio of (as defined in chapter 3.4) of the Proton and Neutron to their
respective Compton frequencies.
Since || 0 as r , we might also expect that [St, St] 0 as r
according to the 1x2 matrix block as follows,
St r , m p
St r , m n
r , m p
r ,mn
CP
CN
(3.195)
where, mp and mn denote the rest mass of a Proton and Neutron respectively.
2.2
THE PROTON
When St is forced to consider RMS charge radii predictions for free Protons as reported
by Stein5, tempting assumptions may be inferred. Table (3.29), illustrates the value of St in
relation to four possible radii configurations. Based upon the computed values of St and St as
stated in table (3.29), we may hypothesise that the accuracy of the RMS charge radius of a free
Proton may be numerically and analytically derived. By equating the value of St to the Proton to
Electron mass ratio mp/me, highly precise radii predictions may be articulated.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states that the RMS charge radius of a
free Proton to be [2002]: rp = 0.8750 0.0068(fm) [1] where, fm represents femtometre [1(fm)
= 10-15(m)].
4
= 7.297352568 x10-3 [2002] [1].
5
0.805 0.011(fm) and 0.862 0.012(fm). [44]
177
St(rp,mp)
St(0.875(fm),mp)
St(0.862(fm),mp)
St(0.845(fm),mp)
St(0.805(fm),mp)
St(0.834(fm),mp)
Value
1783.8
1798.7
1818.7
1868.4
1832.6
Description
Utilising the NIST 2002 value of rp [1]
Utilising the value of rp as reported by Simon et. Al [44 - 46]
Utilising the value of rp as reported by Andrews et. Al [47]
Utilising the value of rp as reported by Stein [44 - 46]
Utilising the average value of rp above as reported by [44 - 46]
Table 3.29,
3.1
DERIVATION OF PROTON AND NEUTRON RADII
3.1.1 NUMERICAL
Utilising the results defined in table (3.29), we shall hypothesise that a numerically exact
relationship exists between the ratio of the Compton wavelength of an Electron Ce to the
Compton wavelength of a Proton CP and the Proton to Electron mass ratio. Similarly, we shall
hypothesise that a numerically exact relationship exists between the ratio of Ce to the Compton
wavelength of a Neutron CN and the Neutron to Electron mass ratio according to the 2x2
matrix block as follows,
Ce m p
St r , m p
St r , m p
CP m e
St r , m n
St r , m n
Ce m n
CN m e
(3.196)
where, r and r denote values satisfying equation (3.196) utilising the Given function within
the MathCad 8 Professional environment. Hence,
[r r] = [0.8306 0.8269] (fm)
(3.197)
Comparing the results for r to the values illustrated in table (3.29), it is apparent that r
compares favourably [within 1.8(%)] to the prediction [0.845(fm)] determined by Andrews et. Al.
[47] Moreover, considering r in relation to the predictions derived by Simon et. Al [44] and
Hand et Al, [48] arguably the two most precise and cited relevant works referenced by science
since the 1960s, [49] we find that r is within 0.38(%) of the average Simon et. Al and Hand
et. Al predictions [0.8335(fm)].
3.1.2 ANALYTICAL
Performing the appropriate substitutions from Appendix 3.C into the mass ratio
relationships for St and St in equation (3.196), useful analytical representations for r and
r may be formed in terms of Compton wavelengths and particle mass as follows,
CP
r
c .m e
8 .
4
27.m e
3
128.G. .h
K PV r , m p .m p
CN
K PV r , m n .m n
178
CP
4
2
K PV r , m p .m p
5
CN
4
2
K PV r , m n .m n
(3.198)
where, c represents the speed of light in a vacuum. G and h denote the Gravitational and
Planck Constants respectively; the Refractive Index KPV may be usefully approximated to unity.
Utilising the approximations and exact expressions described in Appendix 3.C, equation
(3.198) may be simplified in terms of Compton, Planck (h, h, mh) and particle mass
characteristics. Hence, three highly precise analytical approximation forms of r and r may be
written as follows,
3
CP
CN
2
16. . Ce
CP
27
.
2
4
.
.
4 h Ce
2
16. . Ce
3
27
.
2
CN
4
4 . . h Ce
c . Ce
2
4
2
4
27. h Ce
h .m e
27.m h m e
.
.
.
.
3
4
2
3
mp
4 .
4 . CP
32. CP 16.c . .m p
c . Ce
(3.199)
2
4
2
4
27. h Ce
h .m e
27.m h m e
.
.
.
.
3
4
2
3
mn
4 .
4 . CN
32. CN 16.c . .m n
(3.200)
Subsequently, the analytical approximation error relative to the numerically precise result for r
and r returned may be shown to be trivial [< 10-6(%)].
3.2
DERIVATION OF ELECTRON RADIUS
3.2.1 NUMERICAL
It was illustrated in chapter 3.6 that the mass-energy threshold of a Photon m based upon
the classical Electron radius re may be deduced by the summation of a finite reciprocal harmonic
series. Since there are half as many odd harmonics as there are odd + even harmonics in a broad
Fourier distribution6, the following relationship was derived [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
mg 1
> . ln 2 .n r e , m e
m 2
(3.192)
where, mg represents the odd harmonic spectral mass-energy contribution and denotes Eulers
Constant.
Applying Buckingham Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity to the preceding equation and recognising that the mass-energy terms may be replaced by
, leads to an expression where r may be numerically determined as follows,
r , m e
1.
r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.201)
It was illustrated in chapter (3.4 - 3.6) that a gravitational spectrum may be characterised by
a frequency distribution terminating at . Subsequently, it follows that IFF re represents a
conditional experimental observation parameter; we may conjecture that the radius of an Electron
occupies a range of values dependent upon how it is measured as suggested by recent scattering
experiments. [11]
Therefore, the preceding equation represents a robust mathematical condition defining the
lower boundary of the Electron radius that preserves the gravitational nature of the works covered
in chapter (3.1 - 3.6). Utilising the Given function within the MathCad 8 Professional
environment, a highly precise numerical approximation for r is determined to be,
r 0.0118.( fm)
(3.202)
As the harmonic cut-off mode n tends to infinity.

179
3.2.2 ANALYTICAL
An analytical representation of equation (3.201) may be formulated by performing the
appropriate substitutions for as defined in chapter 3.4 leading to the following relationship
with trivial error,
9
r r e.
3.3
1.
2
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.203)
DERIVATION OF THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT
An analytical approximation of incorporating r and r may be obtained utilising

exploratory factor analysis. Applying the radii approximations above, a useful exponential
relationship between the Proton and Electron may be defined to within 0.026(%) of its NIST
value based upon approximations of r and r derived herein as follows,
r
.e
(3.204)
We shall conjecture that the 2/3 index is a qualitative indicator by considering the derivations in
chapter 3.1 where it was illustrated that 2/3 relates the experimental relationship function K0 to
KPV. This assumption shall be further developed in the proceeding section.
3.4
ELECTRON CUT-OFF FREQUENCY
The calculated results imply that EGM may be a useful tool by which to enhance Nuclear
understanding in the fields of Quantum-Electro-Dynamics (QED) and Quantum-Chromo-Dynamics
(QCD). Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis in conjunction with the preceding formulations
suggest that for a free Electron may be usefully approximated to within 0.018(%) as
follows,
(r,me) = 2(r,mp)
(3.205)
3.5
REFINEMENT OF ELECTRON RADIUS
Assuming equation (3.204, 3.205) to be exact representations may provide an opportunity

for greater computational precision of r. This may be achieved by utilising the Given function
satisfying the following 1x3 matrix block within the MathCad 8 Professional environment,
r r , m e
r e r , m p
.e
1.
2
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.206)
returns the result [(0.011802(fm),me) = 2(r,mp) to within 10-6(%)],

r = 0.011802 (fm)
3.6
(3.207)
DERIVATION OF ELECTRON SCATTERING MASS
The mass of the Electron based upon its classical radius has been established and
scientifically accepted for many years. However, considering that scattering experiments have cast
doubt on its radius, we may conjecture that the introduction of energy to the state of the Electron
during radius measurements by scattering techniques affects its mass.
180
It is also well accepted that the mass of a particle increases as its energy state increases
leading to a reduction in its physical dimensions. Subsequently, we may conjecture that r derived
herein is accompanied by a me when r is measured utilising High-Energy techniques as
conducted by (for example) Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) [11] and the Stanford
Linear Accelerator (SLAC). [50]
Therefore, the Electron scattering mass m may be determined utilising the Given
function satisfying the following 1x2 matrix block within the MathCad 8 Professional
environment,
r , m
r , m
1.
r e, m e
r , m p
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.208)
yields,
me +0.04 (%)
3.7
(3.209)
HARMONIC CUT-OFF FREQUENCIES
Utilising the preceding construct in conjunction with exploratory factor analysis, a simple
family of equations may be formulated expressing the terminating gravitational spectral frequency
for a free Electron, Proton and Neutron explicitly in terms of Compton frequencies in the form of a
1x3 matrix as follows,
r , m e
r , m p
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
ELECTRON
2 . r , m p
r ,mn
CP
CN
Ce
Ce
(3.210)
Equation (3.202, 3.207) agrees favourably with the results of High-Energy scattering
experiments reported by Milonni et. Al.. [11] It states that, if the Electron is not a point particle,
its physical dimensions are approximately no larger than 0.01(fm) and it seems improbable that
the Electron has any structure.
These results strongly support EGM because n is a function of radius and mass. Hence, it
may be stated that EGM also implies that structure does not exist within r. Therefore, we may
conjecture that the free Electron radius and mass varies according to its energy level and may be
physically modelled over the following set,
{(r,M): r r re me M m}
4.2
(3.211)
PROTON
Relating equation (3.204) to the standard calculation form = 2re / Ce yields a set of
highly precise physical modelling boundaries for r in terms of Compton, Planck and exponential
characteristics as follows,
r
. c .e
r e Ce
2
3
c . Ce
2
4
27. h Ce
.
.
r
3
4
4 . CP
32. CP
(3.212)
Therefore, r may be approximately written as: r = 0.8305 0.0001(fm).
181
4.3
NEUTRON
In addition to r predicted above, a set of useful physical modelling approximations

[within 0.3(%)] to assist with experimental design considerations may be defined based upon the
proceeding equations,
r CN CP m p
r CP CN m n
(3.213)
Notably, a convenient shorthand physical-modelling tool is the ratio of r to the difference

in radii between a free Proton and Neutron as follows,
r
r
(3.214)
If we assume that equation (3.214) represents an exact analytical boundary solution where r from
equation (3.204) is utilised in conjunction with r from equation (3.199), the result returned for
r may be expressed in terms of Compton, Planck and trigonometric characteristics. The error on
the Left Hand Side (LHS), with respect to the Right Hand Side (RHS) is less than 0.013(%) as
follows,
r
c . Ce
3
4 . CN
27. h Ce
.
4
32. CN
2
(3.215)
Therefore, r may be approximately written as: r = 0.8269(fm).

5
EXPERIMENTATION
The SELEX Collaboration is an international effort pursuing experimental verification of

particle properties such as the radius of a Proton. The Proton radius prediction derived herein has
been experimentally verified to extremely high precision. [9]
6
CONCLUSIONS
It has been demonstrated that the EGM model of gravity predicts experimentally supported
radii values of a free Electron, Proton and Neutron from an almost entirely mathematical
foundation. Experimental predictions have been derived from first principles for the radii of a free
Electron, Proton and Neutron to high computational precision. This places the derived value of
Proton radius to within 0.38(%) of the average Simon et. Al and Hand et. Al predictions,
arguably the two most precise and widely cited references since the 1960's.
Most importantly, the SELEX Collaboration has experimentally verified the Proton radius
prediction derived herein to extremely high precision {[0.69(fm2)] = 0.8307(fm)}.
The derived value of Electron radius compares favourably to results obtained in HighEnergy scattering experiments conducted at LANL. It has also been illustrated that a change in
Electron mass of +0.04(%) accompanies the High-Energy scattering measurements. This
suggests that the Electron radius depends upon the manner in which it is measured and the energy
absorbed by the Electron during the measuring process.
The Fine Structure Constant has also been derived, to within 0.026(%) of its NIST value,
utilising the Electron and Proton radii construct herein. In addition, it is predicted that the
terminating gravitational spectral frequency for each particle may be expressed simply in terms of
Compton characteristics.
182
CHAPTER
3.10
Derivation of the Photon and Graviton Mass-Energies and Radii [72]

Abstract
The construct herein utilises the Photon mass-energy threshold m to facilitate the precise
derivation of the mass-energies of a Photon and Graviton [m = 3.2 x10-45(eV) and mgg = 6.4 x1045
(eV) respectively]. Moreover, recognising the wave-particle duality of the Photon, the Root Mean
Square (RMS) charge radii of a free Photon and Graviton [r = 2.3 x10-35(m) and rgg = 3.1 x1035
(m) respectively] is derived to high computational precision. In addition, the RMS charge
diameters of a Photon and Graviton ( and gg respectively) are shown to be in agreement
with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models, implicitly supporting the limiting definition of the
Planck length h. The value of is illustrated to be h, whilst the value of gg is
demonstrated to be 1.5h.
183
Process Flow 3.10,
184
INTRODUCTION
It has been demonstrated, based upon the physical properties of an Electron, that the
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravitation, complimenting General Relativity (GR) in the weak
field, is capable of predicting the Photon mass-energy threshold m to within 4.3(%) of the
Particle Data Group (PDG) prediction. [12]
This chapter articulates the precise derivation of the mass-energies of a Photon and Graviton
[m = 3.2 x10-45(eV) and mgg = 6.4 x10-45(eV) respectively]. Moreover, recognising the waveparticle duality of the Photon, the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii of a free Photon and
Graviton [r = 2.3 x10-35(m) and rgg = 3.1 x10-35(m) respectively] is derived to high computational
precision.
In addition, the RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton ( and gg
respectively) are derived and shown to be in agreement with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG)
models, implicitly supporting the limiting definition of the Planck length h. [51] Utilising the
Plain h form where h = 4.05131993288926 x10-35(m) [calculated from National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) 2002 [1]], the value of is illustrated to be h, whilst the
value of gg is demonstrated to be 1.5h.
2
Assuming that m as illustrated in chapter 3.8 represents an exact boundary value, a

precise expression for m may be derived utilising equation (3.193),
m
512.h .G.m e
c . .r e
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.193)
where,
Variable
h
G
c
me
re
n
Description
Planck's Constant
Electron rest mass
Classical Electron radius
Euler's Constant
Table 3.30,
Units
Js
m3kg-1s-2
m/s
kg
m
None
To initiate the derivation process, we require a definition of mgg from which to apply dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with respect to m.
It has been illustrated that only the odd modes of a finite reciprocal harmonic distribution
contribute to the magnitude of gravitational acceleration g according to nPV = -n, 2 - n ... n
being symmetrical about the 0th mode where, nPV represents the modes of space-time manifold
in the PV model of gravitation terminating at n.
The PV spectrum is conjectured to be composed of mathematical wavefunctions, over the
symmetrical frequency domain - < PV < , which physically manifest as conjugate Photon
pair populations. Subsequently, we shall define the odd frequency modes to be representative of
conjugate Photon pair populations constituting a population of Gravitons. Therefore, 1 Graviton
shall be defined as 1 conjugate Photon pair according to the following relationship,
mgg = 2m
(3.216)
185
Recognising that the Photon energy E [52] at the harmonic cut-off frequency is
proportional to the conjugate Photon pair population, we may determine the Photon population N
at the mass-energy threshold as follows,
E h . r e , m e
(3.217)
(3.218)
Performing the appropriate substitutions utilising equations defined in Appendix 3.C yields,
2
3 . . .
c . .r e
2 c Gme
.
. ln 2 .n
N
r e, m e
512.G.m e
.r e
(3.219)
Hence,
3
h .
re
.r e
2 .c .G.m e
512.G.m e
c .
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.220)
Evaluating yields,
N = 1.8 x1028
(3.221)
[m mgg] = [3.2 6.4] x10-45(eV)

4
(3.222)
PHYSICAL MODELLING
In accordance with the preceding definition of Photon and Graviton mass-energy, we may
apply Buckingham Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
between two mass-energy systems defined at . Subsequently, it follows that any two
dimensionally similar systems may be represented by,
r 1, M 1
r 2, M 2
(3.223)
where, r1,2 and M1,2 denote arbitrary radii and mass values. Subsequently, utilising equations
defined in Appendix 3.C and performing the appropriate substitutions, the preceding equation
may be simplified as follows,
M1
r1
M2
r2
(3.224)
Let M1 = m/c2, M2 = me, r1 = r and r2 = re: solving for r yields,

5
r r e .
m
m e .c
(3.225)
where, r may be expressed in terms of Compton and Planck characteristics as follows [to within
5 x10-3(%) of the precise numerical result],
r . h .
CN
c . CP
h .m p
CP h CN c .m h m n
186
(3.226)
where,
Variable
h
CN
CP
CN
CP
h
mn
mp
mh
Description
Planck Length
Planck Frequency
Neutron rest mass
Proton rest mass
Planck Mass
Table 3.31,
Units
m
Hz
kg
Hence,
r gg
4 .r
(3.227)
Therefore, the Photon and Graviton RMS charge diameters may be expressed as multiples of the
Planck length as follows,
r
2 .
h r gg
1.1529
1.5213
[ gg] [1 1.5] h
5
(3.228)
(3.229)
CONCLUSIONS
The construct herein derives the mass-energies and RMS charge diameters of a Photon and
Graviton. The results agree with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models, implicitly supporting
the limiting definition of Planck length h according to h and gg 1.5h.
187
NOTES
188
CHAPTER
3.11
Derivation of Lepton Radii [73]

Abstract
This chapter predicts the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii of free Electron e-, Muon
and Tau - particles. The Fine Structure Constant is also derived as a function of Muon
and Tau radii (r and r respectively) to within 7.6 x10-3(%) of its 2002 National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) value. In addition, the Mean Square (MS) charge radii of free
Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrinos (ren, rn and rn respectively) is derived to high
computational precision. These are shown to be in favourable agreement to experimental
observations made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), Super-Kamiokande, Tristan,
LEP, LEP-1.5, LEP-2, NuTeV, CHARM-II, CCFR, BNL E734 and DONUT as analysed by
Hirsch et. Al..
-
189
Process Flow 3.11,
190
INTRODUCTION
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) principles may be utilised to facilitate the precise

derivation of the mass-energies of a Photon and Graviton. Recognising the wave-particle duality of
the Photon, the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge diameters of a free Photon and Graviton were
derived in chapter 3.10 to high computational precision by methods of dimensional similarity. They
were shown to be in agreement with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models, implicitly
supporting the limiting definition of the Planck length.
Similarly, this chapter predicts the RMS charge radii of free Electron e-, Muon - and
Tau - particles. Subsequently, the Fine Structure Constant is derived as a function of Muon
and Tau radii (r and r respectively) to within 7.6 x10-3(%) of its 2002 National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) value.
In addition, the Mean Square (MS) charge radii of free Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrinos
(ren, rn and rn respectively) are derived to high computational precision. These are shown to
be in favourable agreement to experimental observations made by the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory (SNO), Super-Kamiokande, Tristan, LEP, LEP-1.5, LEP-2, NuTeV, CHARM-II,
CCFR, BNL E734 and DONUT as analysed by Hirsch et. Al..
2
The application of Buckingham Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic, kinematic and

geometric similarity between two mass-energy systems defined at the harmonic cut-off frequency
, leads to a solution for the mass-energies and radii of the Photon and Graviton. Subsequently,
it follows that any two completely similar systems may be represented by (r1,M1) = (r2,M2)
where, r1,2 and M1,2 denote arbitrary radii and mass values.
Therefore, utilising the equations defined in Appendix 3.C and performing the appropriate
substitutions, an expression for proportional similarity may be stated as follows,
2
r 1, M 1
M1
r 2, M 2
M2
r2
r1
St
(3.230)
where, St represents the harmonic cut-off frequency ratio between two proportionally similar
mass-energy systems.
3
3.1
ELECTRON RADIUS
It was illustrated in chapter 3.9 that (r,me) / (r,mp) = 2 to high computational

precision. Hence, substituting St = 2 into equation (3.230) yields an approximation for r,
5
1 . me
r r .
9
2 mp
(3.231)
where,
Variable
r, r1
r, r2
me, M1
mp, M2
Description
RMS charge radius of a free Electron
RMS charge radius of a free Proton
Electron rest mass
Proton rest mass
Table 3.32,
191
Units
m
kg
3.2
MUON - TAU RADII AND THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT
Consideration of equation (3.230) provides initial guidance as to a method of determining

the RMS charge radii of free - and - particles. Since there is little apparent difference in the
physical behaviour of these particles with respect to e-, we may surmise that r and r are
proportional to r.
Moreover, because the Muon rest mass m is less than the Tau rest mass m and are
members of the same family, we expect that r < r. Subsequently, the application of BPT and
dimensional similarity principles imply that r and r may be proportionally approximated as
follows,
2
[r r]
me
r . 1
me
(3.232)
It is important to note that equation (3.232) is not a definitive mathematical statement and
requires further development. To facilitate this, we shall consider the effect of these radii
approximations on and St as follows,
1
r , m e
.
r ,m
[4 6]
r ,m
(3.233)
Assuming the values of St determined in equation (3.233) represent exact analytical boundary
conditions, highly precise representations for r and r may be formulated as follows,
5
r r
r .
1 . m
9
4 me
2 5
1 . m
9
6 me
(3.234)
Evaluating yields,
[r r] [8.2122x10-3 0.0122] (fm)
(3.235)
Consequently, may be expressed in exponential form utilising equation (3.234) [to within 7.6
x10-3(%) of the NIST 2002 value: = 7.297352568 x10-3 [1]] as follows,
r
.e
(3.236)
where, r denotes the MS charge radius of a free Neutron as derived chapter 3.9 and evaluated to
be 0.8269(fm) [see also: Eq. (3.418)].
3.3
NEUTRINO RADII
Lepton Neutrinos are categorised within the family group into types. [53] Assuming that
each Neutrino type (Electron Neutrino e, Muon Neutrino and Tau Neutrino ) shares a
common value of with its parent particle (e-, - or -), a highly precise representation
for ren, rn and rn is possible and may be formulated as follows,
Let:
2
r , , , me , ,
me , ,
ren , n , n , men , n , n
men , n , n
192
rn , n , n
r , ,
(3.237)
such that,
5
r en r n r n
r .
m en
me
r .
m n
r .
m n
(3.238)
where,
Variable
men
mn
mn
Description [12]
Electron Neutrino rest mass [< 3(eV/c2)]
Muon Neutrino rest mass [< 0.19(MeV/c2)]
Tau Neutrino rest mass [< 18.2(MeV/c2)]
Table 3.33,
Units
kg
Evaluating the preceding equation yields,

[ren rn rn] < [9.5379x10-5 6.5524x10-4 1.9587x10-3] (fm)
(3.239)
Note: these results are only as accurate as the values of the Neutrino rest masses utilised.
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
Hirsch et. Al. thoroughly revisited available observations from the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory (SNO), Super-Kamiokande, Tristan, LEP, LEP-1.5, LEP-2, NuTeV, CHARM-II,
CCFR, BNL E734 and DONUT [54] as summarised in table (3.34). Hence, the radii predictions
returned in equation (3.239) satisfy Hirsch conclusions.
In addition, the Neutrino radii boundary value of r,,2 < 10-31(cm2) as derived by
Joshipura et. Al. [55] is also satisfied by equation (3.239). The authors conducted a worthwhile
and thorough scientific analysis, but the Hirsch et. Al. study has greater scope and is the main
focus for observational comparisons to the preceding construct.
Hirsch Radii Range
-5.5 rA2(e) 9.8
-5.2 rA2() 6.8
-8.2 rA2() 9.9
EGM Derived Radii

ren2 9.0971x10-3
rn2 4.2933
rn2 3.8364
Table 3.34,
Scale
x10-32(cm2)
x10-33(cm2)
x10-32(cm2)
where, rA denotes the axial vector charge radius.

5
CONCLUSIONS
The preceding construct derives the charge radii of the -, -, e, and to high
computational precision; is also derived to within 7.6 x10-3(%) of its NIST 2002 value. This
result, in conjunction with experimental observations, implicitly validates all radii predictions
derived herein.
Note: a MathCad 8 Professional calculation algorithm utilising the analytical representations
derived in chapter (3.9, 3.11) as exact boundary conditions, is defined in Appendix 3.D and
evaluated.
193
NOTES
194
CHAPTER
3.12
Derivation of Quark and Boson Mass-Energies and Radii [74]

Abstract
This chapter assumes classical form factors to derive mass-energies [mallQuarks =
30.6742(GeV)], in agreement with Particle Data Group (PDG) estimates [mallQuarks =
29.9856(GeV)]. The Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii of all flavours of Quarks is also derived
[rallQuarks = 0.9602 x10-16(cm)], in agreement with experimental observations and generalisations
made by the ZEUS Collaboration (ZC) [rupQuark+downQuark < 0.85 x10-16(cm)]. The Top Quark
mass-energy derived [178.6(GeV)] is shown to be within 0.35(%) of the value concluded by the
D-ZERO Collaboration (D0C) [178.0(GeV)], in agreement with the Standard Model (SM)
electroweak fit. The RMS charge radii of the W, Z and Higgs Boson is also derived and it is
illustrated that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact multiples of the harmonic cut-off
frequency of an Electron.
195
Process Flow 3.12,
196
INTRODUCTION
Quarks are fundamental natural constituent particles of prime importance to our

understanding of the Universe. It was not until our recent scientific past that Quarks were known to
exist. Prior to this knowledge, it was believed that Protons and Neutrons represented a natural
particulate boundary state.
Since the discovery of the Quark, an arsenal of considerable scientific expertise has been
applied and further research is being pursued vigorously. The ZEUS Collaboration (ZC) has
performed a major contribution to the body of knowledge regarding the physical dimensions of
Quarks.
The ZC is an international effort utilising its detector at HERA to determine physical
characteristics of Quarks. [14] The experiments demonstrated no significant deviations from the
predictions of the Standard Model (SM) and a generalised Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius
for the Quark rxq, based upon classical form factor, was concluded to be < 0.85 x10-16(cm) April 2004.
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) principles have been applied to facilitate the precise
derivation of mass-energies and radii of a variety of particles to high computational precision. This
chapter utilises a similar procedure, based upon methods of dimensional similarity, to predict the
RMS charge radii of free Quarks. The term free indicates particles with classical form factor.
This is achieved by the application of Buckinghams Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity between two mass-energy systems defined at a harmonic cut-off
frequency . Subsequently, it follows that any two completely similar systems may be
represented by (r1,M1) = (r2,M2), with proportional similarity when (r1,M1)
(r2,M2) where, r1,2 and M1,2 denote arbitrary radii and mass values.
This chapter assumes classical form factors to derive mass-energies [mallQuarks =
30.6742(GeV)] in agreement with Particle Data Group (PDG) estimates [mallQuarks =
29.9856(GeV)]. [12] The RMS charge radii of all flavours of Quarks are also derived, in agreement
with experimental observations and generalisations made by the ZC [rupQuark+downQuark < rxq]. The
Top Quark mass-energy mtq derived [178.6(GeV)] is shown to be within 0.35(%) of the value
concluded by the D-ZERO Collaboration7 (D0C) [mtq = 178.0(GeV) - June 2004], [15] in
agreement with the Standard Model (SM) electroweak fit. [12]
The RMS charge radii of the W, Z and Higgs Boson is also derived and it is illustrated
that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact harmonic multiples of for an Electron.
Consequently, this suggests that the Photon may be the fundamental particle in nature from which
all others may be described. The derived harmonic relationships between the Lepton, Quark and
Boson groups, suggests that all fundamental particles radiate populations of Photons at specific
frequencies.
2
2.1
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter scrutinises important elements of the ZC and extends theoretical boundaries by
application of the experimental data gathered. We shall commence by noting that the collisions
studied released the constituent Quarks of the Proton. [14] Subsequently, the translation of data
gathered into RMS charge radii does not differentiate between Up Quark radius ruq and Down
Quark radius rdq.
Protons are composed of two Up Quarks and one Down Quark; therefore, we shall
assume that the ratio of collision data translating to Quark radii predictions obeys a 2:1 ratio. This
leads to an equation relating radii to mean values of a large population sample as follows,
7
An international collaboration of leading scientists.

