1. Introduction

2. Meta-Problems

3. General Fundamental Problems

3.4. What is “A Particle”

This problem more in detail is considered in [5a], here we briefly indicate only some main, necessary further here, points. In official physics, particles really are principally transcendent items – since they aresome objects of the transcendent “Matter”.

Besides from the informational concept above and from experimental data that particles — which absolutely for sure are informational patterns/systems — are some objects that constantly change their states, however, at that, they are stable, it looks as it completely rationally follows that particles are some cyclic close-loop algorithms,

-that cyclically change their internal stateswith frequency ω so that a particle has energy $E=ћ\omega =m{c}^2,m$ is the inertial mass,$ћ$ is the fundamental elementary physical action, reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light. This hypothesis appeared as early as in 1920 as the “the Zitterbewegung”. de Broglie hypothesis [26,27].

A few naturally suggested, and postulated in the informational model, rational premises follow from that above:

• particles are some cyclic disturbances of the FLE lattice, which appear when a 4D momentum impacts on an ether FLE, which, after the impact, “flips” further causing sequential flipping of neighbor FLEs.

To cause a flip – and the corresponding sequential flipping of ether FLEs along a straight 4D line is enough infinitesimal momentum $\overrightarrow{P}$when the “FLE flipping point” propagates in the 4D ether andthe 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with the 4D speed of light, $\overrightarrow{c}$ ,$c=l_P/t_P$.However, if the momentum $\overrightarrow{P}$is not infinitesimal, the flipping point can not propagate in the lattice with the speed faster than c. Thus, the unidirectional motion transforms into a “helical” “FLE flipping point” motion along some 4D “helix” of cyclic sequentially flipping – and precessing ‒ FLEs in accordance with some close-loop algorithm, which is just a particle that has the 4D momentum $\overrightarrow{P}$, energy $E=Pc$, while the algorithm ticks with frequency$\omega =\frac{E}{ћ}$ , the “radius of the helix” is equal to$\lambda =\frac{ћ}{P}=\frac{ћ}{mc}$ , so flipping point – and so the particle ‒has “intrinsic 4Dangular momentum”be equal to$ћ$ (see Figure 1).

Note also, that in this case the “flipping point” moves along “helix” with the speed$c\sqrt{2}$, as the flipping of FLEs along “helix” happens “diagonally”, nonetheless the“helix front” moves along the impacting/creating 4D momentum direction with 4D speed of light, $\overrightarrow{c}$.

However, some “a helix’s 4D axis” does not exist having its axis as a 4D vector in the 4D space, so the propagation of the disturbance in the ether transforms into propagation of, possibly, propagating in the either bi-vector or a tensor, and so this propagating is essentially not “point-like”- in both, in the spacetime and in the ether. Nonetheless the propagation has the direction – the direction of the impacting momentum’s vector. Besides, the “helix” of FLE lattice disturbance experimentally is observed as a “point-like and wave-like” particle interacting with other pointlike particles (what is observed as the “wave-particle duality”). It seems rational to suggest that “pointlike interactions” are interactions of the particles’ FLEs, i.e. the “size of interaction point” is near Planck length, even though the whole disturbance “a particle” is not pointlike, and the position of the flipping point is randomly distributed in some wave-like spatial region.

In parallel particles fundamentally obligatorily move in the true time ct-dimension, in this model spacetime metrics with the speed of light.

Figure 1. A few examples of particles creation (a) ‒ a T-particle at 3D absolute rest moves along cτ-axis; (b) ‒ a T-particle moves also in 3D space; (c) ‒ a photon moves only in 3D space; (d) ‒ a T-antiparticle moves along cτ-axis in negative direction. Stars point events when an ether FLE is impacted. Note that that is only some illustrative picture, in 4D space a 4D T-particles “helixes” on Figure don’t exist, so that can be quite equally painted relatively to (X,Z) and (Y,Z) planes as well.Correspondingly the intrinsic T-particle’s spin $ћ$ is observed in 3D space as$\frac{1}{2}ћ$ From this it follows, including, that fermions “neutrinos” for sure have non-zero rest masses; and – when a T-particle moves in 3D space, its “helix” is the sum of two “helixes” – along cτ-axis and alongthe spatial direction.

Figure 1. A few examples of particles creation (a) ‒ a T-particle at 3D absolute rest moves along cτ-axis; (b) ‒ a T-particle moves also in 3D space; (c) ‒ a photon moves only in 3D space; (d) ‒ a T-antiparticle moves along cτ-axis in negative direction. Stars point events when an ether FLE is impacted. Note that that is only some illustrative picture, in 4D space a 4D T-particles “helixes” on Figure don’t exist, so that can be quite equally painted relatively to (X,Z) and (Y,Z) planes as well.Correspondingly the intrinsic T-particle’s spin $ћ$ is observed in 3D space as$\frac{1}{2}ћ$ From this it follows, including, that fermions “neutrinos” for sure have non-zero rest masses; and – when a T-particle moves in 3D space, its “helix” is the sum of two “helixes” – along cτ-axis and alongthe spatial direction.

ii.

The always moving particles are, thus, some “gyroscopes” which are always oriented relating to their motion direction, and

iii.

Note also, that it follows from the experimental data that there are two main types of particles in Matter, depending on the parental 4D momentums. In the model that are “S-particles”, created by spatial momentums, and “T-particles”, created by momentums that were directed in the “coordinate time”, i.e. along the cτ-axis.

So S-particles, e.g., photons, always move in 3D space only with the speed of light, T-particles move in “coordinate time” cτ-dimension with the speed of light, if are at rest in the absolute 3D space. If a T particle after be impacted by a space directed momentum, moves also in space, its speed in the “coordinate time” dimension decreases by the Lorenz factor in accordance with the Pythagoras theorem.

