**Below is a reprint of a recent communication between myself and Mr.
John Schnurer. It is reprinted here in the hope that it may answer similar
questions that others may have.**

**Subj: Two jogs....Re: Site link**
**Date: 6/8/99 8:28:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time**
**From: herman@antioch-college.edu (John Schnurer)**
**To: Quark137@aol.com**
**CC: herman@college.antioch-college.edu (John Schnurer)**

**Dear Jerry,**

**I am still unclear.... Can you give me "two jogs" of exactly
what**
**and how you thing does.. or how it works?**

__REPLY:__**My approach is to duplicate what my theory of gravitational mechanism
is and check for an interaction inline to that 'theoretical' gravitational
mechanism.**

**In my theory, I first assume a least quantum current. This current
may be in any direction at all. Next, due to the uncertainty principle,
the current suddenly appears offset to the original current but in the
same direction. This process continues in a right handed system fashion
so that a quantum vector magnetic potential is circulating around its most
probable location in quantum space. The vector action always points outwards
from the most probable location, so it is a one-way action. All other remote
systems are identical and are formed also by quantum current charges.**

**Imagine holding an arrow pointing outwards from your chest. Now move
that arrow out to arms length on your right and slightly down 120 degrees
from vertical but inline with the direction that it pointed from your chest
outwards. Now do the same over your head and finally hold the arrow with
your left hand at about 120 degrees from the vertical and again inline
with the other two positions. What I describe is a trine with the arrow
pointing always in the same direction normal to the three lines forming
the trine. Note that if you were in the center of a box and looked at any
corner, the edge lines appear as a trine if you did not have any depth
perception. The edges however actually form a Cartesian coordinate system.
Thus the concept of the cross product may be applied to explain why the
gravitational action is always one of attraction.**

**In the flat 2 dimensional world of the right handed quantum action
however, the action is that of a trine geometrically. The vector potential
A exists in the absence of the magnetic B field that generates it and further,
it is inline to the motion of the current causing the field. This was proven
by the Aharonov-Bohm experiment and many other similar experiments since
then.**
**--Jerry E. Bayles**

**Also reprinted below is a copy of my discussion with Mr. Michael
Wales concerning the permeability and permeability constants eo and uo.
His email is: mwales@fervor.demon.co.uk (mwales@fervor).**

**Dear Michael,**
**I agree that the permittivity and permeability constants in the
free space for ordinary electromagnetic waves are indeed constant. In fact
as you are likely aware, the inverse of the product of eo and uo is the
speed of light squared as was derived by Maxwell many years ago. My postulate
concerning any variation in their value depends on special conditions that
I outlined in my paper. This does not concern the free field but the outcome
may instantly stretch across space to infinity.**

**The condition where I proposed that either eo or uo may be equivalent
to zero arises when the reverse of an electromagnetic wave is formed. You
(on your web site) state that mass may be the result of standing waves.
I also came to this conclusion some years ago. Standing waves (in the sense
of the electric and magnetic field components) have the B field and the
E field separated by 90 degrees along the length of a transmission line
in contrast to the electromagnetic free field wave where they are at 0
degrees along the direction of propagation, but 90 degrees spatially. Further,
while the E field is maximum, the B field is zero magnitude for a standing
wave and vis-versa. This is by reason that the length along a transmission
line can be represented as time. Time is at the heart of everything since
distance is equal to velocity times time. Therefore, when B associated
with uo is maximum, E associated with eo is zero. Since E is zero, the
term eo has no effective existence. Likewise, when B is zero, uo has no
effective existence. Then either may be taken at some time to have no effective
existence, but not both at the same time. Now since mass has the dimensional
constant of C^2 which involves the inverse of the product of eo and uo,
rest mass becomes a statistically average condition.**