197
r xq
2.2
2.r uq
r dq
(3.240)
GENERALISED SIMILARITY
Utilising the equations defined in Appendix 3.C and performing the appropriate
substitutions, a generalised expression for similarity may be stated as follows,
2
r 1, M 1
M1
r 2, M 2
M2
r2
St
r1
(3.230)
where, St represents the harmonic cut-off frequency ratio between two similar mass-energy
systems. Therefore, assuming (rdq,mdq) = (ruq,muq) due to confinement within the Proton, an
expression for rdq is possible in terms of ruq from equation (3.230) as follows,
5
r dq r uq .
m dq
m uq
(3.241)
Substituting equation (3.241) into (3.240) and solving for ruq yields,
1
r uq 3 .r xq. 2
m dq
m uq
(3.242)
where, muq and mdq represent the rest mass of the Up and Down Quark respectively.
2.3
RELATIVE SIMILARITY
At present, the mass-energy of Quarks has not been precisely measured. Consequently, our
ability to mathematically predict Quark radii is restricted and mass-energy approximations must be
utilised to apply EGM principles. However, the impact of the experimental gap may be minimised
by assessing characteristics relative to an acceptable datum.
This may be achieved by utilising of the Up Quark to describe of all other
Quarks. Equation (3.243) represents a matrix of all Quark flavours, which acts to normalise St
relative to the lightest particle as follows,
St dq
r dq , m dq
St sq
r xq, m sq
St cq <
St bq
1
r uq , m uq
. r xq, m cq
r xq, m bq
r xq, m tq
St tq
(3.243)
Where:
i. The subscripts dq, sq, cq, bq and tq denote Down, Strange, Charm, Bottom and Top
Quarks respectively.
ii. The subscript in St is replaced by dq, sq, cq, bq and tq as appropriate. This assists in
distinguishing between harmonic cut-off frequency ratios of different Quarks relative to the
Up Quark.
iii. m denotes rest mass.
198
Note: rxq is used in equation (3.243) to compensate for the lack of definitive experimental data
for the radii of specific Quark flavours. In addition, the ZC's experimental generalisation of
rxq validates its qualitative use in this forum. The proceeding construct utilises rxq as an
initialisation value for subsequent development.
3
Current scientific community assessments of experimental data pertaining to Quark rest

mass vary significantly. Perhaps the most reliable estimates reside with the PDG. The PDG specify
a range of Quark mass for each flavour, bounded by upper and lower limits based upon
experimental observation and a variety of theoretical approaches. The Top Quark has a relatively
narrow banded estimate based upon observation of top events. [12]
By deductive reasoning, upper PDG and SLAC boundary estimates provide the most
sensible values to be employed by equation (3.243) in a preliminary capacity. Subsequently, St
values for all flavours of Quarks may be evaluated according to,
Upper Limit [12] Units
muq < 4
MeV
mdq < 8
msq < 130
GeV
mcq < 1.35
mbq < 4.7 [50]
mtq < 179.4
Table 3.35,
Hence, the St threshold values, in accordance with equation (3.243) utilising table (3.35) PDG
estimates, are calculated in table (3.36). In addition, St threshold values are rounded down to the
nearest integer to produce St harmonic values. This is an extremely important reduction as shall
be illustrated in the proceeding section.
St Threshold
St Harmonic
Stdq = 1 (normalised) Stdq = 1
Stsq < 2.0491
Stsq = 2Stdq
Stcq < 3.4468
Stcq = 3Stdq
Stbq < 4.5479
Stbq = 4Stdq
Sttq < 10.2166
Sttq = 10Stdq
Table 3.36,
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
QUARK RADII
It shall be demonstrated that the physical properties (radii and mass-energy) of all flavours
of Quarks may be described as integer multiples of the Up Quark in the form (rQuark,mQuark) /
(ruq,muq) = St. This acts to unify the physical description of Quarks in terms of .
Transformation of equation (3.230) followed by the appropriate substitutions utilising St
harmonic values defined in the preceding table, facilitate the precise determination of Quark radii as
exact harmonics of the Up Quark as follows,
5
rsq , cq , bq , tq r uq .
1
Stsq , cq , bq , tq
.
9
msq , cq , bq , tq
m uq
(3.244)
Yields,
199

ruq = 0.7682
rdq = 1.0136
rsq = 0.8879
rcq = 1.0913
rbq = 1.071
rtq 0.8834
Table 3.37,
Note: rtq has been listed as approximate, whereas all other flavours are listed as highly precise.
This is an important statement and shall be explored in detail in the proceeding section.
4.2
QUARK MASS
It was illustrated in chapter 3.9 that an exact harmonic relationship exists between the
Electron and Proton according to (r,me) / (r,mp) = 2. Subsequently, it follows that exact
harmonic relationships should exist between Electrons and Quarks.
It shall be demonstrated that exact harmonic solutions satisfy all currently known boundaries
regarding the radii and mass-energy of Quarks in accordance with ZC, PDG and D0C estimates as
follows,
Assuming,
St uq
r uq , m uq
St dq
r dq , m dq
St sq
St cq
<
r , m e
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
St bq
r bq , m bq
St tq
r tq , m tq
(3.245)
Yields,
St Threshold St Harmonic
Stuq < 7.207
Stuq = 7
Stdq < 7.207
Stdq = Stuq
Stsq < 14.4141
Stsq = 2Stuq
Stcq < 21.6211 Stcq = 3Stuq
Stbq < 28.8281 Stbq = 4Stuq
Sttq < 72.0703
Sttq 72
Table 3.38,
where, r denotes the Electron radius defined in chapter 3.11 and me represents Electron rest
mass. Subsequently, transformation of equation (3.230) yields,
muq , dq , sq , cq , bq , tq
m e.
Stuq , dq , sq , cq , bq , tq
9.
ruq , dq , sq , cq , bq , tq
(3.246)
Followed by the appropriate substitution produces excellent results as follows,

EGM Mass-Energy
muq = 3.5083
mdq = 7.0166
msq = 114.0201

1.5 < muq < 4
4 < mdq < 8
80 < msq < 130
200
Units
MeV
1.15 < mcq < 1.35

4.1 < mbq < 4.4
169.2 < mtq < 179.4
Table 3.39,
mcq = 1.1841
mbq = 4.1223
mtq = 178.6141
GeV
Therefore, by satisfaction of ZC experimental observations and PDG boundary conditions, it has

been demonstrated that the radii and mass-energy characteristics of Quarks may be represented as
exact harmonic multiples of (ruq,muq).
Notably, D0C has suggested (June 2004) a new world average for the value of the Top
Quark mass-energy to be mtq = 178.0 5.1(GeV). [15] Hence, the EGM mass-energy prediction
is within 0.35(%) of the D0C result.
4.3
REFINEMENT OF TOP QUARK RADIUS
Utilising mtq from table (3.39) and the exact St harmonic value in table (3.36), a
refined prediction for rtq may be formulated satisfying the ZC, PDG, D0C and EGM as follows,
5
r tq r uq
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
(3.247)
Evaluating yields,
rtq = 0.9294x10-16(cm)
4.4
(3.248)
BOSON RADII
Utilising PDG mass-energy estimates defined in table (3.40), it shall be demonstrated that
the W, Z and Higgs Boson H may also be described in terms of harmonic multiples of the
Up Quark as follows,
PDG Mass-Energy [12]
Units
GeV
mW = 80.425 (range average)
mZ = 91.1876 (range average)
mH 114.4 (boundary value)
Table 3.40,
Bosons are exchange particles, therefore we may approximate their radii utilising the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Range ru relationship, [16] where rBoson ru as follows,
ru(M)
h
4 . .c .M
(3.249)
Hence,
Heisenberg Radii x10-16(cm)
ru(mW) 1.2268
ru(mZ) 1.082
ru(mH) 0.8624
Table 3.41,
Assuming,
r u mW ,mW
St W
St Z
St H
1
r uq , m uq
. r u mZ ,mZ
r u mH ,mH
(3.250)
Calculating and rounding to the nearest integer harmonic representation yields,

201
St Threshold St Harmonic
StW = 7
StW 7.1781
StZ = 8
StZ 7.9147
StH = 9
StH 9.4414
Table 3.42,
Hence applying,
5
rW , Z , H r uq
1
StW , Z , H
mW , Z , H
m uq
(3.251)
Yields,
rW 1.2835
rZ 1.0613
rH 0.9401
Table 3.43,
We may perform a sense check of the EGM results by considering the Heisenberg
Uncertainty approximation illustrated by equation (3.249). If the ratio of the predicted radii is
approximately equal to ru [rBoson ru], then the predicted results appear feasible as follows,
rW
rZ
rH
ru mW
r u mZ
ru mH
( 1.0463 0.9809 1.09 )
(3.252)
CONCLUSIONS
The construct herein assumes classical form factors to derive mass-energies and RMS
charge radii in agreement with PDG estimates, experimental observations and generalisations made
by the ZC. The Top Quark mass-energy derived was shown to be within 0.35(%) of the value
concluded by D0C as illustrated in table (3.44).
The RMS charge radii of the W, Z and Higgs Boson were also derived and it was
illustrated that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact harmonic multiples of the Electron
as described by equation (3.253, 3.254). The derived harmonic relationships between the Lepton,
Quark and Boson groups, suggests that all fundamental particles radiate populations of Photons at
specific frequencies.
Key results,
ruq = 0.7682
rdq = 1.0136
rsq = 0.8879
rcq = 1.0913
rbq = 1.071
rtq = 0.9294
rQuark = 0.9602 rxq
rW 1.2835
rZ 1.0613
rH 0.9401
rBoson 1.095
r 1.0052
EGM Mass-Energy
muq = 3.5083
mdq = 7.0166
msq = 114.0201
mcq = 1.1841
mbq = 4.1223
mtq = 178.6141
mQuark = 30.6742

1.5 < muq < 4
4 < mdq < 8
80 < msq < 130
1.15 < mcq < 1.35
4.1 < mbq < 4.4
169.2 < mtq < 179.4
mQuark = 29.9856
80.387 < mW < 80.463
91.1855 < mZ < 91.1897
mH > 114.4
Units
MeV
GeV
Table 3.44,
202
r uq , m uq
1
r ,m e
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
1 2 3 4
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
7 8 9 10
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
7 14 21 28
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
49 56 63 70
(3.253)
(3.254)
Note: the MathCad 8 Professional calculation algorithm utilised to derive all computational
results presented in this chapter is contained in Appendix 3.E.
NOTES
203
NOTES
204
CHAPTER
3.13
The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an

Experiment to Test the Negative Energy Conjecture [75]
Abstract
This chapter utilises previous works to predict a 16(%) experimentally implicit increase of
the Planck Scale. An approximation of the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of a free Photon
r utilising physical properties of Lepton family particles is derived. Moreover, the existence of
three (3) new particles in the Lepton family is also predicted at the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Electron
harmonics with mass-energies of approximately 9(MeV), 57(MeV) and 566(MeV) respectively.
The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families is also predicted at the 5th and
6th Up Quark harmonics with mass-energies of approximately 10(GeV) and 22(GeV)
respectively. In addition, the optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the
negative energy conjecture is also presented. It is concluded that the optimal practical benchtop
physical conditions to test the conjecture exist in the X-Ray Laser range.
205
Process Flow 3.13,

206
INTRODUCTION
This chapter utilises previous works to derive:

i. A 16(%) experimentally implicit increase of the Planck Scale.
ii. An approximation of the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of a free Photon r,
utilising physical properties of the Lepton family.
iii. The existence of three (3) new particles in the Lepton family at the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Electron
harmonics with mass-energies of approximately 9(MeV), 57(MeV) and 566(MeV)
respectively.
iv. The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families at the 5th and 6th Up
Quark harmonics with mass-energies of approximately 10(GeV) and 22(GeV) respectively.
v. The optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the negative energy
conjecture. It is concluded that the optimal practical benchtop physical conditions to test the
conjecture exist at:
1. A plate separation distance of 16.5(mm).
2. An applied ElectroMagnetic (EM) beam wavelength of 18(nm). This is indicative of
the X-Ray Laser range.
3. An RMS Electric Field Intensity of 550(V/m).
4. An RMS Magnetic Flux Density of 18(milli-gauss).
5. A phase variance between the applied Electric and Magnetic fields of 0, or /2.
2
THE PLANCK SCALE
2.1
CONVERGENT BANDWIDTH
The Planck Scale is considered a limiting natural condition by which to formulate

mathematical constructs and to qualitatively validate derivations. Subsequently, we may utilise
Planck properties of length and mass (h and mh respectively) to qualitatively validate the
Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) construct.
By considering all works covered in chapter 3.1 - 3.12, we expect that the Polarisable
Vacuum (PV) spectral frequency bandwidth to converge to a single mode at conditions of
maximum energy density. Planck Mass denotes such a condition and represents a useful qualitative
measure.
Computing the value of the harmonic cut-off mode n and the harmonic cut-off frequency
to fundamental harmonic frequency PV ratio, a value of unity for equation (3.255) [to
within 0.2(%)] indicates that the PV spectral frequency bandwidth converges to a single mode at
conditions of maximum energy density.
n h,mh
2.2
h,mh
PV 1, h , m h
(3.255)
PLANCK CHARACTERISTICS
It is important to note that we would not expect to be equal to the Planck Frequency
h. The reason for this is due to the manner in which h is derived. Historically, it involved
dimensionally combining the Universal Gravitational Constant G with Planck's Constant h
[6.6260693 x10-34(Js)] and the velocity of light in a vacuum c.
Simply combining variables does not take into account the contribution of Experimental
Relationship Functions (ERF's) in accordance with accepted Dimensional Analysis Techniques
(DAT's) or Buckingham Theory (BPT) as utilised in chapter 3.1. Since there is no direct method
facilitating the determination of these ERF's, a value of unity has historically been assumed.
207
This assumption implicitly places Planck characteristics in the domain of the nonphysical. However, we may utilise the properties of the preceding equation to determine a value of
h that is physically meaningful. To proceed, we shall apply DAT's as follows,
Let a 3x1 matrix represent Planck characteristics in the following form:
5
c
G.h
K .
h
h
G.h
K .
mh
h .c
K m.
G
(3.256)
Where: K, K and Km denote ERF's governing Planck Frequency, Length and Mass
respectively.
Determining the mh to h ratio yields,
mh
h
h .c
K m.
G
G.h
K .
K m c2
.
K G
(3.257)
Hence,
K mh
.
G Km h
(3.258)
Substituting classical definitions of mh and h produces the result,

G.h
3
K c
. c
K m G h .c
2
(3.259)
Hence,
K Km
(3.260)
Recognising the classical h to h relationship,

h
c
h
(3.261)
Performing the appropriate substitutions by relating equation (3.256, 3.261) yields,

K .
G.h
c
c . G.h
K c5
(3.262)
Simplifying,
K .K c .
3
G.h . c
1
.
5
c Gh
(3.263)
Hence,
208
1
K
(3.264)
Therefore,
K
2.3
1
Km
(3.265)
EXPERIMENTAL RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONS
Utilising properties of equation (3.255) and the relationships of equation (3.264, 3.265),
we may formulate an experimentally based solution for K, K and Km. The solution is
experimentally based because and PV represent elements of the PV spectral frequency
bandwidth.
These were used to produce an experimentally verified result for the RMS charge radius
of a free Proton with classical form factor, as determined by the SELEX Collaboration [9] and
illustrated in chapter 3.9.
Recognising that the classical representation of the Refractive Index KPV described by
equation (3.55) is a weak field exponential approximation, we shall remove its contribution to
PV in determining an experimentally based solution for K, K and Km.
Secondary justification for the removal of KPV from PV stems from the recognition
of the mathematical properties of equation (3.255). KPV does not contribute numerically to the
modification of the / PV ratio.
If n = 1 at Planck conditions in accordance with equation (3.255) [the PV spectral
bandwidth is convergent]: K, K and Km may be determined. This may be accomplished by
considering the ratio of the fundamental PV spectral frequency of a Planck Particle PV(1,h,mh)
[with removal of KPV] to the classical representation of h as follows,
2.
K PV( r , M ) e
PV n PV, r , M
G .M
2
r .c
(3.55)
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
.r
(3.67)
Substituting Planck characteristic notation at the fundamental harmonic nPV = 1 produces,

PV 1 , h , m h
3 . . .
1 . 2 c G mh.
K PV h , m h
h
. h
(3.266)
Hence, K may be represented by,

K
PV 1, h , m h
K PV h , m h
. 1
h
(3.267)
Simplifying yields,
3 . . .
1 . 2 c Gmh
K
h . h
. h
(3.268)
Substituting classical Planck definitions produces,

3
3
1 2 .c .G . h .c . c
K .
c
G G.h
(3.269)
Therefore,
209
2.4
(3.270)
EXPERIMENTALLY IMPLICIT VALUES OF PLANCK CHARACTERISTICS
Utilising equation (3.255, 3.270) and classical Planck definitions, it may be demonstrated
that PV the Planck Frequency, independent of KPV in the PV model of gravitation by
the following relationship,
PV 1 , h , m h
K PV h , m h
h,m h
1
K . h
K PV h , m h
1
K . h
(3.271)
Therefore, an experimentally based determination of Planck Frequency, Length and Mass may be
implicitly defined as follows,
K .
h
1 . G.h
K c3
h
mh
2.5
c
G.h
1 . h .c
K G
(3.272)
IMPACT OF EXPERIMENTALLY IMPLICIT VALUES
The impact to the classical definition of the Planck Scale is to raise its value by
approximately 16(%) as illustrated by the following equation,
1
1 16.2447.( % )
(3.273)
Consequently, we may express the RMS charge radius of a free Photon r [which was derived in
chapter 3.10 from the physical properties of an Electron], in terms of free Muon and Tau particle
RMS charge radii (r and r respectively) according to,
r K .
G.h . r
c
(3.274)
such that, the error in relation to equation (3.225) in chapter 3.10 is less than 0.12(%) and may be
expressed as follows,
1
r
K
3
c .r
0.1192.( % )
G.h r
(3.275)
Therefore, it is clear from equation (3.274) that the determination of K leads to a useful
approximation relating physical properties of the Lepton family, specifically all Electron-Like
particles, to Photons.
Note: the value of K reaffirms the conclusion [to within 0.83(%)] stated in chapter 3.10, that the
diameter of a Photon coincides with the Planck Length as defined by equation (3.272). This implies
that the diameter of a Photon is the natural limit of the Quantum scale.
210
3
3.1
BACKGROUND
In chapter 3.11, equation (3.230) was derived by the application of BPT which relates the
mass and radius of two particles by similarity where, r1,2 and M1,2 denote arbitrary radii and
mass values respectively. The result produced by equation (3.230) [chapter 3.11, 3.12] agrees with
physical experiment and contemporary expectation. Hence, we may conclude that the EGM
construct is well formulated and equation (3.230) is fit for further theoretical particle predictions.
2
3.2
r 1, M 1
M1
r 2, M 2
M2
r2
St
r1
(3.230)
LEPTONS
As stated in the proceeding section, we shall utilise equation (3.230) to predict the existence
of additional Lepton family particles that are not currently known or predicted by the Standard
Model in particle physics.
To proceed, we shall assume that any as yet undiscovered particles exist as harmonic
multiples of the Electron in terms of where, St represents the harmonic cut-off frequency
ratio between two proportionally similar mass-energy systems.
We shall also assume that the RMS charge radii of a free Electron as implied by scattering
experiments r (see chapter 3.11), r and r produces a usefully approximate Electron-Like
Lepton average RMS charge radii rL as follows,
rL
5
rL
m
. 1. e
3 29 m p
(3.276)
. 1
1 . m
9
4 me
1 . m
9
6 me
(3.277)
rL 10.7518 x10-16(cm) 0.0108(fm)
(3.278)
Hence, a generalised mass-energy relationship may be stated as,

m L St
9
m e . St .
rL
(3.279)
nd
rd
th
Therefore, the mass-energies of three (3) new theoretical particles at the 2 , 3 and 5 Electron
harmonics are,
mL(2) 9(MeV)
(3.280)
mL(3) 57(MeV)
(3.281)
mL(5) 566(MeV)
(3.282)
Note: the 1st, 4th and 6th Electron harmonics denote the mass-energies of the Electron me, Muon
m and Tau m particles respectively (see chapter 3.11).
211
3.3
QUARKS / BOSONS
Similarly, new particles may be predicted in the Quark / Boson families utilising the same
method. Equation (3.253) describes Quarks and Bosons as harmonic multiples of the Up Quark.
The integer pattern is obvious and suggests the existence of two (2) new theoretical particles at the
5th and 6th harmonics.
Utilising equation (3.230) and the average Quark / Boson radii defined in table (3.44), the
mass-energies of the two (2) new theoretical particles [at Up Quark harmonic multiples] may be
predicted as follows,
m QB St
9
m uq . St .
r QB
r uq
(3.283)
where, table (3.44) indicates:

rQB = r 1.0052 x10-16(cm)
(3.284)
th
th
Therefore, the mass-energies of two (2) new theoretical particles at the 5 and 6 Up Quark
harmonics are,
(3.285)
mQB(5) 10(GeV)
mQB(6) 22(GeV)
st
nd
rd
th
th
th
th
(3.286)
th
Note: the 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 and 10 harmonics denote known or currently theoretical

particles (Higgs Boson) as articulated in chapter 3.12.
4
4.1
BACKGROUND
We shall now methodically design an experiment based upon a Classical Casimir

Configuration (parallel plates) with the ambition of achieving PV resonance. The existence of a
resonant condition may reveal the possibility of negative vacuum energy exploitation as conjectured
by Puthoff et. Al.. [23, 24, 30]
The design approach involves the determination of an optimal physical configuration by
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the experimentally verified force predictions of
equation (3.179) and graphical analysis of figure (3.30),
A PP .U PV( r , r , M ) .
N C( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
.ln
N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
(3.179)
where,
Variable
r
r
M
FPV
App
UPV
NC
NX
RE
ME
Description
Magnitude of position vector from the centre of mass
Change in magnitude of position vector
Mass
Casimir force predicted by the PV model
Projected area of a parallel plate
Critical mode
Radius of the Earth
Mass of the Earth
Table 3.45,
212
Units
m
kg
N
m2
Pa
None
m
kg

N C R E , r , M E
N X R E , r , M E
n PV
Figure 3.30,
Figure (3.30) illustrates the behaviour of the Phase Variance 4,5 between the Electric and
Magnetic field of the PV, with respect to harmonic mode nPV, derived from Reduced Harmonic
Similarity Equations (see chapter 3.6, 3.7) for a classical Casimir configuration.
Analysis of figure (3.30) indicates that the rate of change of 4,5 is approximately constant
until nPV approaches NX. Rapid changes in system states are typically associated with
conditions of spectral sympathy. Therefore, the rapid rate of change in 4,5 commencing at NX
may represent a state of natural resonance at the associated frequency X.
It is unclear as to how the PV might respond to forced EM oscillations at X, but it is
obvious that NX denotes a point of mathematical interest in relation to the negative energy
conjecture. Subsequently, the first step in the design of a resonant Casimir cavity is to determine the
optimal plate separation for complete similarity between the Casimir Force predicted by ZPF
Theory and the gravitational force associated with the PV model, in this case r in accordance
with figure (3.31),
B
C
A
Figure 3.31,
where,
Variable
A
B
C
D
Description
EM beam generator
EM beam
Mating face material for resonant cavity
Resonant cavity of height r
Table 3.46,
Note: figure (3.31) is for illustrational purposes only. Materials of construction should be reflective
inside the cavity and neutrally charged.
213
The basic principles of experimental operation should be to:

i. Trap EM energy by reflection at frequency X and Phase Variance 4,5 inside the
cavity.
ii. Permit the RMS intensities of the Electric and Magnetic fields inside the cavity to attain
the values specified in section 5.2 (as a minimum).
iii. Ensure that the Electric and Magnetic field vectors are orthogonal inside the cavity.
iv. Ensure that a standing wave forms in three dimensions (3D) within the cavity.
v. Ensure any unexpected effects / events are observed.
4.2
BANDWIDTH RATIO
A bandwidth ratio R was defined in chapter 3.5 relating the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF)
beat bandwidth ZPF to a change in harmonic cut-off frequency . This represents the ratio
of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV. R provides a useful
conversion relationship between forms over practical benchtop values of r and was defined as
follows,
R( r , r , M )
ZPF( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
(3.97)
It shall be demonstrated that equation (3.97) may be applied to determine the optimal value of r
for practical benchtop experimental investigation of the negative energy conjecture.
4.3
OPTIMAL SEPARATION
We may utilise R to facilitate the calculation of the optimal value of r by

determining the physical properties that satisfy the solution |R| = 1. Once achieved, the ZPF
spectrum used to derive the Casimir Force (see chapter 3.4 - 3.7) is completely similar to the
Fourier spectrum of the PV used to derive fundamental particle properties (see chapter 3.4, 3.8 3.12). This technique is easily applied utilising the Given and Find commands in the MathCad
8 Professional environment by the following algorithm,
Given
|R(RE,r,ME)| = 1
r = Find(r)
Therefore, the optimal practical benchtop value of r is,
r 16.5(mm)
5
PHYSICAL MODELLING
5.1
INFLECTION WAVELENGTH
(3.287)
Utilising equation (3.287), the harmonic inflection wavelength is applied to determine the
type of energy delivery system to be used in experimentation and may be calculated as follows,
X( r , r , M )
c
X( r , r , M )
(3.288)
X(RE,r,ME) 18(nm)
(3.289)
Evaluating yields,
214
Therefore, based upon the wavelength specified by equation (3.289), an X-Ray laser system
should be utilised in experimental investigations for a plate separation distance of r 16.5(mm).
5.2
CRITICAL FIELD STRENGTHS
In addition to wavelength, the critical field strengths in terms of the applied Electric and
Magnetic RMS values (Erms and Brms respectively) must also be achieved for complete
similarity with the background gravitational field. This may be determined by calculating the value
of Erms which satisfies the condition |SSE3| = 1 (see chapter 3.6) for a plate separation distance of
r 16.5(mm).
Similarly, this is easily computed utilising the Given and Find commands in the
MathCad 8 Professional environment by the following algorithm,
Given
|SSE3(Erms, Erms/c,RE,r,ME)| = 1
Erms = Find(Erms)
where, Brms = Erms/c: Therefore,
5.3
Erms 550(V/m)
(3.290)
Brms 18(milli-gauss)
(3.291)
CRITICAL PHASE VARIANCE
The final criteria required to achieve complete similarity with the background gravitational
field is 4,5. This may be determined by calculating the value of 4,5 which satisfies the
condition |SSE4,5| = 1 utilising equation (3.290, 3.291).
As before, this is easily computed utilising the Given and Find commands in the
MathCad 8 Professional environment by the following algorithm,
Given
|SSE4(Erms, Brms,4,RE,r,ME)| = 1
|SSE5(Erms, Brms,5,RE,r,ME)| = 1
[4 5] = Find(4,5)
Yields,
[4 5] = [0 /2]
(3.292)
Performing a graphical analysis of |SSE4,5()| = 1 produces,
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E , r , M E

1
Figure 3.32,
Therefore, utilising equation (3.292) and figure (3.32), optimal phase variance between the applied
Electric and Magnetic fields occurs at 0, or /2.
215
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter derives:

i. An experimentally implicit increase of the Planck Scale.
ii. An approximation of the RMS charge radius of a free Photon r, utilising physical
properties of the Lepton family, specifically all Electron-Like particles.
iii. The existence of three (3) new particles in the Lepton family.
iv. The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families.
v. The optimal practical benchtop configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the
negative energy conjecture.
THE ANSWERS TO SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
(a)
WHAT CAUSES HARMONIC PATTERNS TO FORM?

ZPF Equilibrium
A free fundamental particle is regarded by EGM as a bubble of energy equivalent mass.

Nature always seeks the lowest energy state: so surely, the lowest state for a free fundamental
particle should be to diffuse itself to non-existence in the absence of something acting to
keep it contained?
This provokes the suggestion that a free fundamental particle is kept contained by the
surrounding space-time manifold. In other words, free fundamental particles are analogous to
neutrally buoyant bubbles floating in a locally static fluid (the space-time manifold). EGM is an
approximation method, developed by the application of standard engineering tools, which finds the
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) equilibrium point between the mass-energy equivalence of the particle and
the space-time manifold (the polarized ZPF) surrounding it - as depicted below,
Figure 3.43,
(b)
Inherent Quantum Characteristics
If one assumes that the basic nature of the Universe is built upon quantum states of
existence, it follows that ZPF equilibrium is a common and convenient feature amongst free
fundamental particles by which to test this assumption. Relativity tells us that no absolute frames of
reference exist, so a logical course of action is to define a datum as EGM is derived from a
gravitational base. In our case, it is an arbitrary choice of fundamental particle.
To be representative of the quantum realm, it follows that ZPF equilibrium between free
fundamental particles should also be analogous to quantum and fractional quantum numbers as
one finds with the Quantum Hall Effect. Subsequently, the harmonic patterns of Particle
Summary Matrix 3.3 form because the determination of ZPF equilibrium is applied to inherently
quantum characteristic objects i.e. fundamental particles.
216
Hence, it should be no surprise to the reader that comparing a set of inherently quantum
characterized objects to each other, each of which may be described by a single wavefunction at its
harmonic cut-off frequency, results in a globally harmonic description. That is, the EGM harmonic
representation of fundamental particles is a quantum statement of ZPF equilibrium as one would
expect. In-fact, it would be alarming if Particle Summary Matrix 3.3, or a suitable variation thereof,
could not be formulated.
Therefore, harmonic patterns form due to inherent quantum characteristics and ZPF equilibrium.
WHY HAVENT THE NEW PARTICLES BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY DETECTED?
EGM approaches the question of particle existence, not just by mass as in the Standard
Model (SM), but by harmonic cut-off frequency (i.e. by mass and ZPF equilibrium). It was
shown in Ch. 3.5 that the bulk of the PV spectral energy [i.e. >> 99.99(%)] at the surface of the
Earth exists well above the THz range. Hence, generalizing this result to any mass implies that
the harmonic cut-off period T (i.e. the inverse of ) defines the minimum detection interval
to confirm (or refute) the existence of the proposed L2, L3, L5 Leptons and associated 2, 3, 5
Neutrinos. In other words, a particle exists for at least the period specified by T.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) approaches this question from a highly useful, but extremely
limited perspective compared to the EGM construct. QFT utilizes particle mass to determine the
minimum detection period (in terms of eV) to be designed into experiments. To date, this approach
has been highly successful, but results in the conclusion that no new Leptons exist beyond the SM
in the mass-energy range specified by the proposed Leptons. Whilst QFT is a highly useful
yardstick, it is by no means a definitive benchmark to warrant termination of exploratory
investigations for additional particles.
Typically in the SM, short lived particles are seen as resonances in cross sections of data
sets and many Hadrons in the data tables are revealed in this manner. Hence, the SM asserts that the
more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and the greater the likelihood of detection.
The EGM construct regards the existing Leptons of the SM as long-lived particles. It also
asserts that the SM does not adequately address the existence or stability of the extremely shortlived Leptons proposed. This assertion is supported by the fact that detection of these particles is
substantially beyond current capabilities due to:
i.
The minimum detection interval (with negligible experimental error) being < 10-29(s).
ii.
The possibility that the proposed Leptons are transient (intermediate) states of particle
production processes which decay before detection. For example, perhaps an Electron
passes through an L2 phase prior to stabilization to Electronic form (for an appropriate
production process). Subsequently, this would be not be detected if the transition process
is very rapid and the accelerator energies are too low.
iii.
The possibility of statistically low production events.
Hence:
i.
The proposed Leptons are too short-lived to appear as resonances in cross-sections.
ii.
The SM assertion that the more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and
the greater the likelihood of detection is invalid for the proposed Leptons.
Therefore, contemporary particle experiments are incapable of detecting the proposed Leptons at
the minimum accelerator energy levels required to refute the EGM construct.
WHY SHOULD ONE BELIEVE THAT ALL FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES MAY BE

DESCRIBED AS HARMONIC MULTIPLES OF EACH OTHER?
Because of the precise experimental and mathematical evidence presented in Particle

Summary Matrix (3.1, 3.2, 3.4). These results were achieved by construction of a model based upon
a single gravitational paradigm. Moreover, the Casmir force was also derived in Ch. 3.7.
217
WHY IS EGM A METHOD AND NOT A THEORY?
EGM is a method and not a theory because: (i) it is an engineering approximation and (ii),
the mass and size of most subatomic particles are not precisely known. It harmonizes all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen reference particle by parameterising ZPF
equilibrium in terms of harmonic cut-off frequency .
The formulation of Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 is a robust approximation based upon PDG
data. Other interpretations are possible, depending on the values utilized. For example, if one reapplies the method presented in Ch. 3.12 based upon other data, the values of St in Particle
Summary Matrix 3.3 might differ. However, in the absence of exact experimentally measured mass
and size information, there is little motivation to postulate alternative harmonic sequences,
particularly since the current formulation fits the available experimental evidence extremely well.
If all mass and size values were exactly known by experimental measurement, the main
sequence formulated in Ch. 3.12 (or a suitable variation thereof) will produce a precise harmonic
representation of fundamental particles, invariant to interpretation. Particle Summary Matrix 3.3
values cannot be dismissed due to potential multiplicity before reconciling how:
i.
, which is the basis of the Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 construct, produces the
experimentally verified formulation of Eq. (3.212, 3.215) as derived in Ch. 3.9. These
generate radii values substantially more accurate than any other contemporary method.
In-fact, it is a noteworthy result that EGM is capable of producing the Neutron Mean
Square (MS) charge radius as a positive quantity. Conventional techniques favour the
non-intuitive form of a negative squared quantity.
ii.
is capable of producing a Top Quark mass value the SM cannot.
iii.
EGM produces the results defined in Particle Summary Matrix 3.1.
iv.
Extremely short-lived Leptons (i.e. with lifetimes of T) cannot exist, or do not exist
for a plausible harmonic interpretation.
v.
Any other harmonic interpretation, in the absence of exact mass and size values
determined experimentally, denote a superior formulation.
Therefore, EGM is a method facilitating the harmonic representation of fundamental particles.
WHAT WOULD ONE NEED TO DO, IN ORDER TO DISPROVE THE EGM METHOD?
Explain how measurements of charge radii and mass-energy by collaborations such as CDF,
D0, L3, SELEX and ZEUS in [9, 14, 15, 80, 82-85]; do not correlate to EGM calculations.
WHY DOES THE EGM METHOD PRODUCE CURRENT QUARK MASSES AND NOT
CONSTITUENT MASSES?
The EGM method is capable of producing current and constituent Quark masses, only
current Quark masses are presented herein. This text is limited to current Quark masses because it is
the simplest example of ZPF equilibrium applicable whereby a particle is treated as a system and
the equilibrium radius is calculated. Determination of the constituent Quark mass is more
complicated, but it is possible. For example, Appendix 3.I calculates an experimentally implicit
value of the Bohr radius by treating the atom as a system in equilibrium with the polarized ZPF.
WHY DOES THE EGM METHOD YIELD ONLY THE THREE OBSERVED FAMILIES?
This occurs because it treats all objects with mass as a system (e.g. the Bohr atom) in
equilibrium with the Polarized ZPF (its own gravitational field). Therefore, since fundamental
particles with classical form factor denote states (or systems: Quarks in the Proton and Neutron) of
polarized ZPF equilibrium, it follows that only the three families will be predicted.
218
APPENDIX 3.A
KEY ARTEFACTS
Chapter
3.1
Refractive Index and Experimental Relationship Function

2
K PV K 0( X )
(3.25)
Summation of sinusoids produces a constant function
Re( a( t ) )
Acceleration
Im( a( t ) )
f( t )
t
Time

Figure 3.2,
Chapter
3.2
Critical Factor KC
K C K 1, K 2
K 1 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
N
2
E 0( k , n , t ) .
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(3.44)
General Modelling Equation1 (GME1)

N
2
a r0
2
2
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
2 .r 0 . K PV
n= N
N
E 0( k , n , t )
2
c0 .
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
E 0( k , n , t )
K 0 0, X
n
=
N
.
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(Eq. 3.45)
219
c0
General Modelling Equation2 (GME2)

N
a r0
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
2 .r 0 . K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
2
c0 .
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
K 0 0, X
E 0( k , n , t )
. n= N
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(Eq. 3.46)
Chapter
3.3
Critical Ratio KR
KR
U g a PV K C( r )
. 0
g
Ug
U PV( r ) 0
Engineered Relationship Function K0(,X)

K 0( , X )
r .g .
G.M .
KR
KR
2
2
c
r .c
Chapter
2 . K 0( , X )
(3.56)
3.4
Gravitational amplitude spectrum CPV

G.M .
C PV n PV, r , M
(3.64)
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
.r
(3.67)
Harmonic cut-off mode n

n ( r, M )
2
.n PV
Gravitational frequency spectrum PV

PV n PV, r , M
(3.54)
Engineered Refractive Index KEGM (normal matter form)

K EGM K PV. e
(3.53)
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
(3.71)

3
( r, M )
108.
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
(3.72)

( r , M ) n ( r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
220
(3.73)
c0
Chapter
3.5
Critical Boundary
r , r , M , K R
( r , r , M )
4
ZPF
K R . ( r , r , M )
4
ZPF
r( 1 , r , r , M )
(3.93)
Figure 3.14,
EGM Spectrum
Figure 3.15,
Chapter
3.6
Critical Phase Variance C = 0, 90
Critical Field Strengths (EC and BC)
EC and BC are derived utilising the reciprocal harmonic distribution describing the EGM
amplitude spectrum. Solutions to |SSE4,5| = 1 represent conditions of complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the amplitude of the background EGM spectrum.
221
Spectral Similarity Equations4,5 (SSE4,5)