Note, though, that the above in this section relates completely only to fundamental particles. If a particle is composed from some fundamental particles, some points in the above are not valid.

And, besides, note that extreme impacts on FLE can result in many comparatively stable close-loop algorithms, and that is observed experimentally – the observed particles zoo now contains a more than a few hundred items – some chimeras that are composed from some fundamental particles, truncated algorithms, as that, e.g., rather possibly muon and tau-lepton are truncated electron’s algorithms; 2-nd and 3-rd generations of quarks, as well, etc. Most of the algorithms have some defects, and so can break on some algorithm’s tick with some constant probability, so such particles decay exponentially in time.

Note also, that from that everything in Matter is/are some disturbances of the FLE lattice that are constantly moving with the 4D speeds of light, it follows that for observing of the absolute space there is no necessity to point some “anchor that is at rest in the absolute 3D space”, as that Poincaré wrote. Any T-particle (body…) in any 3D space point that moves only along the cτ-axis with the speed of light is for sure at the absolute rest.

4. Few Notes Relating to Other Fundamental Problems

5. Cosmology

6. Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems

6.2. Gravity Force

6.2.1. Initial model of Gravity Force, statics

Remaining in this informational concept it is possible to put forward [1] rather reasonable conjecture: sincethe gravity force is universal (regardless to the kind of particles) - then the gravitational potential energy of a system of some bodies is proportional to the accidental coincidence rate of random interactions of Gravity mediators with all/every particles of these bodies. Such coincidences always exist since the FLE’s flip-time [Planck time] is not equal zero. Secondly suppose, thatin gravity interaction only one FLE in particles’ algorithms take part ‒ i.e. every particle’s algorithm has only one Gravity-marked FLE, and that happens in the 3D (XYZ) space, by three conditions:

• -the frequency at which a particle’s algorithm runs if particle is at absolute rest (in statics), is ω = E/ћ = m₀c²/ћ, where m₀ is the inertial rest mass, c is the speed of light, ћ is the Planck’s elementary physical action;
• -in the model every particle’s algorithm has only one fixed gravitationally marked FLE2, (which, rather probably, is the “start FLE” in a particle algorithm) and so the gravitational charge is proportional to the same algorithm’s frequency ω, as the corresponding particle’s energyabove;
• at every algorithmcycle, the G-marked FLE of a particle initiates in the 3D space radial propagating of 2D rim “circular graviton” of flipping the FLE-lattice FLEs, which are G-marked also, and at hitting inflipping G-marked FLE of other particle, that transmits to this particle the momentum , r is the radius-vector from the radiating to the impacted particle.

Since the G-marked FLEs flip independently in both particles, and particles practically are not oriented specifically in the space at gravitational interactions, the elementary interactions above are random. That is not essential in Matter on macro scale, however it allows to observe the quantum nature of Gravity at interactions of lightest particles, first of all photons in macro fields [1,6].

A couple of additional important notes: (i) - first of all from the existent experimental data follows that all/every particles have the gravitational charges, and (ii) - that the Gravity mark is completely symmetrical at particles and antiparticles algorithms running, and so everything in Matter attracts everything.

For two bodies at rest having gravitational masses m₁, m₂, that are placed on the distance between the particles, r, “Newtonian” gravitational potential energy and force are equal

(1)

(1a)

where G is Newtonian constant of gravitation.

As that was assumed above, the FLE’s sizes are equal to Planck’s length, l_P. Besides assume that:

• at every “tick” of a particle’s algorithm a “rim” (“circular graviton”, further “graviton”) of FLEs flips starts to expand in the space with radial speed that is equal to the speed of light, c, so the rim’s area is equal 2πrl_P,see Figure 2,

Figure 2. A sketch of a spreading of the circular gravitons in the space. The directions of the spreading rims’ planes are random since in reality any particle is impacted by some forces and isn’t oriented in the space constantly.

Figure 2. A sketch of a spreading of the circular gravitons in the space. The directions of the spreading rims’ planes are random since in reality any particle is impacted by some forces and isn’t oriented in the space constantly.

ii.

the time intervals of the “radiating” particle’s G-marked FLE’s, of the graviton’s FLE and other particle’s G-marked FLE, flips are the same and are equal to Planck time; and

iii.

at the interaction of a graviton and a particle’s flipping G-marked FLE, the particle is gravitationally impacted.

It is evident, that interactions of gravitons and particles’ G-marked FLEs are accidental events – coincidences of independent processes of “radiation” and spreading of gravitons of “radiating” particle and of G-marked FLE flipping of other one. In previous papersthe coincidence rate in a particle was estimated in suggestion that both – the number of “gravitons” in a point, where a particle’s G-marked FLE flips, and the number of these G-marked FLE flips, are random; at that both numbers are distributed under Poisson law with the averages n₁ and n₂. Then, if both [average] rates of coincidences inside Plank time interval, τ, (note that isn’t, of course, “τ” in the spacetime metrics above) aren’t too large, then it is well known that the coincidence rate is equal

(2)

In reality the particle’s G-marked FLEs flip very regularly; nonetheless the equation (2) remains be true, if one suggests that the interaction of graviton and particle’s G-marked FLE happens in any time moment when the both Plank times intervals overlap (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Overlapping of circular gravitons and G-marked FLE.

Figure 3. Overlapping of circular gravitons and G-marked FLE.