**If a standing wave is mass, then having infinite potential as a result
of either eo or uo being equivalent to zero at some time calls in the concept
of the Dirac delta function. At zero time, it (the Dirac delta function)
equals infinity in amplitude. At any time greater than zero time, it equals
zero amplitude. For a particle, such as an electron, it may be what is
called a weighted delta function. That is, capable of nearly infinite energy
at nearly zero time. This would satisfy the quantum least action time and
distance mechanism. The condition of a standing wave that is torus shaped
but never meeting itself exactly is how I view the electron geometry. This
would allow for the electron to have a prime number aspect that would not
beat against itself until the end of time. By that, I mean that a spiral
torus forming motion that does not quite close in on itself and eventually
would do so only after an infinite time. Thus it has the capability of
filling all of time and space given enough time to do so. This is also
infinite potential. Bear in mind now that I am only considering one electron!
When one allows for all of the possible electrons, (not to mention protons,
etc.), then the energy is extremely large indeed. In my book, I calculate
that amount for one electron as being very large.**

**I propose that the above mechanism may explain the results of the
famous two-slit experiment wherein the electron appeared to go through
both slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side.
As time allows, the electron may appear transverse to its motion everywhere
throughout space. With infinite potential, this is more of a probability
than not. I am speaking of a non coupled field condition and of a singular
electron.**

**In conclusion, In my paper ZEROTIME, I postulated that eo and uo
may not have the same geometrical forming mechanics in a quantum standing
wave space as it does in the free field space of an ordinary electromagnetic
wave.**

**Also, you mentioned previously that the fine structure constant was
not part of the electron? Please forgive me if this is not what you actually
said. Anyway, if you calculate the rest mass energy of an electron by Em
= mC^2 and then calculate the field energy of the electron via Ef = (qo^2)
/ (4 pi eo Rc) at its surface using its Compton radius, you will find that
the field energy is equal to its rest mass energy times alpha, the fine
structure constant.**

**I also see the fine structure constant as an energy rate control
whereby the so-called rest mass is converted to field energy. I postulate
that the fine structure constant may be an irrational number that does
not repeat and has no factor other than itself. This places it in the same
category as pi or the natural number e. When it does repeat, we will likely
be at the end of allowed time in this universe. Further, one of my physics
references termed the fine structure constant as being ubiquitous to particle
physics at nearly all energy levels, even the nuclear strong force level.
Finally, the fine structure constant has been known for some time as the
photon coupling constant. Then the particles in the particle 'zoo' that
do have decay times may interfere with themselves and self-destruct into
photons.**
**--Jerry E. Bayles. ---End of letter #1.**

**In a following letter I added to the above:**

**Dear Michael Wales,**
**Concerning the meaning of my recent letter to you where you said:**

**"It is the superposition of the fields( each traveling in a**
**different direction) that give rise to the maxima and nulls, and
not**
**because of the properties of the medium. For instance you get an**
**identical situation(qualitatively) in a non free space medium in
which**
**uo and eo are different from the free space values."**

**I was hoping for a deeper meaning or import to be taken of my statement:**

** "I agree with you on this excepting for the last bit Since
E is zero, the term eo has no effective existence. Likewise, when B is
zero, uo has no effective existence. Then either may be taken at some time
to have no effective existence,**
**but not both at the same time."**

**My meaning is hopefully more clear if I state that I
see space as having no properties of itself concerning an intrinsic geometry
that is definable by any parameters save those actions that are measurable
in the fields that exist at the time of measurement. Therefore,
eo and uo are constants that relate the charges or motions of charges to
force so that the units of force or energy during measurement may be consistent.
As Einstein pointed out, "there is no universal frame of reference concerning
measurements of time and thus action." This implies that space is defined
by the action of the field, such as the field that comprises the photon
or electromagnetic wave. It is the photon that is our instrument of measurement
and without it we have no way to measure action in our space save for blind
force measurement. Again, the field defines space and thus action. Note
that having photons as our action messengers limits our ability to perceive
what is occurring since we always see action events from the past.**

**Then, in the absence of the electric or magnetic field, I again state
that the terms eo and uo have no meaning. Therefore like the square root
of the inverse of the product of eo and uo suggested that the velocity
of electromagnetic propagation in the free space was the velocity of light,
it is suggested that for the standing wave, the alternate absence of the
fields containing the parameters eo and uo suggest that the velocity
of propagation may be nearly limitless at those points. That continues
to be my viewpoint concerning fields defining space.**