2
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , r , r , M
(3.156)
DC-Offsets
SSE 4 ( 1
SSE 4 ( 1
DC) .E rms , B rms , 0 , r , r , M
DC) . E rms, ( 1
SSE 5 E rms , ( 1
DC) .B rms, 0, r , r , M
DC) .B rms , , r , r , M
2
SSE 5 ( 1 DC) . E rms, ( 1
1
2
DC) .B rms,
(3.159)
, r, r, M
1
4
(Eq. 3.160)
Critical Frequency C
c
.
2 r
C( r )
Chapter
3.7
Harmonic Inflection Mode NX

N X( r , r , M )
n ( r , r , M )
1
ZPF
ln 2 .n ( r , r , M )
ZPF
(3.164)
Critical Mode NC
N C( r , r , M )
(3.162)
C( r )
PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.169)
Harmonic Inflection Frequency X

X( r , r , M ) N X( r , r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
EGM Casimir Force FPV

Chapter
(3.170)
A PP .U PV( r , r , M ) .
N C( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
.ln
N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
(3.179)
3.8
Photon mass-energy threshold m

m<
512.h .G.m e
c . .r e
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
222
(3.193)
Chapter
3.9

2
.e

r , m e
r , m p
2 . r , m p
r ,mn
CP
CN
. c .e
r e Ce
Chapter
Ce
Ce
2
4
27. h Ce
.
.
r
3
4
4 . CP
32. CP
c . Ce
4 . CN
(3.212)
27. h Ce
.
4
.
32
CN
2
(3.215)
3.10
The mass-energy of a Graviton mgg

(3.216)
The mass-energy of a Photon m

3
h .
re
.r e
2 .c .G.m e
512.G.m e
c .
ln 2 .n r e , m e
(3.220)
m
m e .c
(3.225)
The radius of a Graviton rgg

r gg
Chapter
4 .r
(3.227)
3.11
Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio (the ratio of two particle spectra) St

2
The radius of a Photon r

r r e .
n r e, m e
(3.210)
c . Ce
mgg = 2m
Proton and Neutron radii (r, r)

r
(3.204)
r 1, M 1
M1
r 2, M 2
M2
r2
r1
St
(3.230)
Electron, Muon and Tau radii (r, r, r)

223
1 . me
r r .
9
2 mp
5
1 . m
9
4 me
r .
r r
(3.231)
1 . m
9
6 me
(3.234)

r
.e
(3.236)
Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino radii (ren, rn, rn)

5
r en r n r n
Chapter
r .
me
m n
m
r .
m n
(3.238)
Quark and Boson harmonic representations

.
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
1 2 3 4
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
7 8 9 10
r uq , m uq
(3.253)
Quarks and Bosons as harmonic multiples of the Electron

1
r ,m e
Chapter
r .
3.12
m en
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
7 14 21 28
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
49 56 63 70
(3.254)
3.13
Planck Scale Experimental Relationship Functions

3
224
(3.270)
1
K
(3.264)
1
Km
(3.265)
Approximation of the radius of a free Photon r, relating physical properties of the Lepton
family, specifically all Electron-Like particles
G.h . r
r K .
(3.274)
mL(2) 9(MeV)
(3.280)
mL(3) 57(MeV)
(3.281)
mL(5) 566(MeV)
(3.282)
mQB(5) 10(GeV)
(3.285)
mQB(6) 22(GeV)
(3.286)
Theoretical particle (Lepton)
Theoretical particle (Quark / Boson)
Theoretical particle (Quark / Boson)
The optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the negative energy
conjecture exists at:
r 16.5(mm)
(3.287)
X(RE,r,ME) 18(nm)
(3.289)
Erms 550(V/m)
(3.290)
Brms 18(milli-gauss)
(3.291)
The optimal phase variance between the applied Electric and Magnetic fields occurs at 0, or
/2
Appendix 3.G
Neutron Charge Distribution ch

r
ch ( r )
KS
2.
3
3.
5 2
r . x
. e
1.
r
x .r
(3.406)
Neutron Charge Density Gradient Radius Intercept rdr

r dr
5.
3
225
(3.391)
To Neutron Mean Square Charge Radius Conversion Equation KS

KS
3. .r
. (1
x) . x
x x
From Neutron Mean Square Charge Radius Conversion Equation b1 and rX

b1
2 . KS
3.r
(3.394)
6 .b 1 .K X . x
rX
(3.396)
3 .b 1 . x
r
KS
. K .K
S X
(3.418)
Neutron Magnetic Radius rM

r dr
r
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r
(3.420)
Proton Electric Radius rE

r dr
r . ch r E
ch ( r ) d r
r
(3.423)
Proton Magnetic Radius rM
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r dr
r
(3.426)
Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius rp

r P r E
1.
2
r M
(3.429)
Appendix 3.I
The first term of the Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer series) A [by EGM] utilising the Bohr
radius rBohr and the fundamental PV wavelength PV
A
226
(3.457)
APPENDIX 3.B
FORMULATIONS, DERIVATIONS, CHARACTERISTICS AND PROOFS
CHAPTER
3.2
substitute , E( k , n , t ) E 0( k , n , t )
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( , X )
substitute ,
. n
B( k , n , t )
2
K PV .
n
B( k , n , t )
a r0
r0
substitute , r
B 0( k , n , t )
K 0 0, X
.n
3
r 0 .K PV
K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
B 0( k , n , t )
substitute , 0
substitute , a( t ) a r 0
a r0
K 0 0, X n
.
3
r 0 .K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
substitute , K 0 0 , X
B 0( k , n , t )
substitute , a r 0
(3.35)
K 1 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
substitute ,
E 0( k , n , t )
K 1 0, r 0 , E 0, D , X
r 0 .K PV
B 0( k , n , t )
(3.36)
substitute , 1 2
1
K 1 0, r 0, E 0, D, X
E 0( k , n , t )
r 0 .K PV
B 0( k , n , t )
n
B 0( k , n , t )
substitute ,
n
n
2
c0
K 1 0, r 0 , E 0, D , X
.c 2
0
r 0 .K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
n
227
(3.38)
a r0
K 0 0, X
substitute , a r 0
.n
r 0 .K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
substitute , K 0 0 , X
B 0( k , n , t )
substitute ,
E 0( k , n , t )
E 0( k , n , t )
r 0 .K PV
(3.37)
substitute ,
E 0( k , n , t )
2.
K 0 0, X n
.
3
E 0( k , n , t )
K 2 0, r 0, B 0 , D , X
.c 2 .
0
B 0( k , n , t )
r 0 . K PV
(3.40)
K 0 0, X .
3
2
K 1 0, r 0, E 0, D, X
r 0 .K PV
B 0( k , n , t )
B 0( k , n , t )
c0
r 0 .K PV
substitute , 1
B 0( k , n , t )
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
substitute , 1 2
substitute , a r 0
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
3
K 2 0, r 0, B 0 , D , X
r 0 . K PV
a r0
B 0( k , n , t )
E 0( k , n , t )
n
solve , K 1 0 , r 0 , E 0 , D , X
(3.39)
228
substitute , a r 0
K 0 0, X
substitute , 1
.n
r 0 .K PV
a r0
E 0( k , n , t )
B 0( k , n , t )
K 0 0, X
K 2 0, r 0 , B 0, D , X
.
E 0( k , n , t )
r 0 .K PV
B 0( k , n , t )
solve , K 2 0 , r 0 , B 0 , D , X
(3.41)
substitute , K 1 0 , r 0 , E 0 , D , X
K C 0, r 0, E 0, B 0, D, X
E 0( k , n , t )
K 1 0 , r 0, E 0, D , X
K 2 0 , r 0, B 0, D, X
K 0 0, X .
substitute , K 2 0 , r 0 , B 0 , D , X
K C 0, r 0, E 0, B 0, D , X
K 0 0, X
B 0( k , n , t )
2
E 0( k , n , t ) .
B 0( k , n , t )
(Eq. 3.44)
substitute , 1
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
r 0 .K PV
a r0
2
2
E 0( k , n , t )
E 0( k , n , t )
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.c 2 .
substitute , 2
0
3
r 0 .K PV
B 0( k , n , t )
n
a r0
1 . K 0 0, X . n
3
2
2
B 0( k , n , t )
2
r 0 .K PV
n
1 . K 0 0, X . 2
c0
3
2
2
r 0 .K PV
K 0 0, X
B 0( k , n , t )
n
expand
(3.45)
229
substitute , 1
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
r 0 .K PV
a r0
substitute , 2
E 0( k , n , t )
E 0( k , n , t )
K 2 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.c 2 .
0
B 0( k , n , t )
r 0 .K PV
1 . K 0 0, X . n
3
2
2
B 0( k , n , t )
2
.
r 0 K PV
n
a r0
1 . K 0 0, X . 2
c0
3
2
2
r 0 .K PV
K 0 0, X
B 0( k , n , t )
n
expand
CHAPTER
(3.46)
3.3
E PV k PV, n PV, t
a PV
K 0 0 , X n PV
.
r
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV
substitute ,
E PV k PV, n PV, t
2
c .
n PV
2
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV
substitute , a PV g .K R
g .K R.
r
c
solve , K 0 0 , X
(3.54)
The change in amplitude spectrum for K0(,X) is proportional to the Fourier amplitude at each mode within the spectrum. Subsequently, the
change in amplitude spectrum over r is trivial.
CHAPTER
3.4
Integrating equation (3.47),

0( )
2 .h .
c
(3.47)
Yields,
230
2 .h .
c
1. h . 4
2 c3
(3.293)
where, PV: utilising equation (3.67),

PV
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K
PV
r
.r
(3.67)
Yields a generalised frequency change representation according to,

U
h .
PV
3
2.c
4
2
PV
(3.294)
Substituting equation (3.67) into (3.293) yields the generalised change in odd mode representation according to,
U ( r , M ) .
U n PV, r , M
n PV
n PV
(3.68)
where,
U ( r , M )
3
h .G.M . 2 .c .G.M .
2
K PV
2. 5
.r
.
c r
(3.295)
Note: equation (3.295) is a modified representation of equation (3.69).

Subsequently, if:
U m( r , M )
3 .M .c
4 . .r
And assuming:
U m( r , M )
(3.70)
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M ) .
U n PV, r , M
n PV
then,
4
n PV
(3.296)
231
Next, let:
D
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
(3.297)
Hence,
D
n PV
n PV
(3.298)
Solving for nPV yields,

2
1
1 . 108.D
12
2
12. 768 81.D
48
12. 108.D
108.D
2
12. 768 81.D
n PV 2
n PV
solve , n PV, factor
1.
24
108.D
2
12. 768 81.D
48 24. 108.D
12. 768 81.D
i . 3 . 108.D
12. 768 81.D
48.i . 3
1
1
108.D
1
1 . 108.D
1
1
12. 768 81.D
12. 768 81.D
12. 768 81.D
48
24. 108.D
12. 768 81.D
2
1
i . 3 . 108.D
2
12. 768 81.D
48.i . 3
24
1
108.D
12. 768 81.D
(Eq. 3.299)
232
Analysing the structure of the preceding equation leads to simplification by assigning temporary definitions of F and L for use with equation
(3.299). This approach is required to fully exploit the MathCad 8 Professional symbolic calculation environment and may be articulated as follows,
Let: F = 108D+12(768+81D2) and F = L3. Hence, an expression for nPV as a function of L may be defined by,
1.
L 1
12
solve , n PV, factor

D
n PV 2
substitute , 108.D
n PV
2
12. 768 81.D F
2
substitute , F L,
3
,F
F L
4
L
1. .
i 3
24
1 .
L 1
24
2 .i . 3
1. .
i 3
24
1 .
L
24
2 .i . 3
L
2
(3.300)
collect , L
Equation (3.300) is a simplifying intermediary step leading to the harmonic cut-off function (r,) subject to the redefinition of L as follows,
Let: L = (r,M) and n(r,M) = nPV + 2 hence,
n ( r , M ) n PV 2
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
(3.301)
Therefore,
n ( r, M )
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
(3.71)
Performing the appropriate substitutions of D into L3 = 108D+12(768+81D2) for application to equation (3.71) yields,
3
( r, M )
108.
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
(3.72)
Hence,
( r , M ) n ( r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
233
CHAPTER
3.5 / 3.6
The HSE1,2 operand may be formed utilising the ratio of KR(r,r,M) to GSE1,2,
2 .i .
e
.
n PV
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
2.
2 .c B A k A , n A , t
EA k A,n A,t
exp i . .n PV. r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t
. E k ,n ,t
A A A
2
2
.n PV
i
simplify, factor
2
2
2
(3.302)
The HSE3 operand may be formed utilising the ratio of KR(r,r,M) to GSE3,
2 .i .
e
.n PV
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
simplify
E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M )
2.
exp i . .n PV. r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t
.K ( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M )
PV
.n PV E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
i
(3.303)
The HSE4,5 operand may be formed utilising the ratio of KR(r,r,M) to GSE4,5,
2 .i .
e
.n PV
EA k A,n A,t
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
2
.E k , n , t .B k , n , t
A A A
A A A
2
2 .c .K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M ) .B A k A , n A , t
simplify
2
4 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A k A , n A , t .
exp i . .n PV. r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t
.n PV.E A k A , n A , t
2
.n PV.E A k A , n A , t .c .B A k A , n A , t
(Eq. 3.304)
234
CHAPTER
3.6
HSE1 R may be formed as follows,

substitute , E A
2
i . EA
2
2
c .B A
2
2
.n PV.c .B A
substitute , B A
E 0 .e
B 0 .e
substitute , E n E
2 . . E n E .t
.
i
2
2 . . B n B .t
.i
B nB
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
.n PV
.( exp( 2 .i . )
1)
i
.n PV
.( exp( 2 .i . )
1 ) simplify
1.
2.
( cos ( 2 . )
1)
n PV
substitute , E rms c .B rms

simplify
(Eq. 3.305)
substitute , E A
2
i . EA
2
2
c .B A
2
2
.n PV.c .B A
substitute , B A
E 0 .e
B 0 .e
substitute , E n E
2 . . E n E .t
.
i
2
2 . . B n B .t
B nB
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
.i
i
.n PV
.( exp( 2 .i . )
1)
( exp( 2 .i . )
i .
.n PV
1)
simplify, factor
1.
2.
( cos ( 2 . )
1)
n PV
substitute , E rms c .B rms

simplify
(Eq. 3.306)
235

E 0 .e
substitute , E A
2 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M )
.n PV.E A .B A
B 0 .e
substitute , B A
2 . . E n E .t
2 . . B n B .t
substitute , E n E
B nB
substitute , B n B
EM n EM
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
.
i
2
.i
i .K PV( r , M ) .
St ( r , r , M )
.n PV.E rms .B rms
.exp i . 4 . .
.
EM n EM t
simplify
i .K PV( r , M ) .
St ( r , r , M )
.n PV.E rms.B rms
(3.307)
.exp i . 4. .
.
EM n EM t
1.
simplify
K PV( r , M ) .
St ( r , r , M )
n PV.E rms.B rms
(3.308)
HSE4 R may be formed as follows (Eq. 3.309),
2
4 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A
2
.n PV.E A . E A
2.
c BA
substitute , E A
E 0 .e
substitute , B A
B 0 .e
2 . . E n E .t
.
i
2
2 . . B n B .t
substitute , E n E
B nB
substitute , B n B
EM n EM
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
substitute , c
.i
2 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .
K PV( r , M )
E rms .B rms . .n PV. exp i . . 4 . EM n EM .t 1
exp i . 4 . . EM n EM .t
2 .
.exp( i . )
E rms
B rms
simplify, factor
236
2 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .
K PV( r , M )
E rms .B rms . .n PV. exp i . . 4 . EM n EM .t
2 .
1.
.exp( i . ) simplify, expand , simplify
K PV( r , M )
2.
St ( r , r , M )
2
2
2
2
B rms .E rms .n PV .cos ( )
(Eq. 3.310)
2
4 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A
2
.n PV.E A . E A
2
2
c .B A
substitute , E A
E 0 .e
substitute , B A
B 0 .e
2 . . E n E .t
2 . . B n B .t
substitute , E n E
B nB
substitute , B n B
EM n EM
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
substitute , c
.
i
2
.i
2.i .exp( i . ) .K PV( r , M ) .
St ( r , r , M )
E rms .B rms . .n PV. exp i . . 4 . EM n EM .t
2 .
E rms
B rms
simplify, factor
(Eq. 3.311)
1
2 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .
K PV( r , M )
E rms.B rms. .n PV. exp i . . 4 . EM n EM .t
2 .
.exp( i . ) simplify, expand , simplify
1.
St ( r , r , M )
2.
K PV( r , M )
2
2
2
2
B rms .E rms .n PV .sin ( )
(Eq. 3.312)
237
Thus, from equations (3.310, 3.312), HSE4,5 R may be formed utilising HSE3 R as follows,
1
R
cos ( )
1
sin ( )
.HSE E
.HSE E
(3.313)
(3.314)
Note: equations (3.315 3.320) were deleted from this section due to redundancy.
In addition to graphical methods illustrated in chapter 3.6, C may be determined as follows,
1
d C cos C
d C sin C
.HSE E
.HSE E
0 solve , C
0 solve , C
0 OR
C = 2
(3.321)
1.
2
1.
(3.322)
A useful approximation of the average amplitude per harmonic mode utilised in SSEx may be numerically proven as follows,
Let: N = 106 + 1
Considering a double sided odd number distribution: nPV = -N, 2 N N
The approximation error may be numerically evaluated utilising MathCad 8 Professional to be,
1
N
.
1
1
N
n PV
1
n PV
.( ln( 2 .N )
1 = 6.6287.10
(%)
(3.323)
Subsequently, vanishing error is implied as N [|n|,|n ZPF|] and SSEx may be formed according to,
238
1
N
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
.
1
n PV
(3.324)
CHAPTER
3.7 3.9
Mathematical summation characteristics presented in chapter (3.7 3.9) may be numerically proven utilising MathCad 8 Professional as follows,
Let: N = 106 + 1
where, equation (3.285) represents matrix M such that:
i. The matrix element M0,0 follows the integer one-sided distribution: nPV = 1, 2 N
ii. The matrix element M2,0 follows the double sided odd number distribution: nPV = -N, 2 N N
N
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
15.0859
1
n PV
15.0859
= 15.0859
n PV
(3.325)
Subsequently, vanishing error is implied as N [|n|,|n ZPF|] by,

1
n PV
n PV
.
1 = 3.314410
( %)
N
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
n PV
(3.326)
Therefore, a highly precise useful approximation may be formulated as follows,
239
N
1
n PV
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV = 1
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
(3.327)
Next, considering the error for a one-sided odd spectrum following the distribution nPV = 1, 3 N yields,
1
n PV
n PV
1.
( ln( 2 .N )
2
1 = 6.6287.10
(%)
(3.328)
Therefore, the relationship between odd and odd + even harmonic modes, to high computational precision, is usefully represented as N
|n(re,me)| by,
mg 1
> . ln 2 .n r e , m e
m 2
(3.329)
NOTES
240
NOTES
241
NOTES
242
APPENDIX 3.C
SIMPLIFICATIONS
me
h . Ce
2 . .c
Ce .m e
Ce .m e
CP
CN
CP.m e
,mp
Ce
,mn
CN.m e
Ce
h . CP
h . CN
2
2 . .c
2
2 . .c
G.h
h
, h
mh
3
5
c
G.h
h .c
G
(3.330)
U m( r , M ) 3 .r2 .c4 3 .r
.
U ( r , M ) 4 .h .G 2 .c .G.M
3
( r , M ) 3 .c .
(3.331)
6 .r .c .
.r
.
.
h G 2 c .G.M
2
(3.332)
2 3
( r , M ) c . 6 .r .c .
.r
n ( r, M )
.
.
12
4 h G 2 c .G.M
r , m e
r e, m e
n r , m e . PV 1 , r , m e
n r e , m e . PV 1 , r e , m e
(3.333)
3 . . .
n r ,m e
2 c G me
.
3
r
.r
n r , m e r e r e
. .
3 . . .
n r e,m e
2 c G m e n r e, m e r r
.
re
.r e
243
(3.334)
. 2 . 3 .r
c. 6 r c.
3
3
.
.
.
.
r , m e r e r e 4
hG
2 c G me r e r e
. .
.
.
3
r r
r e, m e r r
. 2 . 3 .r
c. 6 re c.
e
4
h .G
2 .c .G.m e
5
3
2 3
r re re
.
.
re r r
re
re
r
re
re
re
(3.335)
G .M
2
r .c
(3.336)
1
3
2.
.r
c . 6 .r c .
3
3
2 3
3
2
.
.
.r . 2 .c .G.M c . 6 .r .c .
.r
4 h G 2 c .G.M . 2 .c .G.M c . 6 .r .c .
( r, M )
r
4 .r h .G 2 .c .G.M
4 .r h .G 2 .c .G.M
.r
.r
3
1
2.
c . 6 .r c
( r, M )
4 .r h .G
1
3
( r , M ) 3 .h
. . .
. 2 c GM
.r
13
3.
14
.r
.
.
2 c .G.M
. 9 .c 9 .r 9 .M 9 .G
3
h
2.
c . 12.r .c M
4 .r
.h
.r
.
.
2 c .G.M
1
9
14
13 2
2 . .G
3
( r, M ) c . .
2
h
4 . .h
.M
14
. . .
. 2 c GM
.r
1. 3 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 .
12 2 c r M h
4
(3.337)
2
3.
9.
(3.338)
. M
(3.339)
2
Utilising c5 h .G.h yields,
(3.340)
(3.341)
244
APPENDIX 3.D
DERIVATION OF LEPTON RADII
Assuming the analytical representations derived in chapter (3.9, 3.11) denote exact boundary
conditions, particle radii may be calculated utilising the following MathCad 8 Professional
algorithm [satisfying all criteria between the Given and Find commands],
Given
5
1
r
c . Ce
2.
.
3
27. h Ce CP
.
5
4
1 .
32.
4
(3.199, 3.200)
1
CN
CN
1
CP
.e
(3.204)
r
r
(3.214)
1 . me
r r .
9
2 mp
(3.231)
r .
r r
1 . m
9
4 me
1 . m
9
6 me
(3.234)
.e
(3.236)
5
r en r n r n
r .
m en
me
r .
m n
m
r .
m n
(3.238)
r
r
r
r
r
Find r , r , r , r , r , r en , r n , r n
r en
r n
r n
(3.342)
245
0.0118
0.8306
0.8268
.
8.216210
( fm)
0.0122
r en
r n
r n
.
9.540410
.
6.555610
.
1.958710
(3.343)
The radii results may be tested against the calculation accuracy of and as follows,
1 .r .
e
r
2
3
100
1 .r .
e
r
1.
r
= 100 ( % )
100
r
r
(3.344)
where, and accuracy is displayed to high precision.

The change in Electron mass, as discussed in chapter 3.9 may be re-computed subject to the
preceding equation set as follows,
Given
r , m
r ,m
1.
r e, m e
r , m p
ln 2.n r e , m e
(3.208)
me = Find(m)
(3.345)
where, the Electron scattering mass-energy becomes,

mc2 = 0.511533744627484(MeV)
(3.346)
The Electron mass-energy increase becomes,

(m/me) 1 = 0.105(%)
(3.347)
Considering the mass-energy increase defined in chapter 3.9 and equation (3.306) yields,
me < 0.11(%)
(3.348)
where, +0.04(%) +0.11(%) due to physical measurement limitations.
246
APPENDIX 3.E
DERIVATION OF QUARK AND BOSON MASS-ENERGIES AND RADII
Assuming the analytical representations derived in chapter (3.4, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12) denote exact
boundary conditions, particle properties may be calculated utilising the following MathCad 8
Professional algorithm,
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
.r
PV n PV, r , M
(3.67)
KPV(r,M) 1
(3.349)
h .
4
PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
U ( r , M )
3 .M .c
U m( r , M )
(3.69)
4 . .r
n ( r, M )
(3.70)
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
(3.71)
U m( r , M )
108.
( r, M )
12. 768 81.
U ( r , M )
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
(3.72)
( r , M ) n ( r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
5
1
r
c . Ce
2
4
CP
27. h . Ce CP
.
5
4
1 .
1
32.
3
CN CN
3
1 . me
r r .
9
2 mp
r uq 3 .r xq. 2
m dq
(3.199, 3.200)
(3.231)
1
r dq r uq .
m dq
m uq
(3.350)
m uq
(3.351)
247
St dq
r dq , m dq
St sq
r xq, m sq
St cq
St bq
1
r uq , m uq
. r xq, m cq
r xq, m bq
r xq, m tq
St tq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
floor St tq
(3.353)
5
m sq
St sq
m cq
r sq
r cq
r bq
r uq .
1
m uq
St cq
.
2
m bq
r tq
St bq
5
m tq
St tq
St uq
r uq , m uq
St dq
r dq , m dq
St sq
St cq
r ,me
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
St tq
r tq , m tq
floor St uq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
floor St tq
(3.354)
r sq , m sq
St bq
St uq
(3.352)
(3.355)
(3.356)
248
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
me
m cq
m bq
9
5
St sq .r sq
9
5
St cq .r cq
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
r tq r uq .
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
r u( M )
h
.
4 .c .M
rW
r u mW
rZ
r u mZ
rH
r u mH
(3.247)
(3.358)
(3.359)
r u mW ,mW
St W
St Z
St H
. r u mZ ,mZ
r uq , m uq
r u mH ,mH
St W
round St W , 0
St Z
round St Z , 0
St H
round St H , 0
5
rW
rZ
rH
(3.357)
(3.361)
1
St W
5
r uq .
1
m uq
.m 2
W
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
1 .
2
mH
.
2
(3.360)
St H
(3.362)
249
m uq
3.506.10
m dq
7.0121.10
m sq
1.1833
m bq
4.1196
m tq
178.4979
r uq
r cq
0.8879
10
1.0913
16 .
cm
0.9294
r tq
(3.364)
rW
1.2839
rZ
= 1.0616
rH
0.9403
(3.363)
1.071
r bq
1.
1.0136
r sq
0.7682
r dq
1.
GeV
0.1139
m cq
r uq
r dq
m uq
10
16 .
cm
(3.365)
r sq
m dq
m sq
r cq
m cq
rZ
rH
ru mW
ru mZ
r u mH
16 .
cm
(3.366)
m tq = 30.6542
m bq
GeV
c
rW
1.
r tq = 0.9602 10
r bq
rW
r H = 1.0953 10
rZ
r uq , m uq
(3.367)
= ( 1.0465 0.9811 1.0903 )
(3.252)
16 .
cm
(3.368)
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10
(Eq. 3.253)
1
r ,me
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
(Eq. 3.254)
250
APPENDIX 3.F
HARMONIC REPRESENTATIONS
Commencing with the classical representation of gravitational acceleration as a function of
planetary radial distance, we shall illustrate the harmonic modes of gravity in the EGM model as
follows,
Gravitational Acceleration
Acceleration
R E
G .M E
r
r
Radial Distance
Figure 3.33,
Assuming the fundamental harmonic period TPV to be,
T PV n PV, r , M
1
PV n PV, r , M
(3.369)
The harmonic modes of acceleration aPV in the EGM representation of the PV model of gravity in
the weak field approximation (KPV(r,M) 1) at r may be stated as,
a PV n PV, r , M , t
i .C PV n PV, r , M .e
.n PV . PV ( 1 , r , M ) .t .i
(3.370)
where, the gravitational representation of the preceding equation may be written as,
g PV n PV, r , M , t
a PV n PV, r , M , t
n PV
(3.371)
Representing equation (3.370) graphically yields,
251
T PV 1 , R E , M E
T PV 1 , R E , M E
Acceleration
C PV 1 , R E , M E
Re a PV 1 , R E , M E , t
C PV 3 , R E , M E
t
Time
1st +ve Harmonic

3rd +ve Harmonic
5th +ve Harmonic
Figure 3.34,
Acceleration
where, the Real Component of aPV is equal to the amplitude spectrum of gPV as follows,
Re a PV n PV , R E , M E ,
T PV n PV , R E , M E
2
C PV n PV , R E , M E
n PV
Harmonic
Real Component
Harmonic Amplitude Spectrum
Figure 3.35,
Representing equation (3.371) graphically yields,
252
T PV 1 , R E , M E
2
Acceleration
g PV n PV , R E , M E , t
t
Time
Figure 3.36,
A useful graphical representation for KR H presented in chapter 3.6 is termed the Critical
Harmonic Operator with composition as follows,
1
T r n PV, r , r , M
K R( r , r , M , t )
r n PV, r , r , M
2.
i .
n PV
1 .
e
n PV
(3.372)
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
(3.373)
T r( 1 , r , r , M )
K R_av ( r , r , M )
r n PV, r , r , M .
K R( r , r , M , t ) d t
H
0 .( s )
(3.374)
Note that the average value of KR H over the fundamental period r [KR av H], is
approximately 98.2(%) when N = 21. This indicates rapid convergence with vanishing error as
|nPV| n. Representing equation (3.373) graphically yields,
Unit Harmonic Operator
K R_av_H R E , r , M E
1
K R_H R E , r , M E , t
0.5
t
Time
Figure 3.37,
253
NOTES
254
APPENDIX 3.G
[76] Results,
CONVERSION OF NEUTRON POSITIVE CORE RADIUS
The Mean Square (MS) charge radius of a free Neutron r, as derived in chapter 3.9, may
be converted to the conventional MS charge radius KX representation of -fm2. This may be
achieved by utilising the Neutron Charge Distribution ch curve as follows,
bi
1 .
ch ( r )
1 . b1.
e
3
3 a1
ai
.e
i= 1 a i
a1
b2
.e
a2
a2
(3.375)
where, a1, a2, b1 and b2 are mathematical constants physically satisfying the preceding equation,
r denotes the magnitude of the radial position vector and fm denotes femtometre [x10-15(m)].
Recognising that,
ch ( r ) d r d r d r 4 . .
2
r . ch ( r ) d r b 1
b2 0
3
4
2
r . ch ( r ) d r . a 1
2
4. .
0
(3.376)
2
a 2 .b 1
(3.377)
-3
where, Q denotes the charge density per unit Coulomb and takes the units fm . Subsequently,
equation (3.376) yields the relationship b2 = -b1 such that,
2
b1
ch ( r )
1 .
e
a1
a2
1 .
e
3
a1
a2
(3.378)
r represents the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) equilibrium radius and intersects the radial axis
at r = r in accordance with equation (3.375). Hence, an expression for r may be defined in
terms of a1, a2 and b1 as follows,
r
b1
1 .
e
a1
1 .
e
a2
a1
a1
3 . ln
a2
a2
a 1.a 2
2
a2
(3.379)
2
2
a1
(3.380)
The maximum value of ch occurs at r = 0 and may be determined (assuming spherical

Neutron geometry) according to,
V( r )
4. . 3
r
3
(3.381)
Hence, the Charge Density per unit Coulomb Q(r) is expressed by [Q(r) C/m3 * 1/C = 1/m3]:
Q( r )
1
V( r )
(3.382)
255
Therefore, the Charge Density per unit Coulomb per unit Quark Qch(r) may be written as,
Q( r )
Q ch ( r )
(3.383)
Evaluating yields,
1
Q ch r = 0.1408
fm
(3.384)
This result may be expressed analytically by relating equation (3.378) to (3.381 3.383)
when r = 0 as follows,
b1
1
4. . r
1
3
a1
a2
(3.385)
Hence,
3
.
. a1a2
4. .b 1 a 3 a 3
2
1
3
(3.386)
The radial position rdr (as a function of r) for which the gradient of the Charge Density
dch(r)/dr is zero may be determined as follows,
2
d b1 . 1 .
e
dr 3 a 3
1
a1
1 .
e
a2
a2
2 .b 1.r
3.
a 1.a 2
. a 5 .e
1
a2
r
5
a 2 .e
a1
(3.387)
Simplifying yields,
r dr
5
a 1 .e
a2
r dr
a1
5
a 2 .e
(3.388)
Therefore,
r dr
r dr
5 . ln
a1
a 1.a 2
a2
a2
ln a 2
2 3
r dr . .
5 ln a 1
5.
3
2
2
a1
(3.389)
ln a 1
ln a 2
(3.390)
(3.391)
Evaluating yields,
r dr = 1.0674 ( fm)
(3.392)
Exploratory factor analysis, with respect to equation (3.378), indicates that an infinite family
of solutions for a1, a2 and b1 exists to satisfy ch. Therefore, we shall assume that a2 = xa1 and
a1 = r. Subsequently, the values of a2, b1 and x may be determined as follows,
256
substitute , a 2 x. a 1
3.
2
a 2 .b 1 K S
a1
KS
2.
substitute , a 1 r
solve , b 1
2
r . 1
(3.393)
where, KS denotes the MS charge radius of a Neutron as derived utilising EGM methodology.
Hence,
2 . KS
b1
3 .r
(3.394)
Substituting b1 into equation (3.385) yields an expression for KS in terms of r and x

as follows,
substitute , b 1
b1
1
4. .r
a1
KS
3 a 2
2
.
substitute , a 2 x a 1
1
3
2.
a2
a1
3.
8
2.
. x3 .
( x 1)
2
substitute , a 1 r
x 1
solve , K S
(3.395)
Hence,
3. .r
KS
. (1
x) . x
x x
(3.396)
A solution for x may be found by performing the appropriate substitutions into equation
(3.380) and solving numerically utilising the Given and Find commands within the MathCad 8
Professional environment as follows,
r
a2
3 . ln
a1
a 1 .a 2
2
a2
substitute , a 2 x. a 1
substitute , a 1 r
a1
2
3 . ln( x) . r .
factor
x
( ( x 1) .( x 1) )
(3.397)
Given
2
ln( x) .
2
1
1 3
(3.398)
Find( x)
(3.399)
Evaluating yields,
x = 0.6829
a1
a2
0.8268
0.5647
(3.400)
( fm)
(3.401)
b 1 = 0.2071
(3.402)
2
K S = 0.1133 fm
(3.403)
257
The error produced by KS in relation to its experimental value KX [10] may be

calculated according to 1 KS / KX as follows,
KX
1
2
0.113. fm
KX
(3.404)
= 0.295 ( % )
KS
(3.405)
Note: the experimental uncertainty of KX is 0.005(fm2) (as defined by [10]). Consequently,