Thus the coincidence rate in a particle for the time when the “irradiated” particle’s G-marked FLE flips remains be as

(3)

where is the flow [s^-1] of gravitons through the particle’s G-marked FLE; is the particle’s G-marked FLE’s flip rate (is equal to the particle’s algorithm tick rate/ frequency ω).

From the suggestions above obtain that the average gravitons flow, which is produced by a body having a mass m₁ on a distance r is equal

(4)

and the coincidence rate in a “irradiated” particle is

(5)

P_G is some probability of interactions. if some other physical effects act. Since the Plank length is equal , from Equation (5) obtain, that if the probability P_G = 1 the coincidence rate in the particle is equal

(6)

It is evident, that if a body having mass m₂ contains not extreme number of particles (and the “radiating” body as well, of course), then the coincidence rate in the body is equal

(7)

Note that the masses m₁, m_p, and m₂, in the equations (5) - (7) above are the inertial masses. It is evident that Gravity action is in this case symmetrical, and so N_c12 = N_c21

The number of elementary momentums that are transmitted to the “radiated”masses is , i.e. the force that acts to the masses, absolute value ofwhich so is equal

(8)

(8a)

- i.e. the force in Newton Gravity law, where the masses are gravitational masses.

The potential gravitational energy of the system of two bodies, defined here in the informational model, E_gs, is as

(9)

- i.e. the energy is the gravitational mass defect, which in the statics is equally divided between the bodies:

(10)

Note that from Eqs. (5) and (8) it follows that at staticsthe gravitational and the inertial masses of a body are completely equivalent, since both “are created” by the samealgorithms tick rates, ω,of particlesthat compose the body.

Note, however, that in this case some “1/2” problem appears, i.e. – the condition that to obtain true value of the gravitational mass defect in every body is necessary for the coincidence rate in the body to be twice lesser then for the corresponding gravity force (Eqs. (8) and (10), however in this ‒ the statics ‒ case this problem really doesn’t exist, since in statics the gravitationally coupled bodies are impacted also by other forces, which fix the bodies in their static positions.

From the abovewe can again ‒ as that was noted earlier relating to the fundamental in physics now speed oflight constant, c = l_P/t_P ‒ conclude that not the gravity constant, G, but Planck length, Planck time, and elementary action, ћ , are indeed fundamental constants in Matter.Note also, that at least for the statics the circular gravitons of a particle transmit at gravity interaction to any another particle all information about the localization of the radiating one in the vector value of elementary momentum ; though with practically 100% QM uncertainty of the distance.

From above follows that the intrinsic processes in both bodies become be slowed on the half binding energy/gravitationalmass defect(divided by ћ, of course). If the mass, M, of one of the bodies is much greater than the other mass, m, the relative decrease of the lesser body’s algorithm frequency is

(11)

Correspondingly, if the body-2 is a clock, the clock’s showingbecomes be slowed down on times, what is two times lesser then that is predicted in the general relativity theory.

If a pair of clocks are placed on different radii from M, r and r + h; h ≪ r in a gravity field (Figure 4)

Figure 4. Two clocks are in a [let – Earth] gravity field. Dotted line – a photon beam.

Figure 4. Two clocks are in a [let – Earth] gravity field. Dotted line – a photon beam.

then their relative tick rates differ as

(12)

For Earth surface , where g is the free fallacceleration.In the GR the clocks’ rates difference is two times more [45]: .

Besides, note here that the photons don’t principally differ from T-particles, really every particle in Matter fundamentally obligatorily has both ‒ the gravitational and inertialmasses,the gravity force acts on the photons analogously to the T-particles.

Note also, that the difference of intrinsic processes rates in bodies that are in space points with different Gravity potentials is predicted in GRT as “gravitational time dilation”, and, whereas this effect is trivial in this informational model, this GRT prediction was completely new in physics in 1916. It was measured yet in 1960-s in well known Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, where GRT value of the difference δω₁ − δω₂ was confirmed [46,47] measuring Mossbauer resonances values at propagating photons that are created at gamma-decay of Fe-57 nuclei.However, in this case two different physical effects are involved – the real difference of intrinsic processes rates of the nuclei on different heights, and possible red/blue shifts of photon frequency. Thus the experimental results can be in accordance with GRT only provided that the GRT postulate that photons don’t change their energy at propagating between points with different potentials [37] is valid, what can be incorrect, photons must interact with gravity field, changing energy as that all other particles do.

This problem now can be experimentally solved only in experiments, where if only one of possible impacts on intrinsic processes is measured. Now such rather easy experiment is possible – for that it is enough to measure elapsed time intervals of preliminary synchronized in one point clocks, after the clocks were placed on different on 400-500m heights on Earth, for example in a skyscraper:

–

it is necessary to synchronize two clocks, let on the ground floor;

–

to lift slowly or with known speed one clock on a height 400-500 m;

–

to wait a few hours;

–

to return the upper clock to the other on the ground floor and to compare the clocks’ elapsed time showings.

On the tick rates two effects impact: “kinematical" slowing down because Earth rotation that is proportional reverse Lorentz factor (1 − v²/c²)^1/2, v is the speed of the clocks ~400m/s near equator, the difference of the frequencies for different heights, H, is~ 1.5x10^-27 2πRH, near equator and for H=500 m~3x10^-17, and thegravitational impact, in this casethe difference because of the gravitational impact is ~5x10^-14, i.e. on 3 orders by magnitude larger,and so the kinematical contribution is negligible.

Thus after 1-hour duration the difference of the clocks elapsed time showings will be ~3.6x10^-10, if GRT is correct, or two times lesser, if this model is correct, the measurement of such time intervals isn’t a too hard problem now.