**Concerning your statement:**
** "The Dirac delta function is a splendid mathematical
concept but it**
**lacks equal physical prowess. It is after all used to justify the
point,**
**structureless, electron, i.e., aided and abetted by the mathematical**
**concept of superposition. The energy of the free electron
(without**
**rectilinear motion) is a physical constant and equal to m*c^2. It
is**
**neither approximately zero nor approximately infinite."**

**In the theoretical, terms such as infinity are possible. In the actual,
they are not. I am reminded of one of Zeno's paradoxes where a runner theoretically
takes each step as half of the one before and thus never reaches the finish
line. Of course, we know that in the real world this is not possible. He
will reach an actual limit of division that cannot be further divided.
This limit is related directly to quantum mechanics. The Dirac delta function
is a theoretical parameter, ...yes. However, there exists in electronics
engineering the Impulse function that is the Dirac delta function in the
limit where time = 0 but it is not used as such to provide real engineering
solutions. It becomes a weighted delta function which deals with our real
world. That is what I was referring to concerning the use of the Dirac
delta function.**

**By the way, the concept of allowing c^2 to become infinite momentarily
causes the relativistic aspects of the electron to be flattened, so that
v^2/c^2 = 0. Then m' = mo. This would explain why the electron has a 'fixed'
rest mass.**

**In conclusion, until I can hang a picture on the 'fabric of space,'
I will continue to hold the view that it does not exist as a physically
meaningful concept in the absence of a defining field. It is therefore
defined only by the fields and actions that we observe. That includes curved,
bent, twisted or even flat space. --Jerry E. Bayles.**
**--End of second letter.**

**Finally, concerning space having intrinsic reality in the absence
of a defining field, consider the following two cases involving the electric
and magnetic static fields.**

**1. If a dielectric such as solid beeswax be placed between the metal
plates of a capacitor and a voltage is applied across the plates such that
the charge is stored as and energy field in the dielectric, the dielectric
may be removed and set aside until later. Then, when the dielectric placed
back between the free plates of the capacitor, the voltage will appear
across the plates that was originally applied across those plates. This
proves that the energy related to the electric field is stored in the physical
entity of the molecules and atoms of the dielectric. I
ask the reader to now attempt the same with the vacuum of space.**

**2. If a flat disk if metal be spun between
the opposite poles of a magnet where those poles form a field 90 degrees
to the surface of the disk and the poles are also circular and completely
cover the surface of the disk, a voltage will appear between the center
of the disk and its outside edge. If the reverse is attempted, and the
magnet is spun instead of the disk, no voltage will be generated in the
disk. This proves that the intrinsic field of space cannot be moved with
the relative motion of the magnetic field so that there is no physical
essence of space for that purpose.**

**In summation, space cannot hold energy
since it has no physical essence that will allow it to do so. It is therefore
the field and its own energy that defines space and thus space is characterized
and given substance by the nature and energy of the field. This allows
for the concept of 'photon space' as applied to the electromagnetic field.
Since it defines the space, it also fixes the way we see space.**

**The purpose of the reprints above is to clarify
my position concerning fields and space relative to contemporary thinking
where space is assumed to have some sort of essence apart from the fields
that exist in it.**

**Finally, in the big picture, I see all of creation
unfolding as a giant nautilus shell, where each quantum essence is established
over and over from the center of energy space. Therefore, every quantum
particle and system of related particles has its time code stamped into
it concerning where it is actually located in the pinwheel of creation.
(Time travel is possible if you know the appropriate code and field structure.)
The universe is growing through time, spinning on an unseen axis in a dimension
involving time and energy also unseen for the real structure that it is
since we cannot see through the eyes of the Creator. As a result,
if a living system is not growing, it is dying. As a natural process, if
it is neither growing nor dying, it may be already dead or is a seed. For
my part, I see our universe as growing, as a living entity.**
**-- Jerry E. Bayles.**