KS matches experimental measurement precisely, with zero error. The error described by
equation (3.405) assumes an exact experimental value as defined by equation (3.404).
We may graphically reinforce the preceding derivation by substituting the results for KS, r
and x into equation (3.378) and working in dimensionless form as follows,
r
ch ( r )
KS
2.
3
3
5 2
.r . x
. e
1.
r
x .r
(3.406)
Charge Density
r dr
ch( r )
ch r 0
ch r dr
r
Radius
Charge Density
Maximum Charge Density
Minimum Charge Density
Figure 3.38,
Evaluating ch at specific conditions yields the appropriate results,
ch r 0
0.1408
ch r
= 5.768.10
12
ch 10 .( fm)
1
3
fm
(3.407)
Utilising the Given and Find commands, we may determine graphical inflections at r1
and r2 according to,
Given
258
r1
KS
2.
d r 12 3
.r
5.
. e
2
d r 23 3
r1
3.
5.
x .r
(3.408)
2
. e
2
1.
KS
2.
r1
r2
r2
1.
x .r
(3.409)
Find r 1, r 2
r2
(3.410)
Evaluating yields [r1 = 0.3766(fm), r2 = 0.6624(fm)],

r1
r2
0.3766
0.6624
(3.411)
r1
r2
ch( r )
ch r 0
d
Neutron Charge Characteristic
dr
ch( r )
d
dr 1
d
ch r 1
d r2
d
ch( r )
d r 22
d
d r 02
ch r 2
ch r 0
r
Radius
Figure 3.39,
Evaluating specific conditions yields the appropriate results,
d
ch r 1
dr 1
d
d r 22
d
d r 02
0.2539
ch r 2
= 0.5447
1.1032
ch r 0
(3.412)
259
r
4
r . ch ( r ) d r
4
r . ch ( r ) d r
4. .
0.0166
0.13
0.0705
2.
r ch ( r ) d r
0.0705
2
r . ch ( r ) d r
(3.413)
We shall perform an additional test to ensure that no obvious algebraic errors have been
inadvertently performed. To achieve this, we shall employ the exact analytical representation of the
integrand, in this case ch, as defined by standard mathematics tables as follows, [34]
b1
1 .
e
a1
a2
1 .
e
dr
a1
a2
b1
. 1
2. a 2
1
1
2
a2
(3.414)
Substituting appropriately produces,

2 . KS
b1
3.r
2. a 2
1
2.
a2
1
r
KS
1
2
x. r
4 2
3. .r .x
(3.415)
Evaluating yields,
KS
4 2
3 . .r .x
= 0.0552
(3.416)
Whereas the result computed by numerical approximation is,
ch ( r ) d r = 0.0552
0
(3.417)
Since the results of the two preceding equations are identical, no obvious algebraic or numerical
errors have been performed.
Assuming KX has zero uncertainty, equation (3.394) may be transposed and utilised to
convert KX to an equivalent RMS charge radius form rX as follows,
6 .b 1 .K X . x
rX
3 .b 1 . x
r
KS
. K .K
S X
(3.418)
Evaluating and converting dimensionally produces: 0.8071 rX(fm) 0.8437
260
(3.419)
NEUTRON MAGNETIC RADIUS
Continuing in dimensionless form, the Neutron Magnetic Radius rM may be usefully

approximated to high computational precision {to within 3.2 x10-3(%) of the experimental result
[0.879(fm)]} [56] utilising ch, r and rdr. Firstly, recognising that d2ch(rdr/r)/dr2 = 0 and
graphing over the domain r r 1.8(fm),
r dr
r dr
d2
d r2
ch( r )
r
Radius
Figure 3.40,
Provokes the solution,
Given
r dr
r
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r
r M
(3.420)
Find r M
(3.421)
Evaluating and converting dimensionally produces,

rM = 0.87897(fm)
(3.422)
Visualising graphically over the domain r r 1.8(fm) yields,

r M
r dr
ch r M
ch( r )
r
Radius
Figure 3.41,
261
PROTON ELECTRIC RADIUS
Similarly, in dimensionless form, the Proton Electric Radius rE may be usefully

approximated to high computational precision {to within 6.2 x10-2(%) of the experimental result
[0.848(fm)]} [56] utilising ch, r and rdr as follows,
Given
r dr
r . ch r E
ch ( r ) d r
r
r E
(3.423)
Find r E
(3.424)

rE = 0.84853(fm)
(3.425)
PROTON MAGNETIC RADIUS
Again, in dimensionless form, the Proton Magnetic Radius rM may be usefully

approximated to high computational precision {to within 0.82(%) of the experimental result
[0.857(fm)]} [56] utilising ch, r and rdr as follows,
Given
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r dr
r
r M
(3.426)
Find r M
(3.427)

rM = 0.84993(fm)
(3.428)
CLASSICAL PROTON RMS CHARGE RADIUS
Finally, in dimensionless form, the Proton RMS charge radius rp may be usefully
approximated to high computational precision {to within 0.05(%) of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) result [0.8750(fm)]} [1] as follows,
r P r E
1.
2
r M
(3.429)

rp = 0.87459(fm)
(3.430)
262
APPENDIX 3.H
[76] Results,
CALCULATION OF L2, L3 AND L5 ASSOCIATED NEUTRINO RADII

We may deduce the approximate masses of the L2, L3 and L5 Neutrino particles by
inference. This may be achieved by initially assuming their masses to be approximately equal to the
Neutrino masses articulated in chapter 3.11 and solving for their radii in accordance with equation
(3.230, 3.238).
Utilising the masses of the Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrinos (men, mn and mn
respectively), the radii of the Lx Neutrino particles rx, may be determined relative to the
Electron mass as follows,
5
5
r 2 r 3 r 5
m en
1 .
r .
2
9
me
2
r .
m n
r .
m n
(3.431)
Evaluating produces Neutrino radii of,

r 2 r 3 r 5 = ( 0.0274 0.76557 2.82054) 10
16 .
cm
(3.432)
Determining the average rx radius value yields,

1.
3
r 2
r 3
r 5 = 1.2045 10
16 .
cm
(3.433)
Determining the average Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino radii produces (chapter 3.11),
1.
3
r en
r n
r n = 0.90323 10
16 .
cm
(3.434)
Comparing equation (3.433, 3.434) yields,

r 2
r 3
r 5
r en
r n
r n
= 1.33356
4
3
(3.435)
Therefore, since the average value of both radii groupings approximate unity (4/3), the initial
assumption that their masses (by matter type) are approximately equal appears qualitatively
validated.
263
NOTES
264
APPENDIX 3.I
DERIVATION OF THE HYDROGEN ATOM SPECTRUM (BALMER
SERIES) AND AN EXPERIMENTALLY IMPLICIT DEFINITION OF THE
BOHR RADIUS [76] Results,
It is possible to utilise Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) to derive the first term in the Balmer
series of the Hydrogen atom spectrum. Subsequently by inference, the remaining terms may also be
produced. Moreover, an experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius rBhor may also be
derived.
Classical Derivation of the Atomic Emission / Absorption Spectrum [57]
1. Calculate the reduced mass of Hydrogen ,
m e .m p
me
mp
(3.436)
2. Calculate the Rydberg Constant R [Joules] (Qe denotes Electric charge),

2
4
2. . .Q e
(3.437)
3. Calculate the Electronic energy level E at an arbitrary quantum number nq,

R
E nq
nq
(3.438)
4. Calculate the transition energy E,

E n q
E nq
E( 2 )
(3.439)
5. Calculate the Balmer series wavelength B,

B nq
h .c
E n q
(3.440)
6. Specify the quantum range variable nq = 3, 412 and plot the spectrum,
The Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer Series)
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
B nq
nm
Wavelength
Figure 3.42,
7. Evaluate the first term: B(3) = 656.46962(nm)
265
(3.441)
General Formulation of Atomic Emission / Absorption Spectra by EGM

Assumptions:
1. rBohr defines a usefully approximate position of the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) equilibrium radius.
2. The fundamental wavelength of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) spectrum of the Hydrogen atom
coincides with the longest wavelength in the Balmer series.
3. The Hydrogen atom may be usefully represented by an imaginary particle (spherical) of
radius rBohr with approximately the mass of a Proton.
4. The ZPF is in equilibrium with an imaginary field surrounding the atom at approximately
rBohr.
EGM has utilised Fourier series to develop a spectral representation of the PV model of
gravity. EGM describes the field energy induced by mass as a spectrum of frequencies. The EGM
spectrum is defined by a discrete set of frequencies commencing from incrementally above 0(Hz)
to the Planck frequency. Or in other words, the EGM spectrum is a discrete version of the
continuous ZPF spectrum based upon a Fourier distribution.
The PV spectrum is a subset of the EGM spectrum with a non-zero fundamental frequency.
It occupies a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum and is system or particle specific, based upon the
distribution of energy density. It assumes that, in the case of a spherical particle for example, the
ZPF energy outside a region with certain radius is in equilibrium with the field energy of the
particle or system inside that region.
Since EGM is based upon a Fourier distribution, the amplitude spectrum within the Fourier
distribution is usefully represented by a decay function (asymptotically tending to zero).
Subsequently, we would expect that the ratio of the fundamental PV wavelength to the longest
wavelength in the Balmer Series might relate to the total number of modes by an index value.
Since the PV spectrum as described by EGM is double sided and symmetrical about the
th
0 mode, the wavelength of the PV spectrum PV for a spherical mass may be applied to
determine the first term in the Balmer series of the Hydrogen atom spectrum as follows,
c
PV n PV, r , M
PV n PV, r , M
(3.83)
where, PV(1,r,M) denotes the fundamental (starting) wavelength of the PV spectrum of arbitrary
mass and radius.
If A approximates the first term of the Balmer series [i.e. the longest wavelength such
that A B(3)] in the Hydrogen atom emission / absorption spectrum, then a relationship to the
EGM method may be assumed and tested as follows,
Let:
PV( 1 , r , M )
A( r, M )
2 .n ( r , M )
(3.442)
where, 2n denotes the total number of modes (odd + even) on both sides of the EGM spectrum,
symmetrical about the 0th mode defined by,
n ( r, M )
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
(3.7)
Hence, testing an obvious value of = 2 yields the general formulation,

A( r, M )
PV( 1, r , M )
266
2.n ( r , M )
(3.443)
Application of the General Formulation by EGM

Method 1:
The Bohr radius is a non-physical quantum average property incorporating Plancks
Constant h and may be defined as follows,
0 .h
r Bohr
.m e .Q e
(3.444)
Evaluating yields, [58]

rBohr = 5.291772108 x10-11(m)
(3.445)
It was illustrated in chapter 3.13 that the Planck Scale was approximately 16(%) too small.
Since h is a function of rBohr and represents a non-physical quantum average property, it follows
that rBohr is approximately 16(%) too large and must also be re-scaled for application to
equation (3.443) under the EGM method by a factor of K. Hence,
3
(3.270)
A K .r Bohr , m p = 657.32901 ( nm)
(3.446)
Evaluating A and comparing to B yields the EGM error associated with the first term in the
Balmer series as follows,
A K .r Bohr , m p
B
1 = 0.13091 ( % )
(3.447)
Method 2:
If we assume rBohr to be correct and constrain the EGM predicted Balmer Series
wavelength to be exactly equal to the classical representation, then we may calculate the required
imaginary particle mass (mx) utilising the Given and Find commands within the MathCad 8
Professional environment as follows,
Given
A K .r Bohr , m x
B
mx
(3.448)
Find m x
m x = 1.68052 10
(3.449)
27 .
kg
(3.450)
Notably, mx is very close to the Proton mass and the Atomic Mass Constant mAMC.
Determining EGM mass errors yields,
mx
1 = 0.47208 ( % )
mp
mx
(3.451)
1 = 1.20316 ( % )
m AMC
(3.452)
Method 3:
267
If we assume mAMC to be correct and apply similar logic as previously (Method 2), we
may determine the correct value of ZPF equilibrium radius based upon the experimentally implicit
definition of the Planck Scale derived in chapter 3.13 as follows,
Given
A K .r x, m AMC
B
rx
(3.453)
Find r x
r x = 5.27319.10
(3.454)
11
( m)
(3.455)
Comparing rx to rBohr yields the difference between them,

r Bohr
1 = 0.35238 ( % )
rx
(3.456)
Hence, the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with the Bohr Radius to within 0.353(%) and
suggests an experimentally implicit8 definition of rBohr. Therefore, a useful approximation to the
first term in the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer series) may be given by,
A
(3.457)
NOTES
APPENDIX 3.J
8
Refer to chapter 3.13 for factors of experimental implication.

268
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
General and Specific Symbols (alphabetical order)
Symbol
A
a
a1
a2
APP
ax(t)
a
Description
1st Harmonic term
B
Ch. 3.2
B0
BA
BC
BPV
bq
Brms
c
c0
CPV(1,r,M)
Amplitude
spectrum of PV
CPV(nPV,r,M)
cq
Common difference
D
Offset function
DC
dq
Energy: Ch. 3.3
E
Ch. 3.2
Charge
e, eElectron: subatomic / elementary particle in the SM
Exponential function: mathematics
Amplitude of applied Electric field: Ch. 3.6
E0
EA
EC
EPV
269
Units
m/s2
m2
m/s2
T
m/s
m/s2
%
J
V/m
J
C
V/m
J
V/m
V/m

m/s2
Complex FS representation of EGM
domain
F0(k)
N
FPP
The
Casimir
Force
by
EGM
FPV
g
m/s2
3 -1 -2
m kg s
G
Tensor element
g00
Tensor element
g11
Tensor element
g22
Tensor element
g33
Height: Ch. 3.4
m
h
H
Hydrogen
Oe
Js
Plancks Constant (plain h form)
h
h-bar
Plancks Constant (2 form)
HSE4A R Time average form of HSE4 R
HSEx R
Complex number
i
Initial condition
W/m2
In,P
A/m2
J
Wave vector
1/m
k
K0(r,X) ERF by displacement domain precipitation
Generalised ERF
K0(X)
K0(
K0(
K0(
(V/m)2
K1
T-2
K2
1/m
kA
Critical Factor
KC
Pa
KEGM
KEGM H
Experimentally
implicit Planck Mass scaling factor
Km
W/m2
Kn,P
A refinement of a constant in FPP
KP
1/m
kPV
KPV
KPV H
Critical Ratio
KR
KR H
m2
KS
m2
KX
K
Erms
F(k,n,t)
f(t)
270
K
L
L0
L2
L3
L5
M
m0
M0
mAMC
mbq
mcq
mdq
me
ME
men
mgg
mH
mh
MJ
mL(2)
mL(3)
mL(5)
MM
mn
mp
mQB(5)
mQB(6)
MS
msq
mtq
muq
mW
mx
mZ
m
m
mg
m
m
mn
m
mn
n
n, N
nA
nB
NC
nE
nPV

Length
Mass
Mass of the Earth
Planck Mass
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Sun
Critical mode
271
kg or eV
nq
NT
NTR
NX
Nr
n
n ZPF
n
P
p
Q, Qe
QB5
QB6
r
r0
rBohr
rBoson
rbq
rc
rcq
rdq
re
RE
ren
RError
rgg
rH
RJ
rL
RM
rp
rQB
RS
rsq
rtq
ru
ruq
rW
rx
rxq
rZ
r
r
r
Quantum number
Number of terms
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) of
Polarisation vector
Reciprocal of the wave number: Ch. 3.1
Average RMS charge radii of the r, r and r particles
Bohr radius by EGM
within the SM
272
C/m2
C
%
m

Rydberg Constant
Poynting Vector
nth Harmonic term
Range factor
1st Sense check
3rd Sense check
4th Sense check
2nd Sense check
5th Sense check
6th Sense check
Poynting Vector of PV
S
Time
t
tq
Ug
Harmonic form of Ug
Ug H
Um
uq
Field
energy density of PV
U
vc
W
X
Impedance function
Z

aPV
g
GME1 Change in GME1
GME2 Change in GME2
GMEx Generalised reference to changes in GME1 and GME2
Harmonic form of K0
K0 H
K0(
,X) Engineered Relationship Function by EGM
Change in K1 by EGM
K1
rn
r
r2
r3
r5
rM
rx
r
rE
rM
r
rn
R
S
sq
StN
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
273
J
W/m2
Pa
W/m2
s
(m/s)2
Pa
Pa
m/s
J
m/s2
(V/m)2
K2
KC
nS
r
t
t0
Ug
UPV
v
vr
PV
r
PV
R
S
ZPF
H
HR
1
x
1
x
0
C
gg
Ce
CN
Change in K2 by EGM
any suitable source
Bandwidth ratio
ZPF beat bandwidth
The sum of terms
acceleration
Mathematical Constant: Euler-Mascheroni (Eulers) Constant
Wavelength
274
T-2
Pa
m
s
(m/s)2
Pa
m/s
Hz2
m
Hz
Hz
m/s2
m/s2
F/m
c
m
CP
h
PV
,
0
2
3
5
e
0
,

Planck Length
Wavelength of PV
Charge density
Field frequency
0
B
Critical frequency
C
E
Electron Compton Frequency
Ce
CN
CP
Planck Frequency
h
PV
PV(1,r,M)
PV(nPV,r,M) Frequency spectrum of PV
X
ZPF
beat cut-off frequency
ZPF
Critical boundary
mQuark Average mass (energy) of all Quarks according to PDG

rBoson
rQuark
r
275
kg or eV
N/A2
C/m3
Pa/Hz
Hz
kg or eV
m
Bibliography 3
[1] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/
[2] Mathworld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Euler-MascheroniConstant.html
[3] Software: MathCad 8 Professional, http://www.mathsoft.com/
[4] University of Illinois, http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/mathmine1.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem
[7] Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/kurs/matmod/1998h/
[8] University of California, Riverside,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
[9] The SELEX Collaboration, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0106053v2
[10] Karmanov et. Al., http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106349v1
[11] P. W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics,
Academic Press, Inc. 1994. Page 403.
[12] Particle Data Group, http://pdg.lbl.gov/, S. Eidelman et Al. Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004).
[13] Hirsch et. Al., Bounds on the tau and muon neutrino vector and axial vector charge radius,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210137v2
[14] The ZEUS Collaboration, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0401009v2
[15] The D-ZERO Collaboration, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0406031v1
[16] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/exchg.html
[17] James William Rohlf, Modern Physics from to Z, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1994.
[18] Norwegian University of Science and Technology, A micro-biography of Edgar Buckingham,
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/notes/buckingham/
[19] W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman & Co, 1973. Ch. 1,
Box 1.5, Ch. 12, Box 12.4, sec. 12.4, 12.5.
[20] B.S. Massey, Mechanics of Fluids sixth edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold (International),
1989, Ch. 9.
[21] Rogers & Mayhew, Engineering Thermodynamics Work & Heat Transfer third edition,
Longman Scientific & Technical, 1980, Part IV, Ch. 22.
[22] Douglas, Gasiorek, Swaffield, Fluid Mechanics second edition, Longman Scientific &
Technical, 1987, Part VII, Ch. 25.
[23] Puthoff et. Al., Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity, v2, Sept., 1999
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909037
[24] Puthoff et. Al., Polarizable-vacuum (PV) approach to general relativity, Found. Phys. 32, 927
943 (2002).
[25] Erwin Kreyszig, Advanced Engineering Mathematics Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
1993, Ch. 10.
[26] H.A. Wilson, An electromagnetic theory of gravitation, Phys. Rev. 17, 54 59 (1921).
[27] R.H. Dicke, Gravitation without a principle of equivalence. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363 376,
1957.
[28] R.H. Dicke, Machs principle and equivalence, in Proc. Of the International School of
Physics Enrico Fermi Course XX, Evidence for Gravitational Theories, ed. C. Mller, Academic
Press, New York, 1961, pp. 1 49.
[29] A.M. Volkov, A.A. Izmestev, and G.V. Skrotskii, The propagation of electromagnetic
waves in a Riemannian space, Sov. Phys. JETP 32, 686 689 1971.
[30] Puthoff et. Al., Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar
Flight, JBIS, Vol. 55, pp.137, 2002 , http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0107316v2.
[31] G. Arfken, Mathematical Methods for Physicists Third Edition, Academic Press, Inc. 1985
ISBN 0-12-059820-5. Ch. 1, pp. 77.
[32] J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, 1998, ISBN 0-471-30932-x, Ch. 6,
276
Secs. 6.7 6.9, Ch. 12, Sec. 12.7.

[33] K.A. Stroud, Further Engineering Mathematics, MacMillan Education LTD, Camelot
Press LTD, 1986, Programme 17.
[34] Lennart Rade, Bertil Westergren, Beta Mathematics Handbook Second Edition, ChartwellBratt Ltd, 1990, Page 470.
[35] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BeatFrequency.html
[36] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquationsSteadyState.html
[37] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticRadiation.html
[38] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html
[39] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquations.html
[40] http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/students.php/all_subjects/series
[41] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/whdwar.html
[42] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redgia.html
[43] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/pulsar.html
[44] Stein, B. P. Physics Update, Physics Today 48, 9, Oct. 1995.
[45] Simon et Al., Nucl. Phys. A333, 381 (1980).
[46] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html
[47] Andrews et Al., 1977 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 3 L91 L92.
[48] L.N. Hand, D.G. Miller, and R. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 335 (1963).
[49] A Proposal to the MIT-Bates PAC. Precise Determination of the Proton Charge Radius, August
19 (2003) Spokespersons: H. Gao, J.R. Calarco [e-mail: hayian@mit.edu, phone: (617) 258-0256,
fax: (617) 258-5440].
[50] Stanford Linear Accelerator, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html
[51] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckLength.html
[52] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html
[53] Stanford Linear Accelerator, http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html
[54] See: [13]
[55] Joshipura et. Al., Bounds on the tau neutrino magnetic moment and charge radius from
Super-K and SNO observations, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0108018v1
[56] Hammer and Meiner et. Al., http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312081v3
[57] University of Tel Aviv, http://www.tau.ac.il/~phchlab/experiments/hydrogen/balmer.htm
[58] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BohrRadius.html
[59] Albert Einstein, http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/index.html
[60] Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier,
http ://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Fourier.html
[61] http://stores.lulu.com/dge
[62] http://www.veoh.com/users/DeltaGroupEngineering
[63] Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato, Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum I, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 1: March 2006.
methods of the polarisable vacuum II, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 2: June 2006.
methods of the polarisable vacuum III, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 3: September 2006.
methods of the polarisable vacuum IV, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 4: December 2006.
methods of the polarisable vacuum V, Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 1: March 2007.
methods of the polarisable vacuum VI, Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 2: June 2007.
methods of the polarisable vacuum VII, Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 3: September 2007.
277
[70] Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato, Derivation of the Photon mass-energy threshold, The
Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?, edited by C. Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A. Kracklauer,
Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5866 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2005) [pg. 207 213].
[71] Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato, Derivation of fundamental particle radii (Electron,
Proton & Neutron), Physics Essays: Vol. 22, No. 1: March 2009.
[72] Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato, Derivation of the Photon & Graviton mass-energies &
radii, The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?, edited by C. Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A.
Kracklauer, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5866 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2005) [pg. 214 217].
[73, 74, 75] See [76].
[76] Riccardo C. Storti, The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles, The Nature of Light:
What Is a Photon?, edited by C. Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A. Kracklauer, Proceedings of SPIE Vol.
6664 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2007).
[77] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3_-_Summary.pdf
[78] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3_-_Calculation_Engine.pdf
[79] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3_-_High_Precision_(MCAD12).pdf
[80] Progress in Top Quark Physics (Evelyn Thomson): Conference proceedings for PANIC05,
Particles & Nuclei International Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA), October 24 28, 2005:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0602024v1
[81] http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/top.html#PAIR
[82] W Mass & Properties (the CDF & D0 Collaborations): http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0511039v1
[83] Measurement of the Mass and the Width of the W Boson at LEP (the L3 Collaboration):
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0511049v1
[84] Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z Resonance (the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL,
SLD Collaborations, the LEP Electroweak Working Group, the SLD Electroweak & Heavy Flavour
Groups): http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0509008v3
[85] Combination of CDF and D0 Results on the Mass of the Top Quark, Fermilab-TM-2347-E,
TEVEWWG/top 2006/01, CDF-8162, D0-5064: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0603039v1
[86] Cornell University Library: http://www.arxiv.org/
278
NUMERICAL
EGM
SIMULATIONS
279
NOTES
280
MATHCAD 8
PROFESSIONAL
COMPLETE
SIMULATION
[77]
281
NOTES
282
APPENDIX 3.K
Computational Environment
NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED
Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.

Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures unless otherwise indicated.
Units of Measure (Definitions)

Scale 1
10
Scale 2
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
10
10
15
15
10
18
10
18
10
21
10
24
10
Scale 1 .( Hz)
( mHz Hz nHz pHz fHz aHz zHz yHz )

Scale 1 .( J )
Scale 1 .( W )
( mW W nW pW fW aW zW yW )
Scale 1 .( ohm )
( m n p f a z y )
Scale 1 .( V)
( mV V nV pV fV aV zV yV )
Scale 1 .( Pa )
( mPa Pa nPa pPa fPa aPa zPa yPa )
Scale 1 .( T )
( mT T nT pT fT aT zT yT )
Scale 1 .( Ns )
( mNs Ns nNs pNs fNs aNs zNs yNs )

( mN N nN pN fN aN zN yN )
Scale 1 .( newton )
( mgs gs ngs pgs fgs ags zgs ygs )
Scale 1 .( gauss )
Scale 1 .( gm)
( mgm gm ngm pgm fgm agm zgm ygm )

( mSt St nSt pSt fSt aSt zSt ySt )
( kSt MSt GSt TSt PSt ESt ZSt YSt )
Scale 1
Scale 2
( kHz MHz GHz THz PHz EHz ZHz YHz )

( kN MN GN TN PN EN ZN YN )
( kJ MJ GJ TJ PJ EJ ZJ YJ )
24
10
Scale 1 .( m)
( mm m nm pm fm am zm ym )
( mJ J nJ pJ fJ aJ zJ yJ )
21
Scale 2 .( Hz)
Scale 2 .( newton )
Scale 2 .( J )
283
Scale 2 .( W )
( kW MW GW TW PW EW ZW YW )
Scale 2 .( ohm )
( k M G T P E Z Y )
Scale 2 .( V)
( kV MV GV TV PV EV ZV YV )
Scale 2 .( Pa )
( kPa MPa GPa TPa PPa EPa ZPa YPa )
Scale 2 .( T )
( kT MT GT TT PT ET ZT YT )
Scale 2 .( eV)
( keV MeV GeV TeV PeV EeV ZeV YeV )
Ns newton .s
Constants (Definitions)
G
6.6742.10
11 .
kg .s
.
8.85418781710
m
299792458.
s
6.6260693.10
12 .
34 .
7 newton
4. .10 .
2
A
( J .s )
.
eV 1.6021765310
19 .
19 .
( J)
m
.
7.29735256810
.
1.6021765310
Qe
( C)
0.5772156649015328
Fundamental Particle Characteristics (Definitions or Initialisation Values)

m e m p m n m m m AMC
.
9.109382610
Ce CP CN C C
Ce CP CN C C
31
h. 1
.
1.6726217110
27
.
1.6749272810
27
.
1.883531410
28
.
3.1677710
27
.
1.6605388610
27
.( kg )
c me mp mn m m
2
2. .c .
me mp mn m m
eV
6
6
3 0.19.10 18.2.10 .
2
c
m en m n m n
Note: for the Bottom Quark, the SLAC estimate is utilised initially.
m uq m dq m sq m cq m bq m tq
4.10
( 80.425 91.1876 114.4) .
mW mZ mH
r xq
0.85.10
GeV
0.13 1.35 4.7 179.4 .
2
c
GeV
c
re rp rn
8.10
( 2.817940325 0.875 0.85 ) .( fm)

16 .
( cm )
r Bohr
.
0.529177210810
10
( m)
284
.( nm )
656.469624182052
Planck Characteristics (Definitions)

G.h
h .c
mh
G.h
th
th
Astronomical Statistics
24
24
24
30
0.0735.10 5.977.10 1898.8.10 1.989.10 .( kg )
MM ME MJ MS
5
1738 6377.18 71492 6.96.10 .( km)
RM RE RJ RS
2
c .R E
2 .G
M BH
R BH
200.R S
R RG
2 .G.M BH
M RG
4 .M S
M NS
1 .M S
R NS
R WD
4200.( km)
M WD
20 .( km)
3
300.10 .M E
Other
.
M BH = 4.2937906795847110
33
( kg )
mx
mp
rx
r Bohr
Arbitrary Values for Illustrational Purposes
KR
1 .( Hz)
R max
4
10 .( km)
R max
RE
F 0( k )
K 0( , X )
R max
250
Chapter 3.1
Specifying arbitrary values for illustrational purposes facilitates the representation of constant
acceleration by the superposition of wavefunctions as follows:
N
10
B( k, n , t )
N, 1 N.. N
Re( F( k, n , t ) ) .( T )
( .n . .t ) .i
F( k , n , t )
F 0( k ) .e
E( k , n , t )
Im( F( k , n , t ) ) .
V
m
N
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( , X )
r
. n= N
N
a
B( k , n , t )
0 .( s )
a( t ) d t
n= N
285
Harmonic Representation of Acc.

1
2 .
Acceleration
a( t )
a
t
Time
The contribution (to a constant function) of the sine and cosine terms may be represented for
illustrational purposes as follows:
1
N
f( t )
a( t )
n= N
f( t )
0 .( s )
( .n . .t ) .i
(
d t .e
.n . .t ) .i
Real & Complex Harmonic Contributions
Acceleration
Re( a( t ) )
Im( a( t ) )
f( t )
t
Time

Chapter 3.2
Additional harmonic characteristics may be usefully represented for illustrational purposes as
follows:
N
E( t )
N
E( k , n , t )
B( t )
n= N
B( k , n , t )
n= N
286
EM Function
Re( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time
EM Function

2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
Im( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time
EM Wave-Function Superposition

2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
2 .
E( t )
B ( t )
t
Time
Electric Field Magnitude

Magnetic Field Magnitude
Chapter 3.3
Assuming an experiment may be conducted such that the magnitude of the local value of gravitation
is either reduced to zero or doubled, the behaviour of the Engineered Refractive Index may be
illustrated by the following equation set:
287
Note: K 0 does not refer to a change in K 0 .