If the difference of the showings will be in accordance with GRT – this result will be more convincing confirmation of GRT validity than Pound-Rebka-Snider results, if not in accordance with GRT, and rather possibly in accordance with this initial Gravity

Model, from such result, including, it would experimentally follow that photons really change energy/frequency in Gravity fields, what contradicts with GRT postulate that photons propagate along geodesics having constant energy [37].

6.2.2. Quantum Gravity

In the model above the quantum nature of Gravity follows directly, and it looks as rather natural also that after this initial model will be developed at least on the level of classical electrodynamics, the QM gravity formalism will be developed as well – as that happened with classical electrodynamics, “QM ED”, i.e. as the Dirac equation, and QED. Though note, that because of Gravity Force is extremely weak, and so some essential on QM scale energies, momentums, etc., can be realized in some gravitationally coupled systems of masses only if inertial masses are too large for composing a real QM system, the QM gravity theory really will not be applicable at considering practically any real system in Matter, besides some exotics on Plank scale.

Note also, though, that both these Forces and both – classical and QM, theories eventually rather probably should be developed taking into account the common remarks to standard mechanicses formalisms, see “Conclusion” below.

Nonetheless yet now from the above follows principal possibility of observation of quantum gravitational effects, corresponding experiment was proposed yet in 2007 in [1,6,48], where it is proposed the measurement of monochromatic photons beam gravitational distortion using an interferometer with at least two arms, one of which is parallel, and other is vertical relating to Earth surface; arms lengths ~ 300-500 m.

For the experiment it is so enough to upgrade some of the first installations that were made aim at observation of gravitational waves, and using photons source that is able to work in 1-2 Hertz stability mode at least during few seconds; in this experiment the changes of photons energy in Gravity field will be observed directly as well.

6.2.3. Initial model of Gravity Force, Stationary Field, Free Fall

Here we consider (in the absolute frame that is at rest in the absolute Matter’s 3D XYZ space, where [in the frame] all parameters of everything in Matter have real values) utmost simple, however important, free fall motion of bodies in a free closed system, where the bodies have rest masses $M_0$ and (“test mass”) m₀, M₀ ⋙ m₀; e.g., m₀ is mass of proton, and,besides, the consideration will be based on,first of all, theproposition that wasformulated by Ronald R. Hatchin his “modified Lorentz ether theory (MLET)” of Gravity [15]. This position is that

“…. the source of gravitational energy is the rest mass energy of the particle ‒ not the curvature of spacetime…..Gravitational force converts gravitational potential energy (rest mass energy or structural energy) into kinetic energy when aparticle falls and vice versa when a particle rises…”,

This, well rational, and so rather probably really foundational, proposition has rather vague base in MLET, however is in accordance with this initial Gravity model.Indeed, as that is pointed above, a circular graviton is radiatedby the G-marked FLE of a particle as the ether FLE that has kinematical angular momentum be equal ћ, and the “precessingmomentum in g-dimension” be equal to . Further this “point” transforms into the rim of flipping ether FLEs, where the “precessing momentum in g-dimension” angle decreases so that in the 6D spacetime, which are orthogonal inall 3D space directions to the rim’s circle, i.e. propagate in the 3D space along strait lines relatively to the starting point, and sohave zero energy (i.e. the circular gravitons aren’t particles, see section 3.4). However, if such flipping ether FLE hits the irradiated particle’s flippingG-marked FLE, the particle’s FLE obtains the momentum above, at that its “kinematical” precession angle decreases, so the particle’s algorithm becomes be longer and so runs slower, i.e. the inertial mass of the particle in the Gravity field decreases – what is observed as the gravitational mass defect, which is in statics also inertial mass defect. By another word the irradiated particle in a Gravity field – which is the flow of circular gravitons ‒ moves in the field like a human swims in water, spending for that his own energy.

In the considered here closed system the system’s whole energy, W, is equal

(13)

where E_M is energy of the having inertial mass M body, further “energy ofM”, E_p is energy of particle, U is the potential energy of the system.Here we consider the case, when the masses are on infinite distance W = M₀c² + m₀c²,since gravitational potential energy U=0, but if the mass m after some negligible impactstarts to move to M under gravitational force, then the mass M practically remainsat rest, its energy changing is negligible, whereas sothe particle’s energy, because of the energy conservation law,remains at the motion to be equal always to m₀c² and Eq. (13) becomes to be as

(13a)

where E_diss is an energy that, in principle. can be dissipated from the system at the motion, for example, when the mass m radiates “ordinary” gravitons at its acceleration,the energy of mass m is , , V is the 3D the particle’s speed; and if, as that is suggested here, E_diss is negligible, at least in first approximationsowe have

(14)

and thus the permanent inertial mass m_i:

(15)

Further assume that at motion permanent inertial and gravitational masses of the particle remain be equivalent – as that is in statics,

$$m_g=m_i=m_0{(1-{\beta }^2)}^{1/2}$$

(16)

Since Gravity Force acts only in 3D space, the particle spends its intrinsic energy only on its acceleration in the space, when atthat only its kinetic energy $E_k$ increases, correspondingly

(17)

- and so

(18)

If we introduce“ units” of the radius r, $r\equiv \alpha \frac{GM}{c^2}$ .

So further we have equations for reverse Lorentz factor

(19)

- and for the particle’s speed

(20)

6.2.4. The Case of Small r

All that above so is valid only in rather weak fields, the Eqs. (1) – (10) arevalid for sure only till the Newton Gravity law is valid, whereas if r decreases, andin statics, e.g.,if $r=R_{gS}$ ($\alpha =2$), the relative coincidence rate N_c12 in a “irradiated” particle in Eq. (5) is 0.5of the particle algorithm’sfrequency; at $r=R_{gN}$, the number of circular gravitons impactsis equal to the particle algorithm’s ticks rate, i.e. the particle’s mass defect is equal to m₀ at all, what looks as israther strange.

At that, though, if the radiated circular gravitons impacts have Poisson distribution, then rather essential part of theimpacts happens as multiple, k,events atthe one the irradiated particle algorithm’s tick, thoughthe average N_c12 remains as in Eq. (2) (21)

What happens at multiple events, when same G-marked FLE in irradiated particle is

more than 1 time impacted at its FLE’s flip? -isn’t known now – though the consideration above rather probably clarifies this point to some extent.

So, for example, for α~2 and lesser the consideration above looks as rather uncertain, especially in statics,however we can hope that even its application will result inat leasta zero approximation picture, including, e.g., about what happens below the event horizon of Sagittarius A*, where,even if the central compact object would be a big neutron star, α is ~10^-4.

First of all note,that any falling particle has at motion the constant energy, and in statics, after the particle stops in the object, it for sure adds to any M-object only energy E = m₀c² and nothing more. So after the particle stops in the object on the radius α<1, when N_c12 becomes too essentially large,some particles, nonetheless, can, in principle, exist – having at that their “sizes” ‒ Compton lengths , i.e. rather macro lengths (that is essentially a joke, of course, though, nobody now knows what happens if a < 1). For α well more 1, e.g.,more 5 – in the neutron stars, this effect isn’t too essential, and particles remain be ordinary ones, including rather probablyprotons indeed transform into neutrons, etc.

Finally note here, that in MLET some other basic assumption is used – that permanent gravitational mass of falling test mass is lesser in reverse Lorentz factor than its permanent rest mass. This assumption is introduced in MLET by rather questionable way, however we cannot exclude now that it(and something elsebesides the equivalence, though), nonetheless, can be correct, while Ronald Hatch writes that provided this assumption MLET correctly describes motion of planets in the Sun system.What happens at free fall in this case is considered in [52], here note only that doesn’t change essentially the main inferences that follow from the consideration of test mass motion above in this section.

6.3. Initial model of Electric Force, Statics

The electric force is rather similar to gravity - both potentials are as 1/r, if some charged bodies interact, then in reality the interactions of separated charged particles happen, etc.; except, of course, that gravity force is much weaker than electric one and that electric force can act as the attraction and as the repulsion, and so can be effectively screened, whereas this effect is much lesser in Gravity. So it is rather reasonable to conjecture that the equations for the potential energy should be similar also, but the probability of electric interaction should be larger

– because of, as that is assumed in this model,the widths of “circular photon” rim, W₁, and of the “receiving part” of the activated E-marked FLEs in “irradiated” E-charged particle’s algorithm, W₂ are much more than the size of only one G-marked FLE in the gravity case.

Note also that that the circular photons are analogues of the circular gravitons, i.e.have kinematical angular momentums be equal to ħ and the “precessingmomentum in e-dimension” absolute values be equal to .

So for the electric coincidence rate we can obtain some analogous to Equations (3) – (5) (for a couple of particles with the elementary charge, e) equations:

(22)

where P_E – the probability of the interaction if throughparticle-2 a radiated by particle-1 circular photon have passed, τ_E – the “passing” time. Under rather plausible conjectures that:,τ_E = W₂/c, W₁ = α^1/2λ₁, W₂ = α^1/2λ₂, where λ₁, λ₂ arethe Compton lengths of the particles; P_E =1; and α is the fine structure constant, we obtain from Equation(2.22) that electric potential energy of the two-charge systemis

(23)

and for the electricalforce between elementary charges in the statics obtain

(24)

(The lower term in Equation (24) is for arbitrary charges).

Note, that in the Equations(23) and (24) we suggest, as that was for circular graviton above, i.e. that the elementary momentum, which is transferred at the elementaryinteraction is .

Note that, as what was obtained above for gravity,

-if the particles have opposite charges and so the resulting system has negative mass defect, then there exist the “electrical mass defect”, and so real the slowing of internal processes in tied electrical structures, e.g., – in the atoms. For example, in the (${\mu }^{-}$ + proton) “Hydrogen atom” muon should live longer than in free state and this dilation should be essential (detectable?) if a muon is on K-shell of, e.g., Uranium. Though, of course, since the muon in this case more time is inside the Uranium nucleus and so here some other forces, besides the EM, can act on the muon, it seems as very unlike, that a corresponding experiment would be informative; and

- all what is true in Gravity model, first of all that circular photons aren’t particles, and so don’t carry some energy, is true in the Electric Force case. However, unlike Gravity, in this case we cannot for sure suggest that at the slowing down of the internal processes in electrically coupled charged particles the electric charge decreases, in classical electrodynamics it is postulated that the electric charge is constant; this point should be clarified at further development of this model.

Note, also, that from this E-model follow a couple of important consequences. From the equations (23), (24) it follows the explanation of physical puzzle - Why αħc = e²/4πε₀?– whereas in this equation fundamentally different in physics universal for everything in Matter constants – the fundamental elementary action ћ and the speed of light, c, and the specific for only one fundamental EM Force, the elementary electric charge, e, are united by some unknown in the official physics way so, that their ratio is a dimensionless fundamental fine-structure constant, α.

Besides from this model it follows that so called magnetic monopole doesn’t exist.From experiment and classical electrodynamics, it is well known that the magnetic force appears only if an electric charge moves in some “stationary” frame, and disappears, if the charge is at rest in the frame (for example, see [37])

From the above seems it rationally follows that the magnetic force is not really a fundamental Nature force, which exists, in Newton’s words “of itself, and from its own nature”, and so has its own charge “magnetic monopole”.