2.
K PV( r , M )
G .M
2
r .c
K 0( r , M , , X )
K 0( r , M , , X )
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
K EGM_N( r , M )
K PV( r , M ) .e
Engineered Relationship Function,

2 . K 0( r , M , , X )
K PV( r , M )
K EGM_E( r , M )
K PV( r , M )
Engineered Refractive Index (normal matter form),
Engineered Refractive Index (exotic matter form),
2 . K 0( r , M , , X )
By considering astronomical objects as point gravitational masses, we may compare characteristics

(to six decimal places) as follows:
K PV R E, M M
K PV R E, 2 .M M
K PV R E, M E
K PV R E, 2 .M E
K PV R E, M J
K PV R E, 2 .M J
K 0 R E, M M , , X
K 0 R E, M E, , X
K 0 R E, M J , , X
K 0 R E, M M , , X
K 0 R E, M E, , X
K 0 R E, M J , , X
K EGM_N R E, M M
K EGM_N R E, M E
K EGM_N R E, M J
1.000001
K EGM_E R E, M M
K EGM_E R E, M E
K EGM_E R E, M J
3
K PV R E, M E .e
K 0 R E , M E , , X
K PV R E, M S
K PV R E, 2 .M S
K 0 R E, M S , , X
K 0 R E, M S , , X
1.000001
1
.
8.55887110
12
.
6.96005110
0.999999
10
2.2111.10
K 0 R E , M E , , X
K 0 R E, M E, , X
=1
1.000463
1.000927
=
0.999305
.
2.31613510
K EGM_N R E, M S
1.000927
K EGM_E R E, M S
3
K PV R S , M S .e
=1
K 0 R S , M S , , X
K 0 R S , M S , , X
= 1.000008
K 0_min
K 0_divs
K 0 R S, M S, , X
= 1.000008
Hence:
K 0_min
1 .10
K EGM r , M , K 0
K 0_max
K PV( r , M )
e
2 .K 0
K 0
K 0_min
100
K 0_min, K 0_divs .. K 0_max
288
Engineering Refractive Characteristics
K PV R E , M E
K EGM R E , M E , K 0
K 0
3
K PV( r , M ) .e
Hence:
K 0( r , M , , X )
K 0( r , M , , X )
K 0( r , M , X )
Chapter 3.4
Amplitude Spectrum of g
The time dependent amplitude spectrum of a Fourier representation of g at a mathematical point
(in Complex form over the time domain) may be represented as follows:
Note: negative amplitude harmonics are equivalent to positive amplitude harmonics as
illustrated in the graphs.
N, 2
N .. N
0 .( s ) ,
1
2
..
.
.
25 N
i .
a PV n PV, t
2 .g .
e
.
n PV
.n PV . .t .i
Harmonic Amplitudes of Acceleration
Acceleration
n PV
Re a PV n PV , t
t
Time
Real Component
289
Harmonic Amplitudes of Acceleration
Acceleration
Re a PV( 1 , t )
Re a PV( 1 , t )
Re a PV( 3 , t )
Re a PV( 5 , t )
t
Time
1st Negative Harmonic

1st Positive Harmonic
3rd Positive Harmonic
5th Positive Harmonic
Hence, the time-independent amplitude spectrum C PV may be determined by substitution of

t
1
2 .n PV.
a PV n PV, t
into
C PV n PV, r , M
which produces:
G.M .
2
2
.
n PV
Fundamental Frequency of g
It was illustrated that the frequency spectrum may be given by:
r
R max, R max R max.. R max
Hence, it follows that:
PV n PV, r , M
T PV n PV, r , M
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
.r
1
PV n PV, r , M
PV n PV, r , M
c
PV n PV, r , M
Fundamental characteristics occur when n PV 1 such that:

PV 1 , R E, M M
PV 1 , R E, M E
PV 1 , R E, M J
PV 1 , R E, M S
.
8.27226110
=
0.035839
T PV 1 , R E, M M
( Hz)
T PV 1 , R E, M E
0.244543
T PV 1 , R E, M J
2.484128
T PV 1 , R E, M S
290
120.885935
=
27.902544
4.089263
(s)
0.402556
PV 1 , R E, M M
. 7
3.62406910
PV 1 , R E, M E
PV 1 , R E, M J
PV 1 , R E, M S
. 6
8.36497210
. 6
1.2259310
( km)
. 5
1.20683210
Fundamental Gravitational Frequency
Fundamental Frequency
RE
PV 1 , r , M M
PV 1 , r , M E
PV 1 , r , M J
PV 1 , r , M S
PV 1 , R E , M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Harmonic Representation of g
Since g is physically constant and never negative in the time domain, we may model the real
world by taking the magnitude of the appropriate Fourier function. This solution is provoked by
the preceding graphs where negative harmonics produce the same results as positive harmonics.
Therefore, a generalised representation of the magnitude of g at a mathematical point over a
fundamental period may be given by:
N
21
a PV( r , M , t )
n PV
N, 2
N .. N
i .
C PV n PV, r , M .e
0.( s ) ,
T PV 1, R E, M E
25.N
.. T PV 1, R E, M E
.n PV . PV ( 1 , r , M ) .t .i
n PV
291
Harmonic Representation of Gravity

T pv
Acceleration
Re a PV R E , M E , t
t
Time
Harmonic Cut-off Function, Mode and Frequency

It has been illustrated that the mass-energy density for a sold spherical object of homogeneous
distribution may be given by:
3 .M .c
U m( r , M )
4 . .r
Subsequently, the energy stored in the gravitational field surrounding this object may be given by:
4
h .
PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
U ( r , M )
The mass-energy stored in the gravitational field denotes the Polarized Vacuum form of the ZeroPoint-Field. Where, the harmonic cut-off function, mode and frequency are given by , n
and respectively as follows:
3
( r, M )
n ( r, M )
( r, M )
PV( r , M )
108.
U m( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U ( r , M )
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
n ( r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
( r, M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
The gravitational Poynting Vector, according to the PV model of gravity, is characterised by:
S m( r , M )
c .U m( r , M )
292
Evaluating and graphing the preceding system of equations yields:

U m R E, M M
U m R E, M E
U m R E, M J
R E, M M
6.080707
R E, M E
494.481475
=
( EPa)
. 5
1.57089110
R E, M J
. 29
2.83606210
. 29
1.73968910
. 28
9.17216810
U m R E, M S
.
1.64551410
R E, M S
n R E, M M
. 28
2.36338510
R E, M M
n R E, M E
.
1.44974110
R E, M E
. 27
7.64347410
R E, M J
. 27
3.5284510
R E, M S
. 3
8.76512110
S m R E, M M
0.182295
n R E, M J
n R E, M S
28
PV R E, M M
PV R E, M E
PV R E, M J
195.505363
. 3
1.86915710
( YHz)
519.573099
=
.
8.76512110
. 3
1.86915710
14.824182
=
S m R E, M J
PV R E, M S
195.505363
S m R E, M E
519.573099
=
. 28
4.2341410
( YHz)
YW
. 3
4.70941210
cm
.
4.93312710
S m R E, M S
Cutoff Function vs Radial Distance

RM
RE
R E, M E
Cutoff Function
r, M M
r, M E
r, M J
R E, M J
r, M S
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
293
Cutoff Mode vs Radial Distance

RM
RE
n R E, M E
Cutoff Mode
n r, M M
n r, M E
n r, M J
n R E, M J
n r, M S
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Cutoff Frequency vs Radial Distance

RM
RE
Cutoff Frequency
r, M M
r, M E
R E, M J
r, M J
r, M S
R E, M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
294
Poynting Vector vs Radial Distance
Magnitude of PV Poynting Vector
RM
RE
S m r, M M
S m r, M E
S m r, M J
S m r, M S
S m R E, M J
S m R E, M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
295
Cutoff Mode & Frequency vs Radial Dist.

RM
RE
n r, M M
n R E, M E
n r, M E
n r, M J
n r, M S
r, M M
r, M E
r, M J
R E, M E
r, M S
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Gravitational Poynting Vector per Change in Odd Harmonic Mode

The harmonic contribution of the gravitational Poynting Vector, according to the PV model of
gravity, per change in odd mode may be represented as follows.
U n PV, r , M
h .
4
PV( 1, r , M ) .
3
.
2c
S n PV, r , M
c .U n PV, r , M
n PV
n PV
The following graphs show that the change in energy density per odd frequency mode is trivial, but
the cumulative effect is g. It also shows that the energy density per mode increases with
frequency.
296
S n PV , R E , M M
S n PV , R E , M E
S n PV , R E , M J
S n PV , R E , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Poyn. Vec. vs Change in Harm. Freq. Mode
Poyn. Vec. vs Change in Harm. Freq. Mode
S n PV , R E , M E
n PV
Harmonic
297
Applied Experimental Field Mode Bandwidth

The number of permissible modes fitting within practical benchtop displacement geometries N r
may be defined as follows:
1 .( mm)
r
( r, M ) .
c
N r( r , M )
N r R E, M M
. 14
6.52135710
N r R E, M E
. 15
1.73310910
N r R E, M J
N r R E, M S
. 15
6.23483610
. 16
2.9237310
Chapter 3.5
The behaviour of the EGM construct over a practical laboratory benchtop elemental displacement
r in terms of the PV and ZPF, may be characterised by the following system of equations:
r n PV, r , r , M
PV n PV, r
r n PV, r , r , M
( r , r , M )
PV n PV, r
c.
PV n PV, r , M
PV n PV, r , M
1
( r, M )
r , M )
r n PV, r , r , M . r n PV, r , r , M
v r n ( r , M ) , r , r , M
3 .M .c .
4 .
2
U PV( r , r , M )
K C( r , r , M )
ZPF( r , r , M )
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
1
(r
r )
1
3
U PV( r , r , M ) .
_ZPF ( r , r , M )
KR
r , M
1
(r
v r n PV, r , r , M
v ( r , r , M )
r , M
0
0
2 .c .
U PV( r , r , M )
h
3
_ZPF( r , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
_ZPF( r , r , M )
PV( 1, r , M )
0 , 0.0025.. 2
r , r , M , K R
n r , r , M , K R
_ZPF( r , r , M )
4
K R . _ZPF( r , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
r , r , M , K R
PV( 1 , r , M )
298
n S r , r , M , K R
( r , r , M )
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
(r
( r , r , M )
S r , r , M , K R
St ( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
_ZPF( r , r , M )
U PV( r , r , M ) .
201
r , r , M , K R
0
0
ZPF( r , r , M )
Ce
( r , r , M )
Ce
n (r
r , M )
n ( r, M )
St n PV, r , r , M
( r, M )
ZPF( r , r , M )
R( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
r , M )
n r , r , M , K R
v r n PV, r , r , M
v ( r , r , M )
N, 2
n PV
r 1 , R E, r , M M
r 1 , R E, r , M E
r 1 , R E, r , M J
N .. N
1.729554
r 1 , R E, r , M M
7.493187
r 1 , R E, r , M E
( pHz )
51.128768
519.469801
r 1 , R E, r , M S
r 1 , R E, r , M J
.
1.33585910
v r 1 , R E, r , M M
R E, r , M E
.
5.02660110
v r 1 , R E, r , M E
.
1.39724710
R E, r , M S
.
2.97920610
v R E, r , M M
13.105112
R E, r , M J
v R E, r , M E
v R E, r , M J
v R E, r , M S
( ym )
v r 1 , R E, r , M J
U PV R E, r , M E
13.105115
U PV R E, r , M J
U PV R E, r , M S
299
0.256316
( m)
13.105101
=
13.10513
pm
13.105131
13.109717
U PV R E, r , M M
pm
1.74894
0.025237
v r 1 , R E, r , M S
13.105121
13.109693
r 1 , R E, r , M S
R E, r , M M
=
7.577156
2.860531
232.617621
=
4
7.3899.10
( GPa)
. 7
7.74094810
K C R E, r , M M
_ZPF R E, r , M M
1.077649
K C R E, r , M E
87.634109
=
K C R E, r , M J
. 4
2.78399910
_ZPF R E, r , M E
( MPa .M )
370.868276
=
_ZPF R E, r , M J
. 7
2.9162510
K C R E, r , M S
123.501066
. 3
1.56573710
_ZPF R E, r , M S
. 3
8.90753610
ZPF R E, r , M M
123.501066
n _ZPF R E, r , M M
. 19
1.49295410
ZPF R E, r , M E
370.868276
n _ZPF R E, r , M E
. 19
1.03481710
ZPF R E, r , M J
( PHz)
. 3
1.56573710
. 3
8.90753610
ZPF R E, r , M S
n _ZPF R E, r , M J
( PHz)
. 18
6.40270810
n _ZPF R E, r , M S
. 18
3.5857810
n R E, r , M M , K R2
. 15
1.78829110
KR2 = 99.99999999999999(%)
R E, r , M M , K R2
14.793206
R E, r , M E, K R2
R E, r , M J , K R2
41.841506
n R E, r , M E, K R2
( THz)
167.366022
n R E, r , M J , K R2
946.765196
R E, r , M S , K R2
. 19
1.49277510
R E, r , M M
n S R E, r , M E, K R2
19
1.0347.10
R E, r , M E
n S R E, r , M J , K R2
n S R E, r , M S , K R2
R R E, r , M M
R R E, r , M E
R R E, r , M J
R R E, r , M S
St R E, r , M M
St R E, r , M E
St R E, r , M J
18
.
6.40202410
R E, r , M J
. 18
3.58539910
R E, r , M S
9.615565
S R E, r , M J , K R2
11.66707
S R E, r , M S , K R2
St R E, r , M M
.
2.78399910
St R E, r , M E
( MPa .M )
St R E, r , M J
St R E, r , M S
.
2.19383110
St R E, r , M M
St R E, r , M E
.
5.83032610
St R E, r , M E
St R E, r , M S
.
2.0974410
.
9.83425710
St R E, r , M J
St R E, r , M S
300
45.263389
162.833549
( PHz)
763.476685
S R E, r , M E, K R2
St R E, r , M M
St R E, r , M J
8.19356
.
2.9162510
17.031676
S R E, r , M M , K R2
87.634109
St R E, r , M S
. 14
3.81125810
7.251258
1.077649
=
. 14
6.84403710
n R E, r , M S , K R2
n S R E, r , M M , K R2
=
. 15
1.16748410
123.486273
370.826434
=
. 3
1.56556910
( PHz)
. 3
8.90658910
.
1.59080310
.
4.77711210
.
2.01680710
0.011474
1
=
1
1
1
St 1 , R E, r , M M
St 1 , R E, r , M E
St 1 , R E, r , M J
St 1 , R E, r , M S
2.
G .M M
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
0.999999
St n _ZPF R E, r , M M , R E, r , M M
1.000001
St n _ZPF R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E
1.000001
St n _ZPF R E, r , M J , R E, r , M J
1.000002
St n _ZPF R E, r , M S , R E, r , M S
2.
=1
G .M E
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
1.000001
=
1
1.000003
1
=1
Hence:
K EGM e
2.
G .M J
. 1
2
R E .c
G .M .
1
2
r .c
1.
2
1.
2
GSE 3
3.
K PV( r , M ) e
2.
= 1.000001
K 0( r , M , , X )
K 0( r , M , , X )
K 0( r , M , X )
G .M S
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
2
= 1.000927
Critical Boundary
50 .%
100 .%
R E , r , M J , 50 .%
Re R E , r , M M , K R
Critical Boundary
2.
R E , r , M E , 50 .%
Re R E , r , M E , K R
Re R E , r , M J , K R
Re R E , r , M S , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
301
Critical Boundary
100 .%
150 .%
R E , r , M J , 150 .%
Critical Boundary
Im R E , r , M M , K R
Im R E , r , M E , K R
R E , r , M E , 150 .%
Im R E , r , M J , K R
Im R E , r , M S , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
302
Critical Boundary
50 .%
100 .%
R E , r , M J , 50 .%
Critical Boundary
R E , r , M M , K R
R E , r , M E , 50 .%
R E , r , M E , K R
R E , r , M J , K R
R E , r , M S , K R
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
303
50 .%
100 .%
S R E , r , M J , 50 .%
Re S R E , r , M M , K R
Re S R E , r , M E , K R
S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
Re S R E , r , M J , K R
Re S R E , r , M S , K R
Im S R E , r , M M , K R
0.5
1.5
Im S R E , r , M E , K R
Im S R E , r , M J , K R
Im S R E , r , M S , K R
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
304
50 .%
100 .%
S R E , r , M J , 50 .%
S R E , r , M M , K R
S R E , r , M E , K R
S R E , r , M J , K R
S R E , r , M S , K R
S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
305
Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
n R E , r , M E , 50 .%
Mode Number
Re n R E , r , M M , K R
Re n R E , r , M E , K R
Re n R E , r , M J , K R
Re n R E , r , M S , K R
n R E , r , M J , 50 .%
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
306
Mode Number
100 .%
Im n R E , r , M E , 150 .%
Im n R E , r , M M , K R
Mode Number
150 .%
Im n R E , r , M E , K R
Im n R E , r , M J , K R
Im n R E , r , M S , K R
Im n R E , r , M J , 150 .%
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
307
Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
n R E , r , M E , 50 .%
Mode Number
n R E , r , M M , K R
n R E , r , M E , K R
n R E , r , M J , K R
n R E , r , M S , K R
n R E , r , M J , 50 .%
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
308
Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
Re n S R E , r , M M , K R
Re n S R E , r , M E , K R
n S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
n S R E , r , M J , 50 .%
Mode Number
Re n S R E , r , M J , K R
Re n S R E , r , M S , K R
Im n S R E , r , M M , K R
0.5
1.5
Im n S R E , r , M E , K R
Im n S R E , r , M J , K R
Im n S R E , r , M S , K R
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
309
Change in Mode Number
Change in Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
n S R E , r , M M , K R
n S R E , r , M E , K R
n S R E , r , M J , K R
n S R E , r , M S , K R
n S R E , r , M E , 50 .%
n S R E , r , M J , 50 .%
0.5
1.5
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
310
Sense Checks
RE
St r , r , M M
St r , r , M E
Sense Check
St r , r , M J
St r , r , M S
St r , r , M M
St R E , r , M E
St r , r , M E
St r , r , M J
St r , r , M S
St R E , r , M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
311
Range Factor
RM
RE
Range Factor
St r , r , M M
St r , r , M E
St r , r , M J
St r , r , M S
St R E , r , M E
St R E , r , M M
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
312
Sense Check
Sense Check
St n PV , R E , r , M M
n PV
Harmonic
Sense Check
Sense Check
St n PV , R E , r , M E
n PV
Harmonic
Sense Check
Sense Check
St n PV , R E , r , M J
n PV
Harmonic
313
Sense Check
Sense Check
St n PV , R E , r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
r min
0
10 .( mm)
r max
2
10 .( m)
r min,
r max
.. r max
100
Bandwidth Ratio
Bandwidth Ratio
R R E , r , M M
R R E , r , M E
R R E , r , M J
R R E , r , M S
r
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Chapter 3.6
Representation of g (in harmonic form g r ) over a practical laboratory benchtop elemental
displacement r in terms of the PV and ZPF, may be characterised by the following system of
approximations:
314
21
0 .( s ) ,
N, 2
n PV
T r 1 , R E, r , M E
200
K R( r , r , M , t )
2.
i .
n PV
1 .( mm)
N .. N
T r n PV, r , r , M
1
r n PV, r , r , M
.. 4 .T r 1 , R E, r , M E
1 .
e
n PV
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
g r( r , r , M , t )
G.M .
K R( r , r , M , t )
2
r
Unit Fourier Spectrum

1.5
T _r
1
Ideal Critical Ratio
K R R E , r , M E , t
0.5
t
Time
Harmonic Representation of "g"

T _r
Acceleration
10
g r R E , r , M E , t
t
Time

Utilising unit magnitude values where appropriate for illustrational purposes, the Harmonic
Similarity Equations may be visualised as follows:
E0 EE B0 BB n E n B
1.
V
m
E n E, r , r , M
n E. r( 1 , r , r , M )
B n B, r , r , M
n B. r( 1 , r , r , M )
0.
1 .( T ) 0 .( T ) 1 1 0 .( deg )
315
Let the EM forcing functions EA and BA be represented as Complex Numbers in Phasor Form:
(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexNumber.html) Where E0 and B0 are magnitudes of
the Electric Field Intensity and Magnetic Flux Density amplitudes respectively.
E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t
B A B 0 , n B , , r , r , M , t
E 0 .e
2 . . E n E , r , r , M .t
B 0 .e
.
i
2
2 . . B n B , r , r , M .t
E rms
1 .
E0
2
B rms
1 .
B0
2
.i
The Phasor form has Real and Complex components, as graphically illustrated below:
Electric Field
Re E A 1 .
V
m
, 1 , R E , r , M E , t
V
Im E A 1 .
, 1 , R E , r , M E , t
m
E rms
t
Time
Magnetic Field
Electric Field
Re B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 90 .( deg ) , R E , r , M E , t
Im B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 90 .( deg ) , R E , r , M E , t
B rms
t
Time
Magnetic Field
Visualisation of Harmonic Similarity Equation Operands

HSE 1 E 0 , B 0 , n E, n B , , n PV, r , r , M , t
HSE 2 E 0 , B 0 , n E, n B, , n PV, r , r , M , t
i . E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t
2
c .B A B 0 , n B , , r , r , M , t
2
.n PV.c .B A B 0 , n B , , r , r , M , t
i . E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t
2
c .B A B 0 , n B, , r , r , M , t
2
.n PV.c .B A B 0 , n B, , r , r , M , t
316
.e
.e
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
.n
( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
PV
r
2 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M ) .e
.n PV.E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t .B A B 0 , n B, , r , r , M , t
HSE 3 E 0 , B 0 , n E, n B, , n PV, r , r , M , t
2
4 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A B 0 , n B, , r , r , M , t .e
HSE 4 E 0 , B 0, n E, n B, , n PV, r , r , M , t
.n PV.E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t . E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t
2
c .B A B 0 , n B, , r , r , M , t
2
4 .i .St ( r , r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A B 0 , n B, , r , r , M , t .e
HSE 5 E 0 , B 0, n E, n B, , n PV, r , r , M , t
.n PV.E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t . E A E 0 , n E, r , r , M , t
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
2
.n PV . r( 1 , r , r , M ) .t .i
2
c .B A B 0 , n B, , r , r , M , t
T r 1 , R E , r , M E
2
Re E A 1 .
V
m
, 1 , R E , r , M E , t
Re B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , R E , r , M E , t
Re HSE 1 1 .
V
m
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
V
Re HSE 2 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
m
Electric Forcing Function

Magnetic Forcing Function
HSE 1
HSE 2
T r 1 , R E , r , M E
2 .T r 1 , R E , r , M E
V
Re HSE 3 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
m
V
Re HSE 4 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
m
V
Re HSE 5 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , , 3 , R E , r , M E , t
m
HSE 3
HSE 4
HSE 5
The preceding graph indicates that HSE4 may be considered to be the Constructive Form
whilst HSE5 may be considered to be the Destructive Form.
Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations
N
201
HSE 1_R , n PV
n PV
N, 2
N .. N
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
.n PV
1)
0 .( deg ) , 2 .( deg ) .. 360 ( deg )
HSE 2_R , n PV
317
r x
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
.n PV
1)
10.( cm)
0.01.( mm) ,
.. 10.( cm)
2
10
n EM
nE
E rms
c
Harmonic Similarity
B rms
EM n EM
n EM.( Hz)
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV, r , r , M
K PV( r , M ) .St ( r , r , M )
.n PV.E rms .B rms
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , r , M M

HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , r , M E
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , r , M J
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , r , M S
n PV
Harmonic Mode
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
1
R
cos ( )
1
sin ( )
.HSE E
.HSE E
318
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 1_R ( , 1 )
HSE 1_R ( , 2 )
HSE 2_R ( , 1 )
HSE 2_R ( , 2 )
Phase Variance
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M M , R E , r , M M

HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M E , R E , r , M E
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M J , R E , r , M J

HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M S , R E , r , M S
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M M , R E , r , M M
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M E , R E , r , M E
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M J , R E , r , M J
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n _ZPF R E , r , M S , R E , r , M S
Phase Variance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
319
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , r , M M

HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , r , M E
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , r , M J

HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , r , M S
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM ,
, n PV , R E , r , M M
, n PV , R E , r , M E
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n PV , R E , r , M J

4
, n PV , R E , r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Note: the Phase Variance has been set to enable graphical distinction between curves and at ideal
conditions, graphical overlap occurs.
320

SSE 1( , r , r , M )
.
1 ) . ln 2 n _ZPF( r , r , M )
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
.
1 ) . ln 2 n _ZPF( r , r , M )
2 .( cos ( 2 .)
SSE 2( , r , r , M )
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M ) ln 2.n _ZPF( r , r , M )
.
.E rms.B rms
n _ZPF( r , r , M ) 1
1
cos ( )
1
sin ( )
.SSE E
.SSE E
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, r , M M
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, r , M J
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, r , M M

4
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, r , M J

4

4

4
625.721384
. 7
884.903667 5.23117610
. 7
884.903667 5.23117610

2

2
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, r , M E
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, r , M S
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, r , M E

4
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, r , M S

4

4

4

2

2
321
7
3.699.10
625.721384
7
3.699.10
. 4 6.83180210
. 10
7.28183810
. 5 9.66162710
. 10
1.02980710
. 5 9.66162710
. 10
1.02980710
. 4 6.83180210
. 10
7.28183810
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 , R E , r , M M
SSE 1 , R E , r , M E
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 , R E , r , M J
SSE 1 , R E , r , M S
SSE 2 , R E , r , M M
SSE 2 , R E , r , M E
SSE 2 , R E , r , M J
SSE 2 , R E , r , M S
Phase Variance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Spectral Similarity
Spectral Similarity
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , r x , M M

SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , r x , M E
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , r x , M J
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , r x , M S
r x
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
322
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 0 , R E , r x , M M
SSE 1 0 , R E , r x , M E
SSE 1 0 , R E , r x , M J
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 0 , R E , r x , M S
SSE 2
, R E , r x , M M
16
SSE 2
, R E , r x , M E
16
SSE 2
, R E , r x , M J
16
SSE 2
16
, R E , r x , M S
r x
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Spectral
Similarity
.
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E , r , M M

Spectral Similarity
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E , r , M J

SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E , r , M S
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , r , M M
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , r , M J
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , r , M S
Phase Variance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
323
Spectral Similarity
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , r x , M M

SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , r x , M E
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , r x , M J
Spectral Similarity
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , r x , M S

SSE 5 E rms , B rms ,
, R E , r x , M M
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , r x , M E

4
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , r x , M J

4
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , r x , M S

4
r x
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Phase Variance Required for Optimal Similarity Conditions
4C_H E rms , B rms, n PV, r , r , M
Re acos HSE 3_R E rms, B rms , n PV, r , r , M
5C_H E rms, B rms, n PV, r , r , M
Re asin HSE 3_R E rms , B rms, n PV, r , r , M
1C_S( r , r , M )
.
1
1 n _ZPF ( r , r , M ) 1
Re .acos .
2
2 ln 2 .n _ZPF ( r , r , M )
2C_S( r , r , M )
1
Re .acos
2
.
1 . n _ZPF ( r , r , M ) 1
2 ln 2 .n _ZPF ( r , r , M )
324
Phase Variance
Phase Variance
2
1C_S R E , r x , M E
2C_S R E , r x , M E
r x
4C_S E rms, B rms, r , r , M
K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M ) . ln 2.n _ZPF( r , r , M )

.E rms.B rms. n _ZPF( r , r , M ) 1
Re acos
5C_S E rms, B rms, r , r , M
K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M ) . ln 2 .n _ZPF( r , r , M )
.E rms.B rms. n _ZPF( r , r , M ) 1
Re asin
Phase Variance
Phase Variance
4C_H E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , r , M E
5C_H E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , r , M E
n PV
Harmonic
Phase Variance
Phase Variance
2
4C_S E rms , B rms , R E , r x , M E
5C_S E rms , B rms , R E , r x , M E
r x
325
4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M M
4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M J
4C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M M , R E, r , M M
4C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M J , R E, r , M J
5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M M
5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M J
5C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M M , R E, r , M M
5C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M J , R E, r , M J
90
90
1C_S R E, r , M M
1C_S R E, r , M J
90
90
2C_S R E, r , M M
2C_S R E, r , M J
4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M M
4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M J
5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M M
5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M J
4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M E
4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M S
4C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E
4C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M S , R E, r , M S
5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M E
5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, r , M S
5C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E

1C_S R E, r , M E
180 180
180 180
90
90
90
90
180 180
( deg )
180 180
90
90
90
90
5C_H E rms , B rms , n _ZPF R E, r , M S , R E, r , M S
1C_S R E, r , M S
90
90
2C_S R E, r , M E
2C_S R E, r , M S
90
90
4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M E
4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M S
5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M E
5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, r , M S

Given
SSE 4 E rms,
SSE 5 E rms,
E rms
E rms
c
E rms
c
, 0.( deg ) , R E, r , M E
, 90.( deg ) , R E, r , M E
E rms = 190.811924
Find E rms
E rms
B rms
1
V
m
B rms = 6.364801 ( mgs )
DC-Offsets
SSE 4 ( 1
DC
100.( % )
DC) .E rms , B rms , 0 .( deg ) , R E, r , M E
SSE 5 E rms , ( 1
0.5
DC) .B rms , 90.( deg ) , R E, r , M E
SSE 4 ( 1
DC) .E rms , ( 1
DC) .B rms , 0 .( deg ) , R E, r , M E
SSE 5 ( 1
DC) .E rms , ( 1
DC) .B rms , 90.( deg ) , R E, r , M E
0.5
0.25
0.25
Critical Frequency
C( r )
c
.
2 r
C( r ) = 149.896229( GHz)
C( r )
326
c
C( r )
C( r ) = 2 ( mm)
Chapter 3.7
Graphical Representation, Analysis and Optimal Conditions of Similarity
4 E rms , B rms, n PV, r , r , M
4C_H E rms, B rms , n PV, r , r , M
5 E rms, B rms, n PV, r , r , M
5C_H E rms, B rms, n PV, r , r , M
N max
n _ZPF R M , r , M M
N X( r , r , M )
B C( r , r , M )
X( r , r , M )
n PV
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
ln 2.n _ZPF( r , r , M )
E C( r , r , M )
c
c
X( r , r , M )
X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
1,
1 .
N max 1 .. N max
500
E C( r , r , M )
c .K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M )
.N X( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
C( r )
PV( 1 , r , M )
C( r ) = 149.896229( GHz)
N X R M , r , M M
. 17
2.15162910
E C R M , r , M M
N X R E, r , M E
. 17
2.29685210
E C R E, r , M E
17
.
3.15778710
E C R J , r , M J
. 17
3.76223110
E C R S , r , M S
N X R J , r , M J
N X R S , r , M S
B C R M , r , M M
B C R E, r , M E
B C R J , r , M J
X R M , r , M M
X R J , r , M J
X R S , r , M S
X R M , r , M M
6.364801
X R E, r , M E
0.76984
( mgs )
0.240852
B C R S , r , M S
X R E, r , M E
9.8181
36.419294
97.406507
167.343325
N C R E, r , M E
N C R J , r , M J
N C R S , r , M S
327
23.079214
10.073108
=
8.231693
3.077746
( PHz)
1.791481
N C R M , r , M M
( nm )
190.811924
7.220558
X R S , r , M S
29.761666
=
X R J , r , M J
294.339224
. 12
3.20180310
=
. 12
4.18248610
. 13
1.53794510
. 13
3.14792110
Phase Variance
N C R E , r , M E
N X R E , r , M E
4 E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , n PV , R M , r , M M
Phase Variance
4 E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , n PV , R J , r , M J
4 E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , n PV , R S , r , M S
5 E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , n PV , R M , r , M M
5 E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , n PV , R J , r , M J
5 E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , n PV , R S , r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Harmonic Similarity
N X R E , r , M E
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , n PV , R M , r , M M
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R E , r , M E , B C R E , r , M E , n PV , R E , r , M E
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , n PV , R J , r , M J
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , n PV , R S , r , M S
Harmonic Similarity
Re acos HSE 3_R E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , n PV , R M , r , M M

Re acos HSE 3_R E C R E , r , M E , B C R E , r , M E , n PV , R E , r , M E
Re acos HSE 3_R E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , n PV , R J , r , M J
Re acos HSE 3_R E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , n PV , R S , r , M S
acos HSE 3_R E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , n PV , R M , r , M M
acos HSE 3_R E C R E , r , M E , B C R E , r , M E , n PV , R E , r , M E

acos HSE 3_R E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , n PV , R J , r , M J
acos HSE 3_R E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , n PV , R S , r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Spectral Similarity
Spectral Similarity
SSE 4 E C R E , r , M E , B C R E , r , M E , , R E , r , M E
SSE 5 E C R E , r , M E , B C R E , r , M E , , R E , r , M E
Phase Variance
328
4 E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , N X R M , r , M M , R M , r , M M
180
4 E C R E, r , M E , B C R E, r , M E , N X R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E
180
4 E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , N X R J , r , M J , R J , r , M J
180
4 E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , N X R S , r , M S , R S , r , M S
5 E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , N X R M , r , M M , R M , r , M M
180
90
( deg )
90
5 E C R E, r , M E , B C R E, r , M E , N X R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E
90
5 E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , N X R J , r , M J , R J , r , M J
90
5 E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , N X R S , r , M S , R S , r , M S
SSE 4 E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , 0 , R M , r , M M
SSE 5 E C R M , r , M M , B C R M , r , M M , , R M , r , M M
2
SSE 4 E C R E, r , M E , B C R E, r , M E , 0 , R E, r , M E
SSE 5 E C R E, r , M E , B C R E, r , M E , , R E, r , M E
2
SSE 4 E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , 0 , R J , r , M J
SSE 5 E C R J , r , M J , B C R J , r , M J , , R J , r , M J
2
1 1
=
1 1
1 1
1 1
SSE 4 E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , 0 , R S , r , M S
SSE 5 E C R S , r , M S , B C R S , r , M S , , R S , r , M S
2
Mathematical Approximations, Limits, Patterns and Series