However electric and magnetic forces are rather symmetrical in the classical electrodynamics, including there can exist inertial frames when only magnetic field exists, while, according to SRT, all relatively moving inertial reference frames are absolutely equivalent, so the argument above turns out to be inessential if SRT is completely correct.

Correspondingly, though in electrodynamics magnetic monopole doesn’t exist, after the Dirac’s publication [38], presenting a number of QM arguments in support of the existence of a magnetic monopole, the “magnetic monopole” problem from 1931 year and until now remains a popular, and even a fundamental, physical problem [39].

Nonetheless, since the Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and so all/every inertial reference frames really aren’t completely equivalent and legitimate, the argument above is valid, since the absolute, i.e. that are at absolute rest in the absolute 3D space, reference frames are the frames that differ from all other “stationary” frames first of all by that only in the absolute frames physical objects, events, and processes, have real values of their physical parameters, since the field of a charged a body that is at absolute rest in the space is purely electric field – from that follows that magnetic monopoles really do not exist.

It also seems quite rational to suggest that the magnetic force is a specific actualization of the electric force, when the ether FLEs in circular photons that are radiated by a moving charge obtain additional momentum proportional to the spatial speed of the charge, including because that FLEs in radiating particles are additionally precessing in the 4D kinematical space at motion along, e.g., X-axis, and rotated in in thiscase in the (X, cτ) plane, (more see sections 2.3., 2.4. in [5a])

So the flipping ether FLEs in circular photons, though don’t transform into a particle at inertial motion, nonetheless become precessing in the “kinematical” 4D space as well. And when they hit an E-marked FLE in another charged particle, they transmit to this particle an additional momentum, which, if the “irradiated” particle is at spatial rest, is orthogonal to momentum that would be transmitted if both charges are at rest, i.e. along direction of the radius-vector between the charges ‒ what is observed as “magnetic force”. If both (all in other cases) charges move with the same velocity, their FLEs are precessing identically, and so in such systems only electric Coulomb interactions are observed.

The radiating of circular photons by charged FLEs evidently isn’t completely symmetrical because of the 4D circular motion of the particle’s algorithm FLE flipping point; that, in principle, can result in that so charged particles have non-zero magnetic momentums.

The next suggestion seems rather rational as well: if a charge is accelerated, then, at least sometimes, some circular photons under impact of changing accelerating momentum transform into close-loop algorithms – particles “ordinary photons”, which have inertial and gravitational masses, where the “electric” and “magnetic” components of transmitted at the interaction precessing FLEs momentums cyclically change each other. Rather probably the same happens at the acceleration in Gravity Force, and an accelerated electrically charged particle in parallel radiates also ordinary gravitons, which are unobservable till now because of the extreme weakness of Gravity.

Another “circular photon” transformation rather probably happens when an “ordinary photon” interacts with some circular photon, mostly of a nucleus, and a T-particles, e.g., e^± pair, are created, with “double opposite rotations” of the photon’s momentum from a spatial direction into two momentums of the pair components with opposite directions along the cτ-axis.

6.5. A Few Notes Else to The Initial Electric Force Model

6.5.1. The Problem of Multiple Events at Interactions of Circular Photons in Irradiated Particle

As that it is shown above in the Gravity Force multiple events at interactions of circular gravitons with the flipping G-marked FLE of an irradiated particle with a well large probability results in that the Newton law isn’t applicable in extremely strong Gravity fields, and at radius be equal to the average rate of the events 2n₁τ in Eq.(21) is ~1, the binding energy and gravitational massdefect of a body that has asmall mass, m, become be equal to the energy mc², i.e. the body “disappears”; what looks as rather strange. Really the energyabove remains, and so energy of the system (M+m), if the system is closed, remains to be (M+m)c², but gravitational mass is lesser.

Though that on first glance looks as that at radiuses ~ R_N and lesser the G-constant changes, that is incorrect, G-constant is a fundamental constant, which cannot be changed, and really that is a consequence of the events multiplicity above.

What happens with a particle in such strong fields? – that is very interesting physical problem, which now hasn’t a substantive explanation in Gravity case in presented here models, and now only few points about what happen in Electric Force action.

First of all – in this case, in contrast to Gravity, the Eq. (21) problem doesn’t arise practically in any possible situation in Matter.

In gravity (repeat for convenience equations above here) the circular gravitons flow density that is radiated and passes through some FLE of ”irradiated” particle by a large mass, M, is ; the flow density of circular photons that are radiated by every elementary charge is .

So if we consider example of a mass M with R_N =1m, M is ~ 1.3x10²⁷ kg (~ 500 Earth masses) , this mass radiates the circular graviton flow, n₁~10⁴³ circular gravitons in a second, that impact to an electron’s FLE so that the average rate of hits in the one G-marked FLE, 2n_1gτ is~1s^-1, the binding energy/gravitationalmass defect is equal to m_ec², while

-the same rate () on 1m radiusis caused by radiating electric charge (~3.5x10¹⁴ elementary charges) flow n_1e when, since in this case the average rate of hits in the E-marked FLEs’ set in electron’s algorithm is in Eq.(21) version, 2n_1eΔt, where , i.e. 2n_1eτ is lesser than 2n_1gτ in ~ 2x10²¹ times, so at Electric Force interactions the multiplicity problem above, which is critical in the Gravity Force case, appears only in much more exotic cases - on Planck energy scale. What seems never happens in Matter at all, and classical electrodynamics is applicable without “multiplicity” limitations always.

Though the “100%” – and more -electrical mass defect problem remains, the particle’s algorithm in electric field is slowed down, so the problem – what really happens in this case with the particle? – really exists, and in this case some additional experimental data are necessary. Really now seems there exist only the case of K-shell electrons of heavy atoms, .in Uranium the binding energy is ~116 keV, what is ~23% (more than Gravity impact ~ 10% in neutron stars) of electron’s own energy, and so some measurements of some specific tiny physical effects in K-shells electrons behavior in a series of heavy atoms rather possibly would be useful at studying of this problem.

6.5.2. Electric Force of charges at motion

When an electrically charged particle is at absolute 3D rest, it radiates circular photons as that gravitational mass does (Figure 4)

Figure 5. A sketch of a spreading of the circular photons in the space. The directions of the spreading rims’ planes are random in 4π since in reality any particle in a body is impacted by some forces and isn’t oriented in the space constantly, however every particle radiates the circular gravitons/photons rims in plains that is oriented by its “helix axis”.

Figure 5. A sketch of a spreading of the circular photons in the space. The directions of the spreading rims’ planes are random in 4π since in reality any particle in a body is impacted by some forces and isn’t oriented in the space constantly, however every particle radiates the circular gravitons/photons rims in plains that is oriented by its “helix axis”.

When a T-particle after some spatial impact moves so in both ‒ some 3D space direction and, fundamentally obligatorily, along the cτ-axis, its algorithm’s FLEs obtain additional precessing, and, since all/every particles move in the 4D space always be 4D oriented so that their “intrinsic” the flip-point’s angular momentum is directed along the 4D particle’s motion direction, it rotates (say, if particle moves with a speed V along X-axis) in (X, cτ) plane (more see [4]); if particles compose a rigid body, they rotate whole body in the plane aboveon the angle when the body’s 3D spatial projection is contracted in reverse Lorentz factor comparing with the “3D rest length”, and, besides, the front body’s end becomes be “younger” in the cτ-dimension (which in physics and everyday practice is “time dimension”) than the back end in the Voigt-Lorentz decrement , V and Lare the particle’s 3D speed and length.This is the physical sense of Lorentz transformation; including the letters “x”, “y”, “z”, and “cτ” (in standard form “ct”) in the transformations really relate only to Matter’s spacetime points that are occupied by the rigid body at given time moment, and fundamentally don’t relate to all/every points in the whole spacetime, as that illusory postulated in SRT, see Figure 5.

Figure 6. A sketch of a spreading of the circular photons in the 3D space that are radiated by moving particle. The directions of the spreading rims’ planes are random in 4π, since any particle in a body is impacted by some forces, however unlike the absolute rest case above all T-particles in moving body at 3D space motion have the same additional caused by impacting 3D momentum precessing, and so all are oriented also in the 4D and 3D spaces.

Figure 6. A sketch of a spreading of the circular photons in the 3D space that are radiated by moving particle. The directions of the spreading rims’ planes are random in 4π, since any particle in a body is impacted by some forces, however unlike the absolute rest case above all T-particles in moving body at 3D space motion have the same additional caused by impacting 3D momentum precessing, and so all are oriented also in the 4D and 3D spaces.

Correspondingly at spatial motion the moving electrically charged body radiates circular photons more orthogonally to the motion direction by two physical effects: because of the rims planes orientation above, and because of that in this case more mediators are radiated orthogonally in the solid angle near larger axis of the rims ellipses than near the short axis.

So, as that is known in electrodynamics, the strength of electric field, E, of moving charge in orthogonal direction is larger than, say, in parallel direction, and is as (see, say, [13],below for simplicitywe consider the motion of one particle, e.g. electron, and so q = e, if electron is at absolute rest e = e₀):

(25)

In the electrodynamics electric charge is relativisticinvariant, and so in Eq.(25) e = e₀, and the strength so is largerthan Coulomb strength in Lorenz factor.

Nonetheless if two charges move with identical 3D velocities, say, when the line between charges is orthogonal to the velocity direction, then the force one charge affects the other one bywhich is

(26)

- i.e. is lesser than Coulomb force, if at the motion both charges are as e = e₀.What looks as questionable on first glance if Eq. (25) is correct, however such look is an illusion; at motion electric charge remains be the same as at statics, while the effect above is caused by action of magnetic force that acts in this case against Coulomb force action.

Since Gravity Force is similar to Electric Force, in looks as reasonable to assume that at motion of gravitational masses corresponding gravimagnetic force acts; and it acts against to action of the “Newtonian” gravitational force, like that happens Electric Force case. That seems follows from that in accordance with the relativity principle, if a system of two charged bodies, which have one sign electric charges, and masses such that the electric repulsion is completely compensated by gravitational attraction, this system must be in the balance in statics and any inertial motion, rather probably independently on – on which distances the bodies are, and in which angle the line between the bodies relatively to the motion direction is. Nonetheless not here, that Gravity and Electric Forces are different Forces, and this point, including in the example above, should be clarified at further these Forces theories development

6.6. The Section 6 Summary

From that in the developed initial fundamental Nature Gravity and Electric forces models above the main, and experimentally practically for sure confirmed, equations of gravitational and electrical forces are obtained, at least at statics, without using Newton and Coulomb laws, it follows that these models are scientifically reliable, and really adequately describe what really happens in Matter when these Forces act;

-including, from these models, which are based on the assumption that the FLEs in the Matter’s ether ‒ [7] 4D dense FLE-lattice have the size be equal to the Planck length, and “flip time” be equal to Planck time it follows, that this main assumption is with a rather large probability true.in the whole physical model.