N
N
10
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
N, 2
n PV
N .. N
n PV
Error
n PV
.
Error = 3.31435710
n PV
1 = 15.085875
ln( 2 .N )
2 = 15.085875
= 15.085874
.
1 = 4.99999810
(%)
N
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
15.085875
= 15.085874
1
n PV = 1
n ( r, M )
1
n PV
. 6 ( %)
1 = 3.31435710
ln( 2 )
n PV
Hence:
n PV
N
15.085875
1
n PV
n PV
n PV
n PV
ZPF
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
n PV
ln 2 .n ( r , M )
ZPF
Note: for large mode numbers, the error is trivial.
329
N
1
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV
n PV = 1
1 , 3 .. N
n PV
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
Considering only one side of the spectrum,
1
n PV
n PV
.
1 = 6.62871210
1.
( ln( 2 .N )
2
1
1
n PV
1
N
1
n PV
= 1.508584.10
n PV
6
(%)
1
1
1
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
n PV
n PV
n PV
.( ln( 2 .N )
Average,
N
.
= 6.62870610
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
.( ln( 2 .N )
Error,
Considering both sides of the spectrum,
.
= 1.50858510
.
1
N .. N
(%)
N, 2
n PV
.
1 = 6.62870610
(%)
It can be numerically proven that the average function is:

1
n ( r, M )
.
1
ZPF
n PV
ln 2 .n ( r , M )
ZPF
n ( r, M )
n PV
ZPF
The LHS of the equation includes the odd modes over the entire spectrum from left to right.
The RHS of the equation includes all modes (odd and even).
Hence:
1.
2
ln 2 .N X R M , r , M M
ln 2 .N C R M , r , M M
ln 2 .N X R E, r , M E
ln 2 .N C R E, r , M E
1.
2
1.
2
1.
2
ln 2 .N X R J , r , M J
ln 2 .N C R J , r , M J
ln 2 .N X R S , r , M S
ln 2 .N C R S , r , M S
330
1 . N X R M , r , M M
ln
2
N C R M , r , M M
1 . N X R E, r , M E
ln
2
N C R E, r , M E
1 . N X R J , r , M J
ln
2
N C R J , r , M J
5.557718 5.557718
=
5.45678 5.45678
4.964882 4.964882
4.694305 4.694305
1 . N X R S , r , M S
ln
2
N C R S , r , M S
A D St N
N T A , D, St N
(1 1 1 )
N TR( A , D , r , r , M )
HR( A , D , r , r , M )
N T A , D, N X( r , r , M )
N T A , D, N C( r , r , M )
H A , D , N X( r , r , M )
H A , D , N C( r , r , M )
Form Check_1( r , r , M )
N R( r , r , M )
St N
H A , D, N T
N R( r , r , M )
NT
. 2.A
D. N T
N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
N TR( 1 , 1 , r , r , M )
HR( 1 , 2 , r , r , M )
N R( r , r , M )
4
HR( 1 , 2 , r , r , M )
N R( r , r , M )
ln
. 1 . ln 2 .N ( r , r , M )
X
2
ln 2 .N C( r , r , M )
N T 1 , 2 , N C R M , r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N C R J , r , M J
. 12 7.68972610
. 12
1.60090210
N T 1 , 2 , N X R M , r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N X R J , r , M J
. 17 1.57889410
. 17
1.07581410
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R M , r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R J , r , M J
N T 1 , 2 , N C R E, r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N C R S , r , M S
N T 1 , 2 , N X R E, r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N X R S , r , M S
. 17 1.88111510
. 17
1.14842610
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R E, r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R S , r , M S
. 18 8.57004510
. 18
5.17408410
. 18 7.16489910
. 18
4.83975610
. 12 1.57396110
. 13
2.09124310
N TR 1 , 1 , R M , r , M M
. 4
6.72005410
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R M , r , M M
. 37
9.36929710
N TR 1 , 1 , R E, r , M E
. 4
5.49159510
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R E, r , M E
. 38
1.07084610
. 4
2.05325110
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R J , r , M J
N TR 1 , 1 , R S , r , M S
. 4
1.19514810
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R S , r , M S
HR 1 , 2 , R M , r , M M
. 9
4.51591310
N TR 1 , 1 , R J , r , M J
HR 1 , 2 , R E, r , M E
HR 1 , 2 , R J , r , M J
HR 1 , 2 , R S , r , M S
. 38
2.05343110
. 38
2.93782710
. 9
3.01576110
. 8
4.21583910
. 8
1.42837810
1
Form Check_1 R M , r , M M =
1
1
Form Check_1 R J , r , M J =
1
331
Form Check_2 R M , r , M M
Form Check_2 R E, r , M E
Form Check_2 R J , r , M J
Form Check_2 R S , r , M S
Form Check_3 R M , r , M M
Form Check_3 R E, r , M E
Form Check_3 R J , r , M J
Form Check_3 R S , r , M S
Form Check_1 R E, r , M E =
Form Check_1 R S , r , M S =
1
=
1
1
1
1
1
Casimir Force
A PP( r )
4 . .r
F PV( r , r , M )
F PP( r , r )
.h .c .A PP( r )
A PP( r ) .U PV( r , r , M ) .
4
480.r
N C( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
Casimir force per unit area,
.ln
N X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
Casimir force per unit area,
F PP R M , r
F PV R M , r , M M
A PP R M
A PP R M
F PP R E, r
A PP R E
F PP R J , r
1.300126
F PV R E, r , M E
1.300126
A PP R E
1.300126
( fPa )
F PV R J , r , M J
1.300126
A PP R J
A PP R J
F PP R S , r
F PV R S , r , M S
A PP R S
A PP R S
2.349179
=
1.300007
0.074224
( fPa )
0.015617
Discrepancy between the classical representation and EGM,

F PP R M , r
F PV R M , r , M M
F PP R E, r
F PV R E, r , M E
F PP R J , r
F PV R J , r , M J
F PP R S , r
F PV R S , r , M S
KM KE KJ
44.65616
1
=
1
.
9.15864310
. 3
1.65163110
( %)
. 3
8.22480110
(1 1 1 )
332
Given
F PV R M , r , M M
2
2
.h .c .R M
K M .r
2
2
.h .c .R E
F PV R E, r , M E
4
K E.r
2
2
.h .c .R J
F PV R J , r , M J
K J .r
KM
KE
KM
Find K M , K E, K J
KJ
KE
66.412608
KM
265.650432
120.01099
4. K E
= 480.043961
.
2.10195710
KJ
. 3
8.40782810
KJ
The Proportional Change in the Value of the Cosmological Constant

By Casimir Force
( r , r , M )
8 . .G .
U PV( r , r , M )
2
3 .c
2
8 . .G . F PV( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
2
A PP( r )
N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
3 .c
St ( r , r , M )
R( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
R M , r , M M
R E, r , M E
R J , r , M J
R R S , r , M S
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
R R M , r , M M
R R J , r , M J
1.447168
R S , r , M S
R R E, r , M E
St R M , r , M M
3.225809
15 .
St R E, r , M E
Hz
St R J , r , M J
St R S , r , M S
3.225809
=
1.447168
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
15 .
Hz
1
=
1
1
1
333
By Fundamental Harmonics
PV 1 , R M , M M
2
U m R M,M M
3 .
2
U PV R M , r , M M
r 1 , R M , r , M M
PV 1 , R E, M E
. 9
1.303510
r 1 , R E, r , M E
PV 1 , R J , M J
r 1 , R J , r , M J
. 9
4.78288210
9
1.3035.10
. 11
5.22005110
. 9
4.78288510
2
U m R J, M J
3 .
2
U PV R J , r , M J
. 10
5.36192210
10
5.3619.10
. 11
5.21985810
2
U m R S, M S
3 .
2
U PV R S , r , M S
PV 1 , R S , M S
r 1 , R S , r , M S
r_Error( r , r , M )
2
U m R E, M E
3 .
2
U PV R E, r , M E
PV( 1 , r , M )
2
U m( r , M )
. 3 .
r( 1 , r , r , M ) 2
U PV( r , r , M )
r_Error R M , r , M M
r_Error R E, r , M E
r_Error R J , r , M J
r_Error R S , r , M S
r_Error R WD , r , M WD
r_Error R RG, r , M RG
r_Error R NS , r , M NS
r_Error R BH, r , M BH
.
2.45448210
.
4.09314210
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
EGM( r , r , M )
Making the appropriate substitutions yields:
.
6.56319310
5
3
(%)
9 .G.M . r( 1 , r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .r
where, any suitable harmonic mode may be utilised to produce an equivalent result. The first
harmonic has been represented here for convenience.
Note: additional notation is required [EGM] to distinguish between the harmonic and classical
representations.
Error( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
EGM( r , r , M )
EGM R M , r , M M
EGM R E, r , M E
EGM R J , r , M J
EGM R S , r , M S
EGM R WD , r , M WD
EGM R RG, r , M RG
EGM R NS , r , M NS
EGM R BH, r , M BH
Error R M , r , M M
Error R E, r , M E
Error R J , r , M J
Error R S , r , M S
Error R WD , r , M WD
Error R RG, r , M RG
Error R NS , r , M NS
Error R BH, r , M BH
3.225809
1.447169
0.029107
.
3.39425210
. 6
2.30813410
.
8.47616310
12
. 15
5.25385210
334
.
2.45448210
.
4.09314210
10
15 .
Hz
. 9
1.42948610
.
6.56319310
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
5
3
(%)
Casimir Force Correction

2
ln
2
A PP( r )
N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
3 .c
9 .G.M . r( 1 , r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .r
N ( r , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M ) 8 . .G 2 .r3 .h .c .A PP 1 N X( r , r , M )
.
.
.
.
.ln X
. .
2
4
App N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
3 .c 9 G M 480.r
2
r( 1 , r , r , M )
Let:
PV( 1 , r , M )
2 3
1 . 16. .r .h . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .r4 N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
where, KP is a planetary factor.

2
2 3
1 . 16. .r .h . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .r4 N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
St PP K P , r , r , M
St PP 4 .K E, R E, r , M E
St PP 4 .K E, R E, r , M E
St PP 480, R E, r , M E
St PP 480, R E, r , M E
99.999934
PV( 1 , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
. 5
6.56319310
. 3
100.009093 9.09300510
( %)
Hence:
r( 1 , r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
2 3
1 . 16. .r .h . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .r4 N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
2
K P( r , r , M )
2 3
16. .r .h . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
4
N C( r , r , M )
27.c .M .r N C( r , r , M )
4 .K M
K P R M , r , M M
4 .K E
K P R E, r , M E
4 .K J
K P R J , r , M J
= 6.56319710
.
.
4.09312510
PV( 1 , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
1
.
2.45448210
K P R M , r , M M
K P R E, r , M E
( %)
K P R J , r , M J
K P R S , r , M S
265.650431
480.043646
=
. 3
8.40786210
. 4
3.99605210
Additionally:
EGM( r , r , M )
2.G.M . U PV( r , r , M )
3
U m( r , M )
2.G.M .
(r
r )
335
1
3
Checking yields:
2 .G.M M U PV R M , r , M M
.
3
U m R M,M M
RM
2 .G.M E U PV R E, r , M E
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE
3.225809
=
2 .G.M J U PV R J , r , M J
.
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
1.447168
0.029107
.
3.39437710
10
15 .
10
15 .
Hz
2 .G.M S U PV R S , r , M S
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
1
2 .G.M M .
1
r
RM
2 .G.M E.
2 .G.M J .
RJ
RS
3.225809
3
RE
1
2 .G.M S .
1
r
RE
RM
RJ
1.447168
0.029107
.
3.39437710
Hz
1
3
RS
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
M
3
U
R
,
M
RM
m M
M
R M r
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
E
3
U m R E, M E
RE
R E r
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
J
3
U
R
,
M
RJ
m J
J
R J r
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
S
3
U m R S, M S
RS
R S r
1
3
RM
1
3
1
1
3
1
=
1
1
3
1
3
RJ
0
0
(%)
1
3
RE
1
3
RS
336
EGM R M , r , M M .
EGM R E, r , M E
.
3
U m R M, M M
RM
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE
1
1
.
EGM R J , r , M J .
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
.
EGM R S , r , M S
1
r
RE
EGM R J , r , M J . 2 .G.M J .
1
3
RS
.
2.45448210
.
6.56319710
.
4.09312510
.
3.69903810
(%)
1
3
RJ
EGM R S , r , M S . 2 .G.M S .
1
3
1
r
RJ
RE
(%)
. 3
3.69903810
RM
EGM R E, r , M E . 2 .G.M E.
.
6.56319710
RM
. 4
4.09312510
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
EGM R M , r , M M . 2 .G.M M .
.
2.45448210
1
3
RS
Chapter 3.8 and 3.10

512.h .G.m e
c . .r e
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
m
N
m = 5.746734 10
m
m gg
2 .m
m gg
17 .
3.195095
6.39019
r e.
m
m e .c
r gg
4 .r
E
m

gg
2.
r
r gg
. 28
N = 1.79861110
eV
10
h . r e , m e
45 .
eV
CN c CP
.
h .m p
.
h.
r
CP h CN c .m h m n
r
r gg
2.335379
3.081551
10
35 .
1 .
h gg
1.152898
1.521258
. 3 4.80847710
. 3 4.80847710
. 3 ( %)
= 4.80847710
337
Chapter 3.9
Representation 1
( r, M )
St ( r , M )
St ( r , M )
Ce
( r, M )
St ( r , M )
CP
( r, M )
CN
Given
Ce
St r p , m p
CP
mp
St r p , m p
me
Ce
St r n , m n
CN
mn
St r n , m n
me
Find r p , r n
830.594743
826.941624
( am)
r = 3.653119 ( am )
Representation 2
5
CP
c .m e
8 .
4
27.m e
K PV r p , m p .m p
3
128.G. .h
CN
27
2
16. . Ce
h .m e
4
2
K PV r p , m p .m p
4
CN
830.594743
826.941624
( am)
CN
830.594743
c . Ce
= 830.594743 ( am)
4 . CN
830.594743
2
4
27.m h m e
.
.
2
3
mp
4 .
16.c . .m p
4 . . h Ce
2
4
27. h Ce
.
4
32. CN
h .m e
2
3
16.c . .m n
338
. CN
27
2
16. . Ce
4 . . h Ce
4
2
K PV r n , m n .m n
CP
2
4
27. h Ce
.
.
3
4
4 . CP
32. CP
c . Ce
K PV r n , m n .m n
CP
CP
826.941624
= 826.941624 ( am)
826.941624
2
4
27.m h m e
.
mn
4 .
Representation 3
5
1
r
c . Ce
2
4
CP
27. h . Ce CP
.
.
5
4
1
1 .
32.
3
CN CN
5
r e.
1.
2
ln 2 .n r e , m e
Refinement of radii predictions,

r
.e
.
= 7.29429710
1 .r .
e
r
2
3
= 99.958131 ( % )
Accuracy in relation to utilising the NIST 2002 value.

r ,m e
Recognising that:
= 2.000178
r , m p
and that the ratio of re to rp - n is approximately
, we shall conjecture a set of physical rules as follows:

Given
r r , m e
r e r , m p
r
r
r
r
.e
1.
2
ln 2 .n r e , m e
Find r , r
Any changes in radii predictions due to refinement methods can be shown to be negligible as
follows,
r
r
830.594743
= 826.837911 ( am)
11.802437
r
. r
1 .r .
e
r
= 100 ( % )
r
2
3
= 99.974102( % )
A possible change in Electron mass may be calculated according to, let:
me
Given
r , m
r ,m
1.
r e, m e
r , m p
m = 9.112989kg 10
Find m
.
m .c = 5.11201210
( eV)
2
ln 2.n r e , m e
31
me
1 = 0.039588 ( % )
= 1.000396
me
.
m e .c = 5.10998910
( eV)
2
339
Particle Characteristics
Ce m p Ce m n
CP m e CN m e
r CN CP m p
r CP CN m n
r
. 3 1.83615310
. 3 1.83868410
. 3 1.83868410
. 3
= 1.83615310
= ( 0.995477 0.998623 0.998623 0.998623)
CP CN m n
= ( 0.315088 0.315088 0.315088) ( % )
r CN CP m p
St r e , m e
St r , m p
. 5 1.83615310
. 3 1.83881210
. 3
= 3.21927910
St r , m n
PV 1 , r e , m e
PV 1 , r , m p
PV 1 , r , m n
r e, m e
r , m p
r ,mn
PV 1 , r , m p
r , m p
PV 1 , r e , m e
r e,m e
PV 1 , r , m p
r ,mn
PV 1 , r e , m e
r e,m e
r ,mn
PV 1 , r e , m e
PV 1 , r , m p
PV 1 , r , m n
Ce
2 . .c .
Ce
CP
2
r ,mn
CN
Ce
r , m e
2 . r , m p
CP.
2 . .c .
Ce
2
CN
mp
.
2.6174110
18
35.738651
( GHz)
. 18
2.62481410
. 17 7.32711610
. 16 7.34446910
. 16
= 4.39398910
3
3
3
3
= 2.61741.10 2.61741.10 2.61741.10 2.61741.10
( YHz)
me
CN.
. CP
r , m p Ce
1
35.506976
62.803639 10.50233
r , m p
CP
.
2.49926810
17
62.425172 10.472707
r e, m e
r , m p
0.568793
mn
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3
= 2.62481410
( YHz)
me
2
. CN
r , m n Ce
1
= ( 100 100 99.993032) ( % )
Chapter 3.11
2
r .
1 . me
9
2 mp
r 0 r 0
r . 1
me
me
m
5
St
1
r ,m e
.
r 0 , m
r 0 , m
r r
340
r .
1 . m
9
4 me
2 5
1 . m
9
6 me
r .
r en r n r n
m en
r .
me
830.594743
r 0
11.802436
r
St
St
0,0
0,1
4.005149
5.629206
8.193164
( am)
13.730068
8.212157
12.240673
m n
r .
r 0
= 826.837911 ( am)
m n
( am)
1 .r .
e
r
r en
.
= 4.99870410
( %)
r en
0.095379
r n = 0.655235 ( am)
r ,m e
.
9.09712910
r n
1.958664
r n
r mp
.
= 0.589336 ( % )
r mn
r n
r ,m
r ,m
0.429333
10
32 .
cm
3.836365
r ,m
r , m
. 28
2.09392810
. 28
3.14089210
( Hz)
Chapter 3.12
r uq
m dq
3 .r xq. 2
m uq
r dq
r uq .
m dq
St dq
r dq , m dq
St sq
r xq, m sq
St cq
m uq
St bq
1
r uq , m uq
St dqn
floor St dq
St dqn
floor St sq
St sq
2
= 3
St sq
2.049066
St sq
St cq
= 3.446836
St cq
floor St cq
St cq
4.547918
St bq
floor St bq
St bq
St bq
St tq
10.216613
St tq
floor St tq
341
r xq, m bq
r xq, m tq
St tq
St dq
. r xq, m cq
St tq
4
10
m sq
St sq
5
m cq
r sq
r cq
r bq
r uq
m uq
St cq
m bq
r tq
m tq
St cq
St bq
St tq
St dq
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
St cq
r , m e
St bq
r bq , m bq
St tq
r tq , m tq
r cq , m cq
St uq
floor St uq
St uq
7.207028
St dq
floor St dq
St dq
14.414056
St sq
floor St sq
St sq
21.621085
St cq
floor St cq
St cq
28.828113
St bq
floor St bq
St bq
St tq
floor St tq
St tq
7.207028
St dq
r uq , m uq
St tq
St uq
St uq
St sq
St bq
5
St sq
72.070282
7
7
=
14
21
28
72
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
m cq
m bq
me
r
9
5
St sq .r sq
r tq
r uq .
9
5
St cq .r cq
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
r u( M )
h
4 . .c .M
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
r u mW ,mW
rW
r u mW
St W
rZ
r u mZ
St Z
rH
r u mH
St H
St W
7.178111
St W
round St W , 0
St W
St Z
= 7.914688
St Z
round St Z , 0
St Z
= 8
St H
9.44142
St H
round St H , 0
St H
1
r uq , m uq
342
. r u mZ ,mZ
r u mH ,mH
1
St W
rW
r uq .
rZ
m uq
rH
m uq
.m 2
W
m dq
m sq
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
.
2
5
St H
r uq
1.013628
r sq
0.887904
r cq
1.091334
6
1.
9
1.
3
0.11402
GeV
1.184055
m bq
4.122266
m tq
178.61407
= 1.081984 ( am)
r u mZ
( am)
rW
1.226776
rZ
0.862443
r u mH
1.283533
= 1.061303 ( am)
0.940072
rH
0.92938
r tq
1.
r u mW
1.070961
r bq
.
7.01662310
0.768186
r dq
1.
m cq
1 .
2
mH
.
3.50831210
r uq
r dq
m uq
r sq
m dq
r cq
m sq
r tq = 0.960232 ( am)
r bq
m cq
m tq = 30.674156
m bq
GeV
c
r uq
r dq
rW
rZ
r sq
r cq
r bq
rZ
rH
ru mW
ru mZ
r u mH
r uq , m uq
r ,m e
rW
r H = 1.005145 ( am)
rZ
r H = 1.09497 ( am)
rW
r tq
= ( 1.046265 0.980887 1.09001 )
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
Chapter 3.13
The Planck Scale
n h , m h = 1.001996
PV 1, h , m h
h
h,m h
PV 1 , h , m h
3
= 2.338413
1 = 0.199602 ( % )
1
K
343
Km
h,mh
h
= 2.34308
K .
K K K m = ( 0.860254 1.162447 1.162447 )
1 . G.h
. 11 ( ym)
= 4.70944610
K c3
c
. 18 ( YHz)
= 6.36576910
.
Gh
1 . h .c
. 8 ( kg )
= 6.34179210
K G
r
1 = 16.244735( % )
= 0.998808
G.h . r
K .
3
c r
r
1
K .
K . h
K . h
r .K .
3
c .r
= 0.119179 ( % )
G.h r
= 0.991785
2 .r gg
G.h . r
c
2 .r
= 0.119179 ( % )
2 .r
K . h
PV 1 , h , m h
1 = 30.866795 ( % )
2 .r gg
= 0.821515 ( % )
K PV h , m h
K . h
= 1.308668
1
= 100 ( % )
K . h
Note: these results indicate that the fundamental frequency for a Planck particle (at the
experimentally implicit scale derived by EGM) is the harmonic cut-off frequency. That is, only one
mode exists.

K . h
gg
= 4.709446 10
35 .
4 .
4 = 131.950791 ( % )
gg = 6.214151 10
35 .
Theoretical Particles
Leptons
rL
m L 2, r L
m L 3, r L
m L St , r L
m L 5, r L
9
m e . St .
rL
r L = 10.751756 ( am )
= ( 9.158498 56.785167 565.658456)
MeV
c
m L 1, r
m L 2, r L
m L 3, r L
m L 4, r
m L 5, r L
m L 6, r
m L 7, r L
m L 8, r L
. 3 2.57116810
. 3 4.68915110
. 3
565.658456 1.77698910
m L 9, r L
m L 10, r L
m L 11, r L
m L 12, r L
. 3 1.27993910
. 4 1.96542410
. 4 2.90740110
. 4
7.96673810
MeV
m L 13, r L
m L 14, r L
m L 15, r L
m L 16, r L
.
.
.
.
4.16806410
5.81788910
7.93596810
1.06103410
m L 17, r L
m L 18, r L
m L 19, r L
m L 20, r L
. 5 1.80266710
. 5 2.2992210
. 5 2.89617110
. 5
1.39382910
m L 21, r L
m L 22, r L
m L 23, r L
m L 24, r L
. 5 4.44724810
. 5 5.4320610
. 5 6.57869710
. 5
3.60724910
0.510999
9.158498
344
56.785167
105.65837
Quarks and Bosons

r QB
1.
9
r uq
r dq
r cq
9
m uq . St .
m QB St , r QB
m QB 5, r QB
r sq
m QB 6, r QB
r bq
r QB
r tq
rW
rZ
rH
r QB = 1.005145 ( am )
r uq
= ( 9.602148 21.811422)
GeV
c
m QB 1 , r dq
m QB 2 , r sq
m QB 3, r cq
m QB 4, r bq
.
7.01662310
0.11402
1.184055
4.122266
m QB 5 , r QB
m QB 6 , r QB
m QB 7, r W
m QB 8 , r Z
9.602148
21.811422
80.425
91.1876
m QB 9 , r H
m QB 10, r tq
m QB 11, r QB
m QB 12, r QB
114.4
178.61407
333.634108
493.536148
m QB 13, r QB
m QB 14, r QB
m QB 15, r QB
m QB 16, r QB
707.535843
. 3 1.80112310
. 3
987.596451 1.34714410
m QB 17, r QB
m QB 18, r QB
m QB 19, r QB
m QB 20, r QB
. 3 3.06005810
. 3 3.90296410
. 3
2.36604810
m QB 21, r QB
m QB 22, r QB
m QB 23, r QB
m QB 24, r QB
. 3 7.54927810
. 3 9.22101310
. 3 1.11674510
. 4
6.12336610
GeV
c
. 3
4.916310
Experimental Design Specifications for a Resonant Casimir Cavity

Optimal Displacement
r .( 1 1 1 1 )
r M r E r J r S
Given
R R M , r M , M M
R R E, r E, M E
R R J , r J , M J
1
1
R R S , r S , M S
r M
r M
r E
r E
r J
Find r M , r E, r J , r S
r J
r S
r S
5.358102
=
16.518308
122.49972
( mm)
855.41628
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength and Frequency

X R M , r M , M M
X R E, r E, M E
X R J , r J , M J
X R S , r S , M S
19.744081
X R M , r M , M M
18.346216
X R E, r E, M E
30.054415
32.089744
( nm )
X R J , r J , M J
X R S , r S , M S
345
15.183915
=
16.340834
9.974989
( PHz)
9.342314
Critical Frequency
C r M
27.97562
C r E
9.074551
C r J
( GHz)
1.223645
0.175232
C r S

E C R M , r M , M M
554.936781
B C R M , r M , M M
E C R E, r E, M E
550.421992
B C R E, r E, M E
141.888993
B C R J , r J , M J
E C R J , r J , M J
92.476743
E C R S , r S , M S
B C R S , r S , M S
18.510699
=
18.360101
4.732907
( mgs )
3.084692
Target Resonant Field Pressure at Similarity Characteristics Specified Above

U PV R E, r , M M
2.860531
U PV R E, r , M E
232.617621
=
U PV R E, r , M J
( GPa)
4
7.3899.10
. 7
7.74094810
U PV R E, r , M S
Appendix 3.D
Derivation of Lepton Radii
Given
5
1
r
c . Ce
2.
CP
CN
CN
5
1 . me
r r .
9
2 mp
r r
1 . m
9
4 me
r en r n r n
r .
27. h Ce CP
.
5
4
1 .
32.
4
r .
m en
me
1 . m
9
6 me
2
r .
m n
m
r .
m n
.e
346
.e
r
r
r
0.011806
0.830596
0.826838
.
8.21650110
r en
r en
r n
r n
r n
r n
1 .r .
e
r
3
100
( fm)
0.012241
1 .r .
e
r
.
9.54036910
.
6.55581610
1.
.
1.95879510
= 100 ( % )
100
r
r
Given
r , m
r ,m
1.
r e, m e
r , m p
ln 2.n r e , m e
Find m
m .c = 0.511534 ( MeV )
m e .c = 0.510999 ( MeV )
1 = 0.104669 ( % )
me
Appendix 3.E
Derivation of Quark and Boson Mass-Energies and Radii
r uq
3 .r xq. 2
m dq
m uq
r dq
r uq .
m dq
St dq
r dq , m dq
St sq
r xq, m sq
St cq
m uq
St bq
St tq
347
1
r uq , m uq
. r xq, m cq
r xq, m bq
r xq, m tq
m sq
St sq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
floor St tq
m cq
r sq
r cq
r bq
r uq
m uq
St cq
m bq
r tq
St bq
5
m tq
St tq
St uq
r uq , m uq
St uq
floor St uq
St dq
r dq , m dq
St dq
floor St dq
r sq , m sq
St sq
floor St sq
r cq , m cq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
r bq , m bq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
r tq , m tq
St tq
floor St tq
St sq
St cq
r , m e
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
m cq
m bq
me
r
9
5
St sq .r sq
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
r uq .
r tq
9
5
St cq .r cq
r u( M )
h
.
.
4 c .M
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
rW
r u mW
St W
rZ
r u mZ
St Z
rH
r u mH
St H
r u mW ,mW
1
r uq , m uq
St W
round St W , 0
rW
St Z
round St Z , 0
rZ
St H
round St H , 0
rH
. r u mZ ,mZ
r u mH ,mH
1
St W
r uq .
1
m uq
.m 2
W
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
1 .
2
mH
.
2
St H
348
m uq
m dq
m sq
.
3.50603110
r uq
.
7.01206110
r dq
1.013628
r sq
0.887904
m cq
GeV
0.113946
1.183285
r cq
m bq
4.119586
r bq
m tq
178.49794
r tq
1.
6
1.
6
r uq
r dq
m uq
r sq
m dq
r cq
m sq
1.091334
rH
ru mW
ru mZ
r u mH
1.
rW
1.283867
= 1.06158 ( am)
0.940317
rH
0.92938
GeV
c
rZ
rZ
( am)
1.070961
m tq = 30.654213
m bq
rW
rW
r tq = 0.960232 ( am)
r bq
m cq
0.768186
= ( 1.046537 0.981142 1.090294)
r H = 1.095254 ( am)
rZ
The following two result sets are accurate to 4 decimal places:

1
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
r uq , m uq
1
r ,m e
mW
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
m en
80.425
= 91.1876
mZ
GeV
c
114.4
mH
1.
r QB
r uq
r dq
r sq
r cq
3 .10
0.19
m n
18.2
r tq
7 8 9 10
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
m n =
r bq
1 2 3 4
rW
MeV
c
rZ
rH
r QB = 1.00524 ( am )
Appendix 3.G
4. . 3
r
3
V( r )
Q( r )
1
V( r )
Q ch ( r )
Q( r )
r dr
5.
r
3
Let:
1
2
Given
2
ln( x) .
2
1
1 3
Find( x)
349
Therefore:
a1
a2
r0
3 . .r ( 1 x) .x3
.
2
8
1 x x
2
1
r .
x
KS
0 .( fm)
r max
1.8.( fm)
ch ( r )
KS
2.
3
1.
e
3
x
a1
x = 0.682943
K S = 0.113334 fm
KX
ch r 0
ch r
. e
3
5
2
.r . x
r dr = 1.067443 ( fm)
r max r 0
100
r
a2
2
0.113. fm
r
x .r
12
ch 10 .( fm)
3 .r
KS
.
2
r 0 , r .. r max
Q ch r = 0.140776
1
3
fm
0.826838
0.564683
KX
b 1 = 0.20712
( fm)
= 0.294995 ( % )
KS
0.140776
= 5.76803210
. 9
b1
1
3
fm
1 .
r
r
ch ( r ) d r = 0.071089
1
3
fm
1
1.
ch r 0 = 0.070388
3
2
fm
Charge Density
r dr
ch( r )
ch r 0
ch r dr
r
Radius
Charge Density
Maximum Charge Density
Minimum Charge Density
350
r.
r0
r dr
fm
r max
r dr .
fm
1.8
KS
2.
3
3.
5.
K S.
r max r 0
. e
1.
e
3
x
1
2
fm
100
r
ch ( r )
KS
r
x .r
r 0 , r .. r max
Let:
r1 r2
0.38
r dr
0.38
0.38
2
Given
2
r1
KS
2.
d r 12 3
3.
5.
. e
2
1.
e
3
x
1
2
r2
d r 23 3
r1
r2
KS
2.
3
.r
5.
. e
2
r1
r2
x .r
r2
1.
e
3
x
Find r 1 , r 2
x .r
0.376649
0.662409
r1
r2
ch( r )
ch r 0
d
dr
Neutron Charge Characteristic
r1
ch( r )
d
dr 1
d
ch r 1
d r2
d
ch( r )
d r 22
d2
d r 02
ch r 2
ch r 0
r
Radius
351
r
4
r . ch ( r ) d r
d
ch r 1
dr 1
d
d r 22
d
d r 02
4
r . ch ( r ) d r
0.253851
ch r 2
4 . .
= 0.544657
1.103201
0.016626
=
r
2.
r ch ( r ) d r
ch r 0
0.129961
0.070507
0.070506
2
r . ch ( r ) d r
Hence:
4 2
3 . .r .x
6 .b 1 .K X . x
rX
KS
3 .b 1 . x
6 .b 1 . K X
r X = 0.825617 ( fm)
2
2
0.005. fm . x
2
r .( fm)
= 0.147606 ( % )
6 .b 1 . K X
= 0.807145 ( fm)
2
2
0.005. fm . x
3 .b 1 . x
2
0.005. fm
3 .b 1 . x
2
0.005. fm
2
3 .b 1 . x
rX
6 .b 1 . K X
6 .b 1 . K X
ch ( r ) d r = 0.055162
matches
3 .b 1 . x
r .( fm)
= 0.055162
. x2
. x2
= 0.843686 ( fm)
= 0.019693 ( fm)
r .( fm) = 0.016848 ( fm)
The Neutron Magnetic Radius may be determined as follows:

r M
Given
r dr
r
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r
r M
r M = 0.878972
Find r M
Hence:
d r2
ch
r dr
.
ch r M = 2.93889110
352

r M
r dr
ch r M
ch( r )
r
Radius
r dr
d2
d r2
r dr
r
ch( r )
r
Radius
The Proton Electric Radius may be determined as follows:

r E
Given
r dr
r . ch r E
ch ( r ) d r
r
r E
r E = 0.848527
Find r E
.
ch r E = 1.35418110
r E
1 = 0.062194 ( % )
0.848
The Proton Magnetic Radius may be determined as follows:

r M
10.r
Given
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r dr
r
353
r M
.
ch r M = 1.43530110
r M = 0.849933
Find r M
The Classical Proton RMS Charge Radius may be determined as follows:

r E
1.
2
r = 0.874594
r M
Performing dimensional conversions yields:

r M
r M .( fm)
r E.( fm)
r E
r M = 878.971907 ( am )
r M
r M .( fm)
r E = 848.527406 ( am )
r .( fm)
KS
K S . fm
r M = 849.933378 ( am )
Appendix 3.H
5
5
r 2 r 3 r 5
m en
1 .
r .
2
9
me
2
r .
m n
r .
m n
9
1.
r 2 r 3 r 5 = ( 0.027398 0.7656 2.820647 ) ( am )
r en r n r n
r 2
r 3
r 5
r en
r n
r n
3
1.
= ( 0.095404 0.655582 1.958795 ) ( am )
r 2
r 3
r 5 = 1.204548 ( am)
r en
r n
r n = 0.90326 ( am)
= 1.333557
Appendix 3.I
A( r, M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .n ( r , M )
Method 1
A K .r Bohr , m p
A K .r Bohr , m p = 657.329013( nm)
1 = 0.130911( % )
Method 2
Given
A K .r Bohr , m x
B
mx
Find m x
m x = 1.680518 10
mx
27 .
kg
mp
354
1 = 0.472081 ( % )
mx
1 = 1.203162 ( % )
m AMC
Method 3
Given
A K .r x, m AMC
rx
.
r x = 5.27319110
Find r x
11
r Bohr
( m)
1 = 0.352379 ( % )
rx
Particle Summary Matrix 3.1
r E
2
0.69. fm
0.848.( fm)
r M
0.857.( fm)
KX
KS
0.113
fm
0.113334
1.
r E
830.595686 830.662386
=
r M
rp
848.527406
848
849.933378
857
874.594421
875
( am)
826.837876 825.617412
r
rX
r M
0.879.( fm)
878.971907
879
.e
m tq = 178.49794
GeV
c
.e
.
7.29735310
= 7.29735310
.
A K .r Bohr , m p
B
3.141593
657.329013
656.469624
( nm)
r
r
1 .r .
e
r
r
r
1 .r .
e
r
r
M Error
2
0.69. fm
1 . 1.
r M
rp 2
M Error =
r
r M
0.848.( fm)
0.857.( fm)
1
r E
KS
rX
KX
m tq .c
0.879.( fm)
178.( GeV)
A K .r Bohr , m p
14
.
4.44089210
.
8.02976710
0.062194
0.824577
0.147824
0.295867
0.279741
0.130911
14
.
8.88178410
.
1.11022310
.
3.19605810
r E
r M
0.046352
1.
14
(%)
355
1.
M Error
0,0
12
+ M Error
2, 0
Error Av
M Error
M Error
0, 1
M Error
0, 2
M Error
M Error
2, 1
M Error
1, 0
M Error
2, 2
M Error
1,1
1, 2
M Error
3,0
...
M Error
3, 1
3, 2
Error Av = 0.149891 ( % )

2
. c .e
r e Ce
r _1
r _av
c . Ce
r _2
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
r _av
r _1
r _2
r _1
r _2
1.
r _av
1 .
r _av
r _Error
r _1
r _2
2
0.69. fm = 830.662386 ( am )
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
1.
r _av
2
4
27. h Ce
.
.
3
4
4 . CN
32. CN
r _1
2
4
27. h Ce
.
.
3
4
4 . CP
32. CP
r _2
1 .
r _av
r _Error
c . Ce
r _2
r _1
1.
= 12.03985 ( am)
r _1
r _2
r _1
r _2
r _av r _av
r
830.59568
830.594743
826.837876
826.941624
830.595212
.
4.68527810
826.88975
1.
2
K X
rX KX
rX KX
K X
rX KX
K X
r _Error
2
6 .b 1 .K X . x
rX KX
2
3 .b 1 . x
r X_av
K X
rX KX
( %)
2
0.005. fm
K X
r X_av
K X
rX KX
843.685579
807.144886
r X_av
825.415232
r X_av
18.270346
.
r X_Error = 1.11022310
m gg = 6.39019 10
1=
0.051874
. 3 ( YHz)
r , m p = 2.61740910
r X_av
r _Error
( am)
14
( %)
45 .
eV
( am)
r X_Error
.
m = 5.74673410
28
2 .r e
h
45 .
eV
K X
r X_av
= 1.152898
2
r X_av
m = 3.195095 10
5
m
m e .c
10
rX KX
5
2 . 4 .r e
.
eV
m
m e .c
45 .
= 1.521258
2
Also, see Chapter 3.11 - 3.13.

356

The following is accurate to 1 or 2 decimal places (as implied by the results):
r , m p
r ,mn
r ,mn
r ,m e
r , m e
0.5
r en , m en
r en , m en
0.5
r L, m L 2 , r L
r L, m L 2 , r L
r L, m L 3 , r L
r L, m L 3 , r L
r ,m
r , m p
r ,m
r n , m n
r n , m n
r L, m L 5 , r L
r L, m L 5 , r L
r ,m
10
r , m
r n , m n
1
12
12
r ,m e
r n , m n
r uq , m uq
r uq , m uq
= 14
r dq , m dq
14
r dq , m dq
28
r sq , m sq
r sq , m sq
42
5
6
=
6
7
7
14
21
r cq , m cq
56
r cq , m cq
28
r bq , m bq
70
r bq , m bq
35
r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
84
r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
42
98
49
112
r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
56
r W,mW
126
r W,mW
63
r Z, m Z
140
r Z, m Z
70
r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
r H, m H
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
r tq , m tq
357
r , m p
r ,mn
r , m e
0.07
r en , m en
0.07
r L, m L 2 , r L
0.14
r L, m L 3 , r L
0.14
0.29
r ,m
0.43
14
r n , m n
0.57
r L, m L 5 , r L
0.57
14
0.71
r , m
1
r uq , m uq
r n , m n
r uq , m uq
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
0.86
=
0.86
r bq , m bq
r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
0.07
0.07
1
7
r cq , m cq
7
4
7
4
0.14
0.14
0.29
= 0.43
0.57
0.57
0.71
0.86
r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
0.86
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
10
6
7
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
358

gg
4.709446
6.214151
10
35 .
1 .
K . h gg
1.319508
m gg
11.805507
mp
. 4
5.10998910
830.595686
mn
0.938272
826.837876
0.939565
8.216501
r en
12.241488
m en
0.095404
r n
10
45 .
eV
3 .10
0.768186
m uq =
( am)
1.091334
4
1.9.10
1.958795
0.887904
r sq
1.776989
m n
1.013628
r dq
0.0182
. 3
3.50603110
m dq
. 3
7.01206110
m sq
0.113946
r cq
1.070961
m cq
1.183285
r bq
0.92938
m bq
4.119586
r tq
1.283867
m tq
rW
1.06158
mW
91.1876
mZ
114.4
0.940317
rZ
rH
GeV
c
178.49794
80.425
mH
m L 2, r L
r QB
6.39019
0.105658
m n
0.655582
r n
rL
3.195095
me
r uq
.
9.15849810
m L 3, r L
10.751756
1.00524
( am)
0.056785
m L 5, r L
0.565658
m QB 5 , r QB
9.604416
m QB 6 , r QB
21.816575
GeV
c
3
Ce CP CN C C = 2.42631.10 1.32141 1.319591 11.734441 0.697721 ( fm)
.
Ce CP CN C C = 7.76344110
1.425486 1.427451 0.160523 2.699721 ( YHz)
359
Comparison Tables
r , m e
. 3
5.23406410
r ,m e
. 3
2.61740910
r , m p
r ,mn
. 3
2.62481410
r ,mn
r ,m
. 4
2.09331310
r ,m
r , m
. 4
3.14077610
r ,m
52.002066
r en , m en
. 3
5.23406410
r en , m en
78.023133
r n , m n
. 4
2.09331310
r n , m n
13.002457
r n , m n
. 4
3.14077610
r n , m n
r , m p
r uq , m uq
= 3.66384510
.
( YHz)
1
R M,M M
13.002457
6.502164
6.52056
52.002066
78.023133
. r uq , m uq
= 91.017198
r dq , m dq
91.017198
r dq , m dq
. 4
3.66384510
r sq , m sq
. 4
7.3276910
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
. 5
1.09915310
r cq , m cq
364.068792
r bq , m bq
. 5
1.46553810
r bq , m bq
910.17198
r tq , m tq
.
3.66384510
r tq , m tq
637.120386
r W,mW
. 5
2.56469110
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
. 5
2.93107610
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
. 5
3.2974610
r H, m H
r ,m e
r , m e
r , m p
r , m p
r ,mn
r ,m
R E, M E
273.051594
728.137584
819.154782
r ,mn
5.037614
r ,m
5.051867
10.723101
5.362322
5.377493
40.2891
r , m
42.886002
r en , m en
60.449171
r en , m en
64.345524
r n , m n
10.073778
r n , m n
10.723101
r ,m
r n , m n
1
10.073778
182.034396
40.2891
60.449171
. r uq , m uq
= 70.516448
r dq , m dq
70.516448
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r tq , m tq
r W,mW
r n , m n
1
R J, M J
141.032895
64.345524
. r uq , m uq
= 75.061704
r dq , m dq
75.061704
r sq , m sq
211.549343
42.886002
150.123408
225.185113
282.065791
r cq , m cq
300.246817
705.164477
r bq , m bq
750.617042
493.615134
r tq , m tq
525.431929
564.131581
r W,mW
634.648029
r Z, m Z
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r H, m H
360
600.493634
675.555338
r , m e
r , m p
r ,mn
r ,m
4.059933
32.378335
r en , m en
48.579976
r n , m n
R S, M S
4.048478
r , m
r n , m n
8.095792
8.095792
32.378335
48.579976
. r uq , m uq
= 56.670543
r dq , m dq
56.670543
r sq , m sq
113.341086
170.011629
r cq , m cq
226.682172
r bq , m bq
566.70543
r tq , m tq
396.693801
r W,mW
453.364344
510.034887
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
NOTES
361
NOTES
362
NOTES
363
NOTES
364
MATHCAD 8
PROFESSIONAL
CALCULATION
ENGINE
[78]
365
NOTES
366
APPENDIX 3.L
Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.

Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
PV / ZPF Equations
2.
K PV( r , M )
G .M
2
r .c
K 0( r , M )
K PV( r , M ) .e
K EGM_N( r , M )
K PV( r , M )
2 . K 0( r , M )
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
K 0( r , M )
K PV( r , M )
K EGM_E( r , M )
e
G.M .
C PV n PV, r , M
T PV n PV, r , M
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
.r
PV n PV, r , M
.n PV
PV n PV, r , M
PV n PV, r , M
2 . K 0( r , M )
U m( r , M )
PV n PV, r , M
3 .M .c
4 . .r
U ( r , M )
n ( r, M )
h .
4
PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
( r, M )
12
( r, M )
PV( r , M )
( r, M )
r n PV, r , r , M
r n PV, r , r , M
( r , r , M )
c.
v r n PV, r , r , M
PV n PV, r
( r, M )
n ( r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
U ( r , M )
S m( r , M )
r , M
r , M
1
(r
108.
PV( 1 , r , M )
PV n PV, r
U m( r , M )
( r, M )
12. 768 81.
c .U m( r , M )
U ( r , M )
N r( r , M )
( r, M ) .
r
c
PV n PV, r , M
PV n PV, r , M
1
r , M )
( r, M )
r n PV, r , r , M . r n PV, r , r , M
3 .M .c .
4 .
2
v ( r , r , M )
U m( r , M )
v r n ( r , M ) , r , r , M
U PV( r , r , M )
367
1
(r
r )
1
3
ZPF( r , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
(r
S r , r , M , K R
r , M )
( r, M )
_ZPF( r , r , M )
U PV( r , r , M ) .
( r , r , M )
Ce
PV( 1 , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
R( r , r , M )
n r , r , M , K R
ZPF( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
r , r , M , K R
St ( r , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
_ZPF( r , r , M )
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
n S r , r , M , K R
PV( 1 , r , M )
( r , r , M )
4
K R . _ZPF( r , r , M )
r , r , M , K R
n r , r , M , K R
St ( r , r , M )
_ZPF( r , r , M )
2 .c .
U PV( r , r , M )
h
_ZPF ( r , r , M )
_ZPF( r , r , M )
r , r , M , K R
St ( r , r , M )
U PV( r , r , M ) .
K C( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
n (r
ZPF( r , r , M )
Ce
r , M )
n ( r, M )
v r n PV, r , r , M
St n PV, r , r , M
v ( r , r , M )
Casimir Equations
C( r )
c
.
2 r
E C( r , r , M )
X( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
C( r )
c
C( r )
c .K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M )
.N X( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M ) . PV( 1 , r , M )
C( r )
PV( 1 , r , M )
N TR( A , D , r , r , M )
HR( A , D , r , r , M )
A D St N
N T A , D, N X( r , r , M )
N T A , D, N C( r , r , M )
H A , D , N X( r , r , M )
H A , D , N C( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
B C( r , r , M )
X( r , r , M )
(1 1 1 )
H A , D, N T
N R( r , r , M )
368
n _ZPF( r , r , M )
ln 2.n _ZPF( r , r , M )
E C( r , r , M )
c
c
X( r , r , M )
St N
N T A , D, St N
NT
2
. 2.A
N C( r , r , M )
D. N T
N X( r , r , M )
A PP( r )
4 . .r
.h .c .A PP( r )
F PP( r , r )
A PP( r ) .U PV( r , r , M ) .
F PV( r , r , M )
4
480.r
N C( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
N X( r , r , M )
.ln
N C( r , r , M )
8 . .G .
U PV( r , r , M )
2
3 .c
( r , r , M )
ln
2
A PP( r )
N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
3 .c
St ( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
R( r , r , M )
r_Error( r , r , M )
St ( r , r , M )
9 .G.M . r( 1 , r , r , M )
EGM( r , r , M )
2
U m( r , M )
. 3 .
r( 1 , r , r , M ) 2
U PV( r , r , M )
Error( r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .r
PV( 1 , r , M )
2 3
1 . 16. .r .h . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .r4 N C( r , r , M )
N C( r , r , M )
St PP K P , r , r , M
2 3
16. .r .h . N X( r , r , M ) . N X( r , r , M )
ln
4
N C( r , r , M )
27.c .M .r N C( r , r , M )
K P( r , r , M )
( r , r , M )
EGM( r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
PV( 1 , r , M )
r( 1 , r , r , M )
Fundamental Particle Equations

m
512.h .G.m e
c . .r e
n r e, m e
ln 2 .n r e , m e
5
m gg

gg
2 .m
2.
r e.
m
m e .c
r gg
( r, M )
St ( r , M )
r gg
h . r e , m e
Ce
4 .r
St ( r , M )
( r, M )
CP
E
m
1
K
St ( r , M )
Km
m
N
( r, M )
CN
Note: the highlighted equation is not included as a constraint. This is the most significant difference
between the calculation engine and the complete algorithm of Appendix 3.K.
5
1
r
c . Ce
2.
.
3
27. h Ce CP
.
.
5
4
1 .
32.
4
CN
1
CP
1
1 . me
r .
9
2 mp
CN
369
r .
r r
1 . m
9
4 me
2 5
1 . m
9
6 me
r .
r en r n r n
m en
me
r .
m n
m n
r .
Given
5
1 . me
r r .
9
2 mp
r
.e
r
r
.e
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
3 .r xq. 2
r uq
m dq
r dq
m uq
r uq
m dq
m uq
r en
r n
r n
5
St dq
r dq , m dq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
r xq, m sq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
St bq
St tq
1
r uq , m uq
. r xq, m cq
St cq
floor St cq
r xq, m bq
St bq
floor St bq
r xq, m tq
St tq
floor St tq
m sq
St sq
m cq
r sq
r cq
r bq
r uq
1
m uq
St cq
.
2
m bq
r tq
St bq
5
m tq
St tq
370
St uq
r uq , m uq
St uq
floor St uq
St dq
r dq , m dq
St dq
floor St dq
r sq , m sq
St sq
floor St sq
r cq , m cq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
r bq , m bq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
r tq , m tq
St tq
floor St tq
St sq
St cq
r , m e
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
me
m cq
m bq
9
5
St sq .r sq
1 . m tq
r uq .
9
10 m uq
r tq
9
5
St cq .r cq
r u( M )
h
4 . .c .M
rW
r u mW
rZ
r u mZ
rH
r u mH
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
r u mW ,mW
St W
round St W , 0
. r u mZ ,mZ
St Z
round St Z , 0
r u mH ,mH
St H
round St H , 0
St W
1
St Z
r uq , m uq
St H
1
St W
rW
m uq
rH
r uq .
rZ
.
2
.m 2
W
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
rL
1 .
2
mH
9
St H
r QB
1.
9
r uq
m QB St , r QB
Let:
r dq
r sq
r cq
9
m uq . St .
r bq
r QB
r uq
r tq
rW
rZ
rH
m L St , r L
9
m e . St .
rL
V( r )
4. . 3
r
3
Q( r )
1
V( r )
Q ch ( r )
Q( r )
3
r dr
5.
r
3
1
2
371
Given
2
ln( x) .
1
1 3
Find( x)
KS
rX
2
3 . .r ( 1 x) .x3
.
2
8
1 x x
2
6 .b 1 .K X . x
3 .b 1 . x
r M
KS
2.
3
r.
. e
3
5
2
.r . x
r E
1
fm
2
0.113. fm
r dr .
1
fm
K S.
KS
fm
x .r
1.
e
3
x
r M
KX
r dr
KS
3 .r
ch ( r )
b1
10.r
volt
Given
r dr
r
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r
r dr
r . ch r E
ch ( r ) d r
r
r . ch r M
ch ( r ) d r
r dr
r
r M
r E
Find r M , r E, r M
r M
r M
r M
r E
r E .( fm)
r M
r M
5
5
r 2 r 3 r 5
m en
1 .
r .
2
9
me
2
r .
m n
9
r .
m n
r .( fm)
KS
K S . fm
372
PV( 1 , r , M )
A( r, M )
2 .n ( r , M )
Given
A K .r x, m AMC
B
rx
Find r x

2
0.69. fm
0.848.( fm)
r
r E
KX
KS
0.113
0.113364
0.857.( fm)
r M
fm
1.
r E
830.702612 830.662386
=
r M
rp
848.636631
848
850.059022
857
874.696943
875
( am)
826.944318 825.617412
r
rX
r M
0.879.( fm)
879.064943
879
.e
m tq = 178.440506
GeV
c
.e
.
7.29735310
= 7.29735310
.
A K .r Bohr , m p
B
3.141593
657.329013
656.469624
( nm)
r
r
1 .r .
e
r
1 .r .
e
r
r
M Error
2
0.69. fm
1 . 1.
r M
rp 2
1.
r
r E
r M
0.848.( fm)
0.857.( fm)
1
r E
KS
rX
KX
r M
m tq .c
0.879.( fm)
178.( GeV)
A K .r Bohr , m p
B
373
0
.
4.8425510
M Error =
.
1.11022310
0
3
0.034635
.
7.38826910
0.075074
0.809916
0.160717
0.321692
0.247475
0.130911
1.
M Error
0,0
Error Av
12
13
M Error
M Error
0, 1
+ M Error
2, 0
(%)
M Error
0, 2
M Error
M Error
2, 1
M Error
1, 0
1,1
M Error
2, 2
3,0
M Error
3, 1
M Error
1, 2
...
M Error
3, 2
Error Av = 0.149388 ( % )

2
. c .e
r e Ce
r _1
r _2
c . Ce
r
r _1
r _av
r _Error
r _Error
r _av
r _1
2 r _1
r _2
r _av
r _1
1 .
r _av
r _2
2
6 .b 1 .K X . x
rX KX
r _2
1 .
r _av
r _2
3 .b 1 . x
r _Error
r _Error
r _1
r _2
r _1
r _2
r _av r _av
K X
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
27. h Ce
.
4
.
32
CN
2
. 14
2.22044610
( %)
830.702606
830.594743
826.944318
826.941624
830.648674
826.942971
.
1.34683810
( am)
2
0.005. fm
2
0.69. fm
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
1=
0.053931
. 3 ( YHz)
r , m p = 2.61722210
1.
4 . CN
r _1
1.
r _av
c . Ce
r _2
27. h Ce
.
.
3
4
4 . CP
32. CP
830.662386
12.03985
( am)
r X_av
r X_Error
1.
2
rX KX
rX KX
K X
K X
rX KX
r X_av
K X
r X_av
r X_av
rX KX
K X
r X_av
374
rX KX
K X
rX KX
K X
843.685579
807.144886
r X_av
825.415232
r X_av
18.270346
m = 5.746734 10
1 .
h gg
17 .
eV
1.152898
1.521258
r X_Error = 0 ( % )
( am)
m gg
3.195095
6.39019
1 .
K . h gg
10
45 .
eV
0.991785
1.308668

r , m p
r ,mn
r ,mn
r ,m e
r , m p
0.5
r L, m L 2 , r L
r L, m L 3 , r L
r ,m
r n , m n
4
4
r L, m L 2 , r L
r L, m L 3 , r L
r n , m n
r L, m L 5 , r L
r ,m
10
r L, m L 5 , r L
12
r , m
12
r n , m n
r n , m n
.
0.5
r en , m en
r ,m
r , m e
r en , m en
r uq , m uq
= 14
r dq , m dq
14
1
r ,m e
r uq , m uq
5
6
=
6
7
7
28
r dq , m dq
42
r cq , m cq
r sq , m sq
56
r bq , m bq
70
r cq , m cq
28
84
r bq , m bq
35
r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
42
r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
98
112
r W,mW
r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
126
56
r Z, m Z
140
r W,mW
63
r Z, m Z
70
r sq , m sq
r H, m H
14
21
49
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
r tq , m tq
375
r , m p
r ,mn
r , m e
0.07
r en , m en
0.07
r L, m L 2 , r L
0.14
r L, m L 3 , r L
0.14
14
0.29
r ,m
0.43
r n , m n
0.57
0.07
0.57
0.07
r L, m L 5 , r L
0.71
0.86
0.86
r cq , m cq
0.86
r bq , m bq
0.86
r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
r , m
1
r n , m n
r uq , m uq
r uq , m uq
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
1
14
1
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
10
0.14
0.29
= 0.43
0.57
0.57
0.71
7
6
r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
0.14
7
6
7
r H, m H
r tq , m tq

gg
r Bohr
rx
4.670757
6.163101
10
35 .
1 = 0.352379 ( % )
.
r x = 5.27319110
m
m gg
11
( m)
3.195095
6.39019
10
376
1 .
K . h gg
0.991785
1.308668
45 .
eV
me
11.807027
mp
. 4
5.10998910
830.702612
mn
0.938272
826.944318
0.939565
8.215954
r en
12.240673
m en
0.095379
r n
r uq
0.768186
m uq =
( am)
1.091334
4
1.9.10
1.958664
0.887904
r sq
3 .10
m n
1.013628
r dq
1.776989
m n
0.655235
r n
0.105658
0.0182
. 3
3.50490310
m dq
. 3
7.00980510
m sq
0.113909
r cq
1.070961
m cq
1.182905
r bq
0.92938
m bq
4.11826
r tq
1.284033
m tq
rW
1.061716
mW
91.1876
mZ
114.4
0.940438
rZ
rH
r QB
178.440506
80.425
mH
m L 2, r L
rL
GeV
.
9.15554710
m L 3, r L
10.754551
1.005287
0.056767
m L 5, r L
( am)
0.565476
m QB 5 , r QB
9.596205
m QB 6 , r QB
21.797922
GeV
c
3
Ce CP CN C C = 2.42631.10 1.32141 1.319591 11.734441 0.697721 ( fm)
.
Ce CP CN C C = 7.76344110
1.
6
1.
6
r uq
m uq
r dq
r sq
m dq
r cq
m sq
r bq
m cq
1.425486 1.427451 0.160523 2.699721 ( YHz)
r tq = 0.960232 ( am)
m bq
m tq = 30.644349
GeV
c
Similarity Equations
4C_S( r , r , M )
K PV( r , M ) . St ( r , r , M ) ln 2.n _ZPF( r , r , M )
.
.E rms.B rms
n _ZPF( r , r , M ) 1
Re acos SSE 3 E C( r , r , M ) , B C( r , r , M ) , r , r , M
377
5C_S( r , r , M )
Re asin SSE 3 E C( r , r , M ) , B C( r , r , M ) , r , r , M
1
SSE 4 , DC_E, DC_B, E rms , B rms , r , r , M
.SSE ( 1
3
DC_E) .E rms , ( 1
DC_B ) .B rms , r , r , M
.SSE ( 1
3
DC_E) .E rms , ( 1
DC_B ) .B rms , r , r , M
cos ( )
1
SSE 5 , DC_E, DC_B , E rms , B rms , r , r , M
sin ( )
Calculation Results
K PV R E, M M
K PV R E, M E
K PV R E, M J
K PV R E, 2 .M M
K PV R E, 2 .M E
K PV R E, 2 .M J
K 0 R E, M M
K 0 R E, M E
K 0 R E, M J
K 0 R E, M M
K 0 R E, M E
K 0 R E, M J
K EGM_N R E, M M
K EGM_N R E, M E
K EGM_N R E, M J
1.000001
K EGM_E R E, M M
K EGM_E R E, M E
K EGM_E R E, M J
1.000001
1
.
8.55887110
1
12
.
6.96005110
K PV R E, M S
K PV R E, 2 .M S
3
K PV R E, M E .e
K PV R S , M S
3.
K 0 R E , M E
K 0 R S , M S
PV 1 , R E, M M
PV 1 , R E, M E
K 0 R E, M E
= 1.000008
.
8.27226110
=
=1
0.035839
K 0 R E , M E
( Hz)
K 0 R S, M S
2.484128
T PV 1 , R E, M S
PV 1 , R E, M M
. 7
3.62406910
PV 1 , R E, M J
PV 1 , R E, M S
R E, M M
R E, M E
R E, M J
R E, M S
. 6
8.36497210
. 6
1.2259310
1.000927
K EGM_E R E, M S
U m R E, M E
U m R E, M J
27.902544
4.089263
6.080707
494.481475
=
. 5
1.57089110
. 8
1.64551410
. 29
2.83606210
n R E, M M
. 28
2.36338510
. 29
1.73968910
n R E, M E
. 28
9.17216810
n R E, M J
. 28
4.2341410
n R E, M S
378
(s)
0.402556
U m R E, M S
. 5
1.20683210
120.885935
U m R E, M M
( km)
.
2.31613510
K EGM_N R E, M S
T PV 1 , R E, M E
PV 1 , R E, M S
0.999305
= 1.000008
T PV 1 , R E, M J
PV 1 , R E, M E
K 0 R S , M S
0.244543
PV 1 , R E, M J
1.000927
K 0 R E, M S
T PV 1 , R E, M M
7
2.2111.10
1.000463
K 0 R E, M S
=1
0.999999
10
( EPa)
. 28
1.44974110
. 27
7.64347410
. 27
3.5284510
R E, M M
R E, M E
. 3
1.86915710
R E, M S
. 3
8.76512110
S m R E, M M
0.182295
S m R E, M J
( YHz)
S m R E, M S
PV R E, M J
.
4.70941210
N r R E, M E
YW
N r R E, M J
cm
. 6
4.93312710
r 1 , R E, r , M E
r 1 , R E, r , M J
1.729554
r 1 , R E, r , M M
7.493187
r 1 , R E, r , M E
( pHz )
519.469801
r 1 , R E, r , M S
. 14
6.52135710
N r R E, M S
51.128768
r 1 , R E, r , M J
.
1.33585910
v r 1 , R E, r , M M
R E, r , M E
.
5.02660110
v r 1 , R E, r , M E
.
1.39724710
R E, r , M J
R E, r , M S
.
2.97920610
v R E, r , M M
13.105112
v R E, r , M E
v R E, r , M J
K C R E, r , M J
K C R E, r , M S
v r 1 , R E, r , M J
. 16
2.9237310
7.577156
=
pm
U PV R E, r , M E
13.105115
U PV R E, r , M J
U PV R E, r , M S
1.74894
0.256316
13.105101
=
13.10513
pm
13.105131
13.109717
2.860531
232.617621
=
.
2.78399910
. 7
7.74094810
_ZPF R E, r , M E
( MPa .M )
_ZPF R E, r , M J
. 7
2.9162510
( GPa)
. 4
7.389910
_ZPF R E, r , M M
87.634109
( m)
0.025237
U PV R E, r , M M
1.077649
=
. 15
6.23483610
v r 1 , R E, r , M S
13.105121
K C R E, r , M M
K C R E, r , M E
( ym )
13.109693
v R E, r , M S
. 15
1.73310910
r 1 , R E, r , M S
R E, r , M M
=
( YHz)
. 3
1.86915710
. 3
8.76512110
PV R E, M S
r 1 , R E, r , M M
519.573099
=
N r R E, M M
14.824182
=
195.505363
PV R E, M E
519.573099
=
R E, M J
S m R E, M E
PV R E, M M
195.505363
123.501066
370.868276
=
. 3
1.56573710
_ZPF R E, r , M S
. 3
8.90753610
n _ZPF R E, r , M M
. 19
1.49295410
( PHz)
KR2 = 99.99999999999999(%)
ZPF R E, r , M M
ZPF R E, r , M E
ZPF R E, r , M J
ZPF R E, r , M S
123.501066
n _ZPF R E, r , M E
370.868276
=
. 3
1.56573710
( PHz)
n _ZPF R E, r , M J
. 3
8.90753610
n _ZPF R E, r , M S
379
. 19
1.03481710
. 18
6.40270810
. 18
3.5857810
R E, r , M M , K R2
R E, r , M E, K R2
R E, r , M J , K R2
41.841506
167.366022
n S R E, r , M M , K R2
n S R E, r , M E, K R2
n S R E, r , M J , K R2
R R E, r , M M
=
R R E, r , M J
R R E, r , M S
St R E, r , M M
St R E, r , M J
R E, r , M J
. 18
3.58539910
R E, r , M S
8.19356
S R E, r , M E, K R2
9.615565
S R E, r , M J , K R2
11.66707
S R E, r , M S , K R2
St R E, r , M M
St R E, r , M E
( MPa .M )
St R E, r , M J
St R E, r , M M
St R E, r , M E
.
5.83032610
St R E, r , M E
.
2.0974410
St R E, r , M S
.
9.83425710
St 1 , R E, r , M M
St 1 , R E, r , M E
St 1 , R E, r , M J
St 1 , R E, r , M S
2.
e
2.
G .M M
. 1
2
.
REc
G .M J
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
St R E, r , M J
0.011474
1
=
1
1
1
1.000001
St n _ZPF R E, r , M J , R E, r , M J
1.000002
St n _ZPF R E, r , M S , R E, r , M S
=1
e
2.
= 1.000001
G .M S
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
( PHz)
. 3
8.90658910
.
2.01680710
1.000001
G .M E
. 1
2
.
REc
. 3
1.56556910
St n _ZPF R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E
2.
370.826434
=
.
4.77711210
St n _ZPF R E, r , M M , R E, r , M M
( PHz)
123.486273
0.999999
1.
St R E, r , M S
162.833549
.
1.59080310
St R E, r , M S
.
2.19383110
45.263389
763.476685
S R E, r , M M , K R2
St R E, r , M M
=
7.251258
. 7
2.9162510
St R E, r , M J
. 18
6.40202410
. 4
2.78399910
St R E, r , M S
17.031676
R E, r , M E
1.0347.10
87.634109
=
. 14
3.81125810
R E, r , M M
1.077649
St R E, r , M E
. 14
6.84403710
n R E, r , M S , K R2
19
n S R E, r , M S , K R2
. 15
1.16748410
n R E, r , M J , K R2
. 19
1.49277510
=
. 15
1.78829110
n R E, r , M E, K R2
( THz)
946.765196
R E, r , M S , K R2
R R E, r , M E
n R E, r , M M , K R2
14.793206
1.000001
=
1
1.000003
1
=1
1.
= 1.000927
380
N X R M , r , M M
N X R E, r , M E
N X R J , r , M J
B C R M , r , M M
B C R J , r , M J
X R M , r , M M
X R J , r , M J
9.8181
X R M , r , M M
6.364801
X R E, r , M E
0.76984
( mgs )
36.419294
97.406507
294.339224
=
N C R J , r , M J
N C R S , r , M S
ln 2 .N X R E, r , M E
ln 2 .N C R E, r , M E
ln 2 .N X R J , r , M J
ln 2 .N C R J , r , M J
ln 2 .N X R S , r , M S
ln 2 .N C R S , r , M S
8.231693
3.077746
( PHz)
. 12
3.20180310
N C R E, r , M E
1.791481
N C R M , r , M M
167.343325
volt
23.079214
10.073108
X R S , r , M S
( nm )
190.811924
7.220558
X R J , r , M J
ln 2 .N C R M , r , M M
1.
E C R S , r , M S
1.
. 17
3.76223110
ln 2 .N X R M , r , M M
1.
E C R J , r , M J
29.761666
X R S , r , M S
1.
. 17
3.15778710
0.240852
B C R S , r , M S
X R E, r , M E
.
2.29685210
E C R E, r , M E
17
N X R S , r , M S
B C R E, r , M E
E C R M , r , M M
. 17
2.15162910
. 12
4.18248610
. 13
1.53794510
. 13
3.14792110
1 . N X R M , r , M M
ln
2
N C R M , r , M M
1 . N X R E, r , M E
ln
2
N C R E, r , M E
5.557718 5.557718
=
N X R J , r , M J
1.
ln
2
N C R J , r , M J
5.45678 5.45678
4.964882 4.964882
4.694305 4.694305
1 . N X R S , r , M S
ln
2
N C R S , r , M S
N T 1 , 2 , N C R M , r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N C R J , r , M J
. 12 7.68972610
. 12
1.60090210
N T 1 , 2 , N X R M , r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N X R J , r , M J
. 17 1.57889410
. 17
1.07581410
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R M , r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R J , r , M J
N T 1 , 2 , N C R E, r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N C R S , r , M S
N T 1 , 2 , N X R E, r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N X R S , r , M S
. 17 1.88111510
. 17
1.14842610
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R E, r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R S , r , M S
. 18 8.57004510
. 18
5.17408410
N TR 1 , 1 , R M , r , M M
N TR 1 , 1 , R E, r , M E
N TR 1 , 1 , R J , r , M J
N TR 1 , 1 , R S , r , M S
. 18 7.16489910
. 18
4.83975610
. 12 1.57396110
. 13
2.09124310
. 4
6.72005410
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R M , r , M M
. 4
5.49159510
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R E, r , M E
. 4
2.05325110
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R J , r , M J
. 4
1.19514810
H 1 , 2 , n _ZPF R S , r , M S
381
. 37
9.36929710
=
. 38
1.07084610
. 38
2.05343110
. 38
2.93782710
F PP R M , r
A PP R M
HR 1 , 2 , R M , r , M M
. 9
4.51591310
F PP R E, r
HR 1 , 2 , R E, r , M E
. 9
3.01576110
A PP R E
.
4.21583910
F PP R J , r
. 8
1.42837810
A PP R J
HR 1 , 2 , R J , r , M J
HR 1 , 2 , R S , r , M S
1.300126
=
1.300126
( fPa )
1.300126
1.300126
F PP R S , r
A PP R S
F PV R M , r , M M
F PP R M , r
A PP R M
F PV R M , r , M M
F PV R E, r , M E
2.349179
F PP R E, r
A PP R E
1.300007
F PV R E, r , M E
F PV R J , r , M J
0.074224
( fPa )
F PP R J , r
0.015617
A PP R J
F PV R J , r , M J
F PV R S , r , M S
F PP R S , r
A PP R S
F PV R S , r , M S
R M , r , M M
R E, r , M E
R J , r , M J
44.65616
1
=
1
1.447168
St R E, r , M E
0.029107
15 .
Hz
. 3
1.65163110
St R J , r , M J
( %)
St R M , r , M M
10
.
9.15864310
. 3
8.22480110
3.225809
.
3.39437710
R S , r , M S
3.225809
=
St R S , r , M S
1.447168
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
15 .
Hz
PV 1 , R M , M M
r 1 , R M , r , M M
R R M , r , M M
R R E, r , M E
R R J , r , M J
R R S , r , M S
PV 1 , R E, M E
r 1 , R E, r , M E
PV 1 , R J , M J
r 1 , R J , r , M J
. 9
1.303510
=
. 9
4.78288210
. 10
5.36192210
. 11
5.22005110
PV 1 , R S , M S
r 1 , R S , r , M S
382
2
U m R M,M M
3 .
2
U PV R M , r , M M
2
U m R E, M E
3 .
2
U PV R E, r , M E
9
1.3035.10
2
U m R J, M J
3 .
2
U PV R J , r , M J
. 9
4.78288510
10
5.3619.10
. 11
5.21985810
2
U m R S, M S
3 .
2
U PV R S , r , M S
r_Error R M , r , M M
r_Error R E, r , M E
r_Error R J , r , M J
r_Error R S , r , M S
r_Error R WD , r , M WD
r_Error R RG, r , M RG
r_Error R NS , r , M NS
r_Error R BH, r , M BH
.
2.45448210
.
6.56319310
.
4.09314210
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
EGM R M , r , M M
EGM R E, r , M E
3.225809
1.447169
EGM R J , r , M J
EGM R S , r , M S
0.029107
.
3.39425210
EGM R WD , r , M WD
EGM R RG, r , M RG
.
8.47616310
12
EGM R NS , r , M NS
EGM R BH, r , M BH
Error R M , r , M M
Error R E, r , M E
Error R J , r , M J
Error R S , r , M S
Error R WD , r , M WD
Error R RG, r , M RG
Error R NS , r , M NS
Error R BH, r , M BH
K P R M , r , M M
K P R E, r , M E
K P R J , r , M J
K P R S , r , M S
.
2.30813410
. 15
5.25385210
.
2.45448210
.
4.09314210
5
3
(%)
10
15 .
Hz
. 9
1.42948610
.
6.56319310
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
5
3
(%)
265.650431
480.043646
=
. 3
8.40786210
. 4
3.99605210
.
3
U m R M,M M
RM
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE
.
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
3.225809
=
1.447168
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
15 .
Hz
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
383
2 .G.M M .
1
r
RM
RM
2 .G.M E.
1
r
RE
RJ
1
r
RS
1.447168
RJ
2 .G.M S .
3.225809
3
RE
2 .G.M J .
.
3.39437710
15 .
10
0.029107
Hz
1
3
RS
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
M
3
U
R
,
M
RM
m M
M
R M r
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
E
3
U m R E, M E
RE
R E r
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
J
3
U
R
,
M
RJ
m J
J
R J r
RE
EGM R J , r , M J . 2 .G.M J .
RJ
EGM R S , r , M S . 2 .G.M S .
RS
1
1
1
=
.
2.45448210
.
6.56319710
. 4
4.09312510
(%)
. 3
3.69903810
1
3
1
1
3
RE
1
3
.
2.45448210
.
6.56319710
.
4.09312510
.
3.69903810
( %)
1
r
RM
RJ
(%)
RS
EGM R E, r , M E . 2 .G.M E.
1
3
0
=
RJ
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
.
EGM R J , r , M J .
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
1
3
.
EGM R E, r , M E .
3
U m R E, M E
RE
RM
RE
.
EGM R M , r , M M .
3
U m R M, M M
RM
EGM R M , r , M M . 2 .G.M M .
RM
1
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
S
3
U m R S, M S
RS
R S r
EGM R S , r , M S .
1
3
RS
384
CP
c .m e
4
27.m e
K PV r p , m p .m p
3
128.G. .h
8 .
CN
2
16. . Ce
c . Ce
2
3
16.c . .m p
CP m e CN m e
r CN CP m p
r CP CN m n
r
830.594743
= 830.594743 ( am)
4 . CN
830.594743
2
4
27. h Ce
.
4
32. CN
2
3
16.c . .m n
826.941624
= 826.941624 ( am)
826.941624
2
4
27.m h m e
.
mn
4 .
= ( 0.315205 0.315205 0.315205) ( % )
St r , m n
. 5 1.83602.103 1.83868.103
= 3.21927910
PV 1 , r e , m e
PV 1 , r , m p
PV 1 , r , m n
r e, m e
r , m p
r ,mn
PV 1 , r , m p
r , m p
PV 1 , r e , m e
r e,m e
PV 1 , r , m p
r ,mn
PV 1 , r e , m e
r e,m e
r ,mn
PV 1 , r e , m e
PV 1 , r , m p
PV 1 , r , m n
2 . .c .
Ce
2
CP
0.568793
35.500829
35.73252
. 17 2.61722210
. 18 2.62462610
. 18
2.49926810
( GHz)
62.792864 10.50158
r , m p
62.414364 10.471952
r e, m e
Ce
h .m e
St r , m p
CP
4 . . h Ce
= ( 0.995476 0.998623 0.998623 0.998623)
r CN CP m p
r , m p
c . Ce
. CN
27
. 3 1.83615310
. 3 1.83868410
. 3 1.83868410
. 3
= 1.83615310
CP CN m n
St r e , m e
2
16. . Ce
2
4
27.m h m e
.
mp
4 .
Ce m p Ce m n
( am)
4
2
K PV r n , m n .m n
3
2
4
27. h Ce
.
.
3
4
4 . CP
32. CP
CN
4 . . h Ce
826.941624
CN
h .m e
830.594743
. CP
27
4
2
K PV r p , m p .m p
5
K PV r n , m n .m n
CP
CP
CP.
mp
. 17 7.32784510
. 16 7.34520410
. 16
= 4.39398910
. 3 2.61741.103 2.61741.103 2.61741.103

= 2.61722210
( YHz)
me
385
CN
r ,mn
Ce
Ce
2 . .c .
CN.
CN
r ,m e
2 . r , m p
mn
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3
= 2.62462610
( YHz)
me
2
. CP
r , m p Ce
. CN
r , m n Ce
= ( 99.985611 100.007215 100.000181) ( % )
m L 1, r
m L 2, r L
m L 3, r L
m L 4, r
m L 5, r L
m L 6, r
m L 7, r L
m L 8, r L
m L 9, r L
m L 10, r L
m L 11, r L
m L 12, r L
m L 13, r L
m L 14, r L
m L 15, r L
m L 16, r L
m L 17, r L
m L 18, r L
m L 19, r L
m L 20, r L
. 5 1.80208610
. 5 2.29847910
. 5 2.89523810
. 5
1.3933810
m L 21, r L
m L 22, r L
m L 23, r L
m L 24, r L
. 5 4.44581510
. 5 5.4303110
. 5 6.57657710
. 5
3.60608710
9.155547
0.510999
.
565.476231 1.77526210
56.766874
105.677748
.
2.5703410
. 3
4.6876410
. 3 1.27952710
. 4 1.96479110
. 4 2.90646410
. 4
7.96417210
MeV
. 4 5.81601510
. 4 7.93341210
. 4 1.06069210
. 5
4.16672110
m QB 1 , r dq
m QB 2 , r sq
m QB 3 , r cq
m QB 4 , r bq
.
7.00980510
m QB 5 , r QB
m QB 6 , r QB
m QB 7 , r W
m QB 8 , r Z
9.596205
21.797922
80.425
91.1876
m QB 9 , r H
m QB 10, r tq
m QB 11, r QB
m QB 12, r QB
114.4
178.440506
333.427609
493.23068
m QB 13, r QB
m QB 14, r QB
m QB 15, r QB
m QB 16, r QB
707.097922
986.98519
. 3 1.80000810
. 3
1.3463110
0.113909
1.182905
4.11826
m QB 17, r QB
m QB 18, r QB
m QB 19, r QB
m QB 20, r QB
.
2.36458310
m QB 21, r QB
m QB 22, r QB
m QB 23, r QB
m QB 24, r QB
. 3 7.54460610
. 3 9.21530610
. 3 1.11605410
. 4
6.11957610
U PV R E, r , M M
U PV R E, r , M E
U PV R E, r , M J
U PV R E, r , M S
.
.
3.05816410
3.90054810
3
GeV
c
.
4.91325710
2.860531
232.617621
=
4
7.3899.10
( GPa)
. 7
7.74094810

1
r uq , m uq
1
r ,m e
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
r dq , m dq
r sq , m sq
r cq , m cq
r bq , m bq
r W,mW
r Z, m Z
r H, m H
r tq , m tq
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
Resonant Casimir Cavity Design Specifications (Experimental)

Given
R R E, r , M E
r
Find ( r )
r = 16.518377 ( mm)
E C R E, r , M E = 550.422869
V
m
X R E, r , M E = 16.340851 ( PHz)
B C R E, r , M E = 18.360131( mgs )
SSE 4 0 .( deg ) , 0 .( % ) , 0 .( % ) , E C R E, r , M E , B C R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E
SSE 5 90.( deg ) , 0 .( % ) , 0 .( % ) , E C R E, r , M E , B C R E, r , M E , R E, r , M E
386
1
1
MATHCAD 12
HIGH PRECISION
CALCULATION
RESULTS
[79]
387
NOTES
388
APPENDIX 3.M
This appendix denotes high precision calculation results obtained from the MathCad 12
computational environment utilising the calculation engine defined in Appendix 3.L.
Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 10-14.

Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 10-14.
rE +
( 2)
0.69 fm
rE
0.848 ( fm)
rM
1
2
( rM r )
r
rM
0.857 ( fm)
rp
rX
0.879 ( fm)
( )
KX 0.113 2
=
fm
KS 0.113348
2
r
e 3
r
r e r
r
r
r r
830.647087 830.662386
848.579832 848
849.993668
857
( am)
=
874.643564 875
826.889045 825.617615
879.016508 879
mtq = 178.470327
GeV
2
c
A( K rBohr , mp ) 657.329013
=
( nm)
B
656.469624
7.297353 10 3
=
3
7.297353 10
3.141593
r
r
r
r
1
1
1
e
e
r
r
r r
r
rE
rM
0.848 ( fm)
0.857 ( fm)
2
0.69 fm
M Error :=
1
1 1
r
KS
( rM r ) + rE
rX
KX
rp 2
2
rM
mtq c
A ( K rBohr , mp )
0.879 ( fm)
178 ( GeV)
B
( )
389
14
13
2.220446 10
0
1.110223 10
1.841834 10 3
0.068376
0.817542
M Error =
( %)
0.040736
0.153997
0.308232
3
0.264229
0.130911
1.87806 10
ErrorAv :=
12
M Error
+ M Error
+ M Error
+ M Error
+ MError
+ MError
...
+ M 0, 0 + M 0, 1 + M 0, 2 + M 1, 0 + M 1, 1 + M 1, 2
Error2 , 0
Error2 , 1
Error2 , 2
Error3 , 0
Error3 , 1
Error3 , 2
ErrorAv = 0.148979(%)
2
r c
3
e
r
e Ce
r_1
:=
5
2
4
r_2
c Ce
27 h Ce
4 3 32 4 CP
CP
r_2
r_av
r
r_2
r_1
5
:=

2
4
r
c Ce
27 h Ce
_2
4 CN3 32 4 CN
1 (r
_av + r )
r_Error r_2
:=
r
1
_Error
r_2 ( r_av + r )
r r_av r_1
:=
r r_av r_1
r_1
r
_1
r_av
830.647081 830.594743
826.889045 826.941624
=
( am)
830.620912 826.915335
0.026169 0.02629
rX ( KX ) :=
r_av 1 r_1 + r_2
:=
r_av 2 r_1 + r_2
r_Error
0
1 = ( %)
0
r_Error
(2 )
2
3 b 1 ( x 1)
6 b 1 KX x 1
( 2)
( r , mp ) = 2.617319 10 ( YHz)
3
KX := 0.005 fm
( )
0.69 fm
830.662386
1
=
( am)
2
2
( 0.69 + 0.02) fm ( 0.69 0.02) fm 12.03985
2
( )
rX_av :=
1
2
( (
( )
rX KX KX + rX KX + KX
rX_Error :=
rX KX KX rX_av
rX_av
))
rX_av := rX_av rX KX + KX
rX( KX KX)
rX( KX + KX)
rX_av
rX_av
390
843.685786
807.145085
=
( am)
825.415435
18.270351
14
rX_Error = 2.220446 10
1.152898
=
h gg 1.521258
1
17
m = 5.746734 10
( %)
eV
m 3.195095 45
=
10 eV
mgg 6.39019
0.991785
=
K h gg 1.308668
1

( r , mn)
( r , me)
( ren , men)
( rL , mL( 2, rL) )
( rL , mL( 3, rL) )
( r , m )
( rn , mn)
(r , m (5, r ) )
L L
L
( r , m )
( rn , mn)
( ruq , muq)
( r , mp )
( rdq , mdq)
( rsq , msq )
( rcq , mcq)
( rbq , mbq)
(r , m (5 , r ) )
QB QB QB
( rQB , mQB( 6 , rQB) )
( rW , mW)
( rZ , mZ )
( rH , mH)
( rtq , mtq )
( r , mp )
( r , mn)
( r , me)
( ren , men)
( rL , mL( 2, rL) )
(r , m ( 3, r ))
L L
L
( r , m )
( rn , mn)
( rL , mL( 5, rL) )
( r , m )
( rn , mn)
1
( r , me)
( ruq , muq)
( rdq , mdq)
( rsq , msq)
( rcq , mcq)
( rbq , mbq)
( rQB , mQB( 5, rQB) )
( rW , mW)
( rZ , mZ )
( rH , mH)
( rtq , mtq )
1
2

2
4

6
8
8

10
12
12

= 14
14

28
42
56

70
84
98

112
126

140
391
0.5
0.5

1
1
2

3
4

4
5
6

6
=
7
7

14
21

28
35
42

49
56
63

70
( r , mp )
( r , mn)
( r , me)
( ren , men)
( rL , mL( 2, rL) )
( r , m ( 3, r ))
L L
L
( r , m )
( rn , mn)
( rL , mL( 5, rL) )
( r , m )
( rn , mn)
1
( ruq , muq)
( ruq , muq)
( rdq , mdq)
( rsq , msq)
( rcq , mcq)
( rbq , mbq)
( rW , mW)
( rZ , mZ )
( rH , mH)
( rtq , mtq )
0.07
0.07
0.14
0.14
0.29
0.43
0.57
0.57
0.71
0.86
0.86
=
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

r

r 11.806238
r
830.647087

826.889045
r

8.214055
r 12.237844
ren
0.095379
rn
0.655235
rn
1.958664

ruq = 0.768186 ( am)
r 1.013628
dq

rsq 0.887904

1.091334
rcq 1.070961
rbq
0.92938
rtq 1.283947
rW 1.061645

rZ 0.940375
r
H
me
mp
m
n
m
m
men
mn
mn
muq
m
dq
msq
mcq
mbq
mtq
mW
mZ
m
H
5.109989 10 4
0.938272
0.939565
0.105658
1.776989
3 10 9
4
1.9 10
0.0182
GeV
=
3
3.505488 10 2
c
3
7.010977 10
0.113928
1.183102
4.118949
178.470327
80.425
91.1876
114.4
392
4.670757 35
=
10 m
gg 6.163101
11
rx = 5.273191 10
0.991785
=
K h gg 1.308668
1
( m)
m 3.195095 45
rL 10.752712
=
10 eV
=
( am)
mgg 6.39019
rQB 1.005262
1
6
1
6
rBohr
rx
1 = 0.352379( %)
mL( 2, rL)
mL( 3, rL)
m ( 5, r )
L L
mQB( 5, rQB)
m 6, r
QB( QB)
9.153163 10 3
0.056752
GeV
=
0.565329 2
9.597226 c
21.800242
( ruq + rdq + rsq + rcq + rbq + rtq ) = 0.960232( am)

( muq + mdq + msq + mcq + mbq + mtq ) = 30.649471
GeV
2
c

1
( ruq , muq)
( rdq , mdq) ( rsq , msq ) ( rcq , mcq) ( rbq , mbq) 1 2 3 4

=
( rW , mW) ( rZ , mZ ) ( rH , mH ) ( rtq , mtq ) 7 8 9 10
( rdq , mdq) ( rsq , msq ) ( rcq , mcq) ( rbq , mbq) 7 14 21 28

=
( r , me) ( rW , mW) ( rZ , mZ ) ( rH , mH ) ( rtq , mtq ) 49 56 63 70

1
NOTES
393
NOTES
394
INDEX 3
Instances of significant appearance by mathematical symbol
Symbol
A
a
a1
a2
APP
ax(t)
a
Description
1st Harmonic term
B
Ch. 3.2
B0
BA
BC
BPV
bq
Brms
c
c0
CPV(1,r,M)
CPV(nPV,r,M) Amplitude spectrum of PV
cq
Common difference
D
Offset function
DC
dq
Energy: Ch. 3.3
E
Ch. 3.2
Electron: subatomic / elementary particle in the SM
e, eAmplitude of applied Electric field: Ch. 3.6
E0
EA
EC
EPV
Erms
F(k,n,t) Complex FS representation of EGM
395
Page
164
88
103
164
99
94
88
102
152
102
110
31
110
73
151
38
92
102
119
118
73
164
102
31
72
114
88
100
265
69, 191
151
114
102
110
31
110
151
93

domain
F0(k)
FPP
The Casimir Force by EGM
FPV
g
Universal gravitation constant
G
Tensor element
g00
Tensor element
g11
Tensor element
g22
Tensor element
g33
Height: Ch. 3.4
h
H
Hydrogen
Planck's Constant (plain h form)
h
h-bar
HSEx R
Complex number
i
Initial condition
In,P
J
Wave vector
k
K0(r,X) ERF by displacement domain precipitation
Generalised ERF
K0(X)
K0(
K0(
K0(
K1
K2
kA
Critical Factor
KC
KEGM
KEGM H
Experimentally implicit Planck Mass scaling factor
Km
Kn,P
A
refinement of a constant in FPP
KP
kPV
KPV
KPV H
Critical Ratio
KR
KR H
KS
KX
K
K
Length
L
f(t)
396
95
94
30
63
81
85
38
114
123
75
63
104
38
238
36
149
110
93
134
93
92
87
92
32
118
99
110
31
32
149
63
93
166
110
36
149
31
226
36
63
46
L0
L2
L3
L5
M
m0
M0
mAMC
mbq
mcq
mdq
me
ME
men
mgg
mH
mh
MJ
mL(2)
mL(3)
mL(5)
MM
mn
mp
mQB(5)
mQB(6)
MS
msq
mtq
muq
mW
mx
mZ
m
m
mg
m
m
mn
m
mn
n
n, N
nA
nB
NC
nE
nPV
nq
NT

Mass
Mass of the Earth
Planck Mass
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Sun
Critical mode
Quantum number
Number of terms
397
114
77
46
114
128
267
73
72
38
38
70
61
75
38
38
77
38
38
78
38
72
63
71
74
267
75
181
34
33
51
38
70
38
71
63
93, 94
110
151
31
151
110
265
164
NTR
NX
Nr
n
n ZPF
n
P
p
Q, Qe
QB5
QB6
r
r0
rBohr
rBoson
rbq
rc
rcq
rdq
re
RE
ren
RError
rgg
rH
RJ
rL
RM
rp
rQB
RS
rsq
rtq
ru
ruq
rW
rx
rxq
rZ
r
r
r
rn
r
r2

Mode number of
Polarisation vector
Representation error
Average RMS charge radius of the r, r and r particles
Bohr radius by EGM
within the SM
398
164
34
33
37
34
93
63
46, 265
78
88
91
92
88
102
267
201
73
92
73
72
38
38
70
36
62
75
38
77
38
38
78
38
72
74
201
71
74
268
197
75
69
61
69
70
36
263

Rydberg Constant
Poynting Vector
nth Harmonic term
Range factor
1st Sense check
3rd Sense check
4th Sense check
2nd Sense check
5th Sense check
6th Sense check
Poynting Vector of PV
S
Time
t
tq
Ug
any suitable source
Harmonic form of Ug
Ug H
Um
uq
Field energy density of PV
U
vc
W
X
Impedance function
Z
E
aPV
g
GME1 Change in GME1
GME2 Change in GME2
GMEx Generalised reference to changes in GME1 and GME2
Harmonic form of K0
K0 H
K0(
,X) Engineered Relationship Function by EGM
Change in K1 by EGM
K1
Change in K2 by EGM
K2
KC
r3
r5
rM
rx
r
rE
rM
r
rn
R
S
sq
StN
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
399
263
62
263
53
62
69
71
265
104
72
164
35
37
38
62
121
47
63
111
149
120
71
119
92
59
87
111
59
265
110
132
149
32
111
nS
r
t
t0
Ug
UPV
v
vr
PV
r
PV
R
S
ZPF
H
HR
1
x
1
x
0
C
gg
A
B
Ce
CN
CP
h
PV

Bandwidth ratio
ZPF beat bandwidth
The sum of terms
acceleration
Mathematical Constant: Euler-Mascheroni (Euler's Constant
Wavelength
Planck Length
Wavelength of PV
400
30
64
57
114
111
111
130
129
165
129
32
30
36
37
35
128
30
164
33
99
38
102
103
99
102
30
38
152
31
183
38
76
33
91
266
265
38
62
,
0
2
3
5
e
0
,

Charge density
Field frequency
0
B
Critical frequency
C
E
Electron
Compton Frequency
Ce
CN
CP
Planck Frequency
h
PV
PV(1,r,M)
PV(nPV,r,M) Frequency spectrum of PV
X
ZPF beat cut-off frequency

ZPF
Critical
boundary
mQuark Average mass (energy) of all Quarks according to PDG

rBoson
rQuark
r
401
69, 189
265
38
80
70
71
134
36
69, 189
89
102
114
152
31
152
136
177
38
61
33
118
34
33
37
30
202
78
Group**
Period
1
IA
1A
1
H
1.008
18
VIIIA
8A
2
IIA
2A
13
IIIA
3A
14
IVA
4A
15
VA
5A
16
VIA
6A
17
VIIA
7A
He
4.003
10
Li
Be
Ne
6.941
9.012
10.81
12.01
14.01
16.00
19.00
20.18
11
12
Na
Mg
22.99
24.31
3
IIIB
3B
4
IVB
4B
5
VB
5B
6
VIB
6B
7
VIIB
7B
8
9
10
------- VIII ------------- 8 -------
11
IB
1B
12
IIB
2B
13
14
15
16
17
18
Al
Si
Cl
Ar
26.98
28.09
30.97
32.07
35.45
39.95
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Ca
Sc
Ti
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Kr
39.10
40.08
44.96
47.88
50.94
52.00
54.94
55.85
58.47
58.69
63.55
65.39
69.72
72.59
74.92
78.96
79.90
83.80
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Rb
Sr
Zr
Nb
Mo
Tc
Ru
Rh
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
Xe
85.47
87.62
88.91
91.22
92.91
95.94
(98)
101.1
102.9
106.4
107.9
112.4
114.8
118.7
121.8
127.6
126.9
131.3
55
56
57
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Cs
Ba
La*
Hf
Ta
Re
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Po
At
Rn
132.9
137.3
138.9
178.5
180.9
183.9
186.2
190.2
190.2
195.1
197.0
200.5
204.4
207.2
209.0
(210)
(210)
(222)
89
104
87
88
Fr
Ra
(223)
(226)
Lanthanide Series*
Actinide Series~
Ac~ Rf
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
114
116
118
Db
Sg
Bh
Hs
Mt
---
---
---
---
---
---
()
()
()
(227)
(257)
(260)
(263)
(262)
(265)
(266)
()
()
()
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Ce
Pr
Nd
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
140.1
140.9
144.2
(147)
150.4
152.0
157.3
158.9
162.5
164.9
167.3
168.9
173.0
175.0
95
96
100
101
90
91
92
93
94
97
98
99
102
103
Th
Pa
Np
Pu
Am Cm
Bk
Cf
Es
Fm Md
No
Lr
232.0
(231)
(238)
(237)
(242)
(243)
(247)
(249)
(254)
(253)
(254)
(257)
(247)
402
(256)
HARMONIC REPRESENTATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES

Illustrational only
Wavefunction based upon Proton harmonics,
sin St .2 . . r , m p .t
St , t
(3.458)
1.
T r ,m p
2
( 1, t )
( 2, t )
( 4, t )
5 .10
29
1 .10
28
1.5 .10
28
2 .10
28
2.5 .10
28
3 .10
28
3.5 .10
28
( 6, t )
Proton, Neutron
Electron, Electron Neutrino
L2, v2
L3, v3
Figure 3.44,
1 .
T r ,m p
16
( 8, t)
( 10 , t )
( 12 , t )
5 .10
30
1 .10
29
1.5 .10
29
2 .10
29
2.5 .10
29
3 .10
29
3.5 .10
29
4 .10
29
4.5 .10
29
( 14 , t )
Muon, Muon Neutrino

L5, v5
Tau, Tau Neutrino
Up and Down Quark
Figure 3.45,
403
1 .
T r ,m p
56
( 28 , t )
( 42 , t )
( 56 , t )
1 .10
30
2 .10
30
3 .10
30
4 .10
30
5 .10
30
6 .10
30
30
7 .10
8 .10
30
9 .10
30
3 .10
30
1 .10
29
1.1 .10
29
1.2 .10
29
1.3 .10
29
( 70 , t )
Strange Quark
Charm Quark
Bottom Quark
QB5
Figure 3.46,
1 .
T r ,m p
168
( 84 , t )
( 98 , t )
( 112 , t )
( 126 , t ) 0
5 .10
31
1 .10
30
1.5 .10
30
2 .10
30
2.5 .10
30
3.5 .10
30
4 .10
30
4.5 .10
30
( 140 , t )
QB6
W Boson
Z Boson
Higgs Boson
Top Quark
Figure 3.47,
404
NOTES
405
NOTES
406
NOTES
407
90000
ID: 471178
www.lulu.com
9 781847 533531
Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering - Part 3
ISBN 978-1-84753-353-1

Quinta Essentia - Part 3

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Quinta Essentia - Part 3

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering

EGM Radii x10-16(cm)

ren < 0.0811

Top Quark Mass

Lebedev Physical Institute

EarthTech International, Inc.

Albert Einstein: 1879 1955

DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

To present an introduction and summary of all the material contained herein.

To derive engineering principles for localised gravity modification experiments.

To verify the engineering principles derived by application to fundamental questions

To present a summary of key equations derived herein.

To present the formulations, derivations, characteristics and proofs utilised in the

To present a set of analytical simplifications utilised in the preceding articles.

To present a computational sub-routine for the numerical derivation of Lepton radii,

To present a computational sub-routine for the numerical derivation of Quark and

To present the derivation of certain ElectroMagnetic characteristics of the Neutron

To present a derivation of the emission / absorption spectrum of the Hydrogen atom

To present a complete computational algorithm / simulation capable of generating all

To present a simplified calculation engine / algorithm based upon the preceding

To present a simplified calculation engine / algorithm based upon the preceding

Article 3.2: Derivation of Engineering Principles

Article 3.3: Application of Derived Engineering Principles

Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Associated Neutrino Radii

Numerical EGM Simulations

Experimentally Verified or Implied Algorithms, Calculations and Derivations

Periodic Table of the Elements

Spiral Galaxy (Photograph - NASA)

Article 3.2: Derivation of Engineering Principles

Precipitations of the General Form

Article 3.3: Application of Derived Engineering Principles

Gravitational frequency spectrum

Numerical EGM Simulations

Periodic Table of the Elements

Brookhaven National Laboratory

National Institute of Standards & Technology

Specific Symbols by Chapter

EGM Construct - Ch. 3.4: Amplitude and Frequency Spectra

Generalised reference to PV(nPV,r,M)

EGM Construct - Ch. 3.5: General Similarity

1st Sense check

EGM Construct - Ch. 3.6: Harmonic and Spectral Similarity

EGM Construct - Ch. 3.7: The Casimir Effect

W Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG

5th Sense check

See: Critical Ratio KR.

The limiting value of circulation per unit area.

See: Amplitude Spectrum.

Fundamental Beat Frequency r(1,r,r,M)

Harmonic Inflection Mode NX

If and only if.

Polarisable Vacuum (PV)

See: Impedance Function.

Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)

6th Sense Check St

NIST value utilised by EGM

Mathematical Constants and Symbols

Value utilised by EGM Units

Introduction and Document Statistics

Laying the Foundations

The second main issue is

by computers in order to visualise the interaction of gravitational systems.

The PV model of gravity, as the name suggests,