Really the main fundamental problems in classical and quantum electrodynamicses, where in the first one some “flows of energy” and “energy density” in EM fields are postulated, despite of the evident problem: why, from what mystic infinite reservoir, and how, this energy constantly always is flowing, whereas, say stable charged particles exist well stably billions of years?,

–

as well as in QED, where for/by the equally as the above mystic reasons and ways the charges constantly billions of years radiate flows of “virtual photons”, which also transmit to other charges some energy, etc.,

–

becomes to be clarified – there is no these fields’ energy flows, correspondingly there is no any energy densities, no some “electromagnetic masses”, no having energy “virtual photons” flows etc.

At least two of the fundamental Nature forces’, i.e. Gravity and Electric Forces’, fields have no specific gravitational and electric charges and so don’t interact specifically ‒ really only the charges, i.e. gravitational masses and electric charges in concrete systems interact. Note, however, that the above is practically for sure correct only in statics, if the Gravity and Electric Forces’ charges move, then now we cannot exclude that the fields can contain, besides the additional momentums, also some energy, etc., this point should be clarified in the final theories of the Forces.

The developed here model of Gravity Force at free fall motion of comparatively small masses in gravity fields of material objects that have extremely large masses, first of all cosmological objects, allows to obtain a zero approximation description of what happens at small distances to the objects, including what happens below event horizons of SMBH;

Both Forces are essentially similar, and so, since really in Matter the gravitational fields, besides only very exotic cases, are weak, in most cases application of Gravity theory at solving of concrete tasks, say, motion of stars and structures in a galaxy, can be based on Newton Gravity law, though be similar to classical electrodynamics. For example, using additionally retarded potentials and (rather probably repulsive, though this point should be clarified) gravimagnetic force, would be useful at analysis of large structures, e.g., solution of the “non-Newtonian motions of stars in galaxies” problem.

Note here also, that even at application of Newton Gravity law at description of bodies motion in, including stationary, Gravity fields, the standard application of Hamiltonians and Lagrangians should be changed at least in that the equations must use really changing at the motion permanent gravitational and inertial masses, while now the used in the equations mass m is constant. Though in this case that isn’tunique point that is rather vague in the standard mechanics, when interacting bodies are coupled in some systems having potential energy U.

Anexample ‒ “Kepler task” in [37a], where the motion of a test mass, m, in a stationary Gravity field haspotential energy in the Lagrangian . So the “effective” potential energy is , M is the mass’s m angular momentum, and so a test body’s energy remains be limited, while the body moves in a “potential wall” on an orbit around large mass, being inside some borders in 3D space; or, if the test mass energy is large enough, the motion in space is infinite.

However, if the test mass moves having the angular momentum be equal to zero, the mass, in principle, can in this case have arbitrary energy, what is impossible – see theconsidered above free fall motion, where the test mass has zero M.So it looks as be rational that the standard now Lagrangian (and Hamiltonian) techniques at descriptions of motion bodies in at least Gravity and Electric Forces fields should be modified, what can require essential clarification of what is physical parameter “potential energy” at all.

The application of corrected so Newton Gravity mechanics inside Sun planet system can be well effective, however its application on larger cosmological scales, say, at description of galaxies’, including Milky Way, structures motion, it is necessary also to know the absolute 3D velocities of galaxies; for at least Milky Way case and space region ~ at least few hundreds of millions of light years, this velocity can be measured at proposed in 2013-2016 experiments [18];

Real physical theories must be based on that the real Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and at least [7]4D Cartesian spacetime with the metrics (cτ, X, Y, Z, g, e, ct), where the ultimate base of Matter – the at least [7]6D dense lattice of the binary reversible at least [7]6D FLEs is placed; and everything in Matter is/are some disturbances in the lattice. Correspondingly the main task and aim at development of any fundamental physical theory must be formulating of the theory on the Planck scale, for what corresponding experiments, from where the additional to indicated in these models properties of FLE by some ways can be derived, should have the main priority,

-and any fundamental physical theory must be based on the principle that really all fundamental Nature forces are mediated only by real mediators (decays of unstable particles are because of their algorithms have some real errors); and practically for sure the really non-mystic Gravity and Electric Forces theories should be based on the presented here models.

7. Conclusions

–

-the observation of the quantum nature of Gravity [1,6], and

–

though not really fundamental, but important, simple and cheap, experiment in a high building, which, rather probably, will show that the GR postulate that photons at motion do not change their energy in gravitational fields between points that have different potentials, is wrong while this model is correct;

–

should be made as soon as possible.

References

1. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The Information and the Matter.e-print arXiv: physics/0703043v5, 2007-2008.
2. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.Inform Physics do is possible?Poster report on the conference XIXèmes Rencontres de Blois Matter and Energy in the Universe. Blois, Loire Valley, France May 20th – May 26th, 2007 http://confs.obspm.fr/Blois2007/AllAbstracts.html.
3. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The information as Absolute. e-printsarXiv:1004.3712v2 ,http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.268904, 2010-2017. 3a. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.“The Information as Absolute" - 2022 ed. e-print https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03812066, 2022.
4. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature? e-print http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819, 2008 – 2010.
5. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The Informational Conception and Basic Physics. v1-v4 e-printsarXiv:0707.4657v4,http://viXra.org/abs/1503.0077, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16494, 2012-2015. 5a. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The Informational Conception and Basic Physics. e-print arXiv:0707.4657v5, 2021.
6. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The informational model - possible tests. e-print http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, 2011.
7. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.Space and Time. e-print http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003, 2013.
8. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.To measure the absolute speed is possible? e-print https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_To_measure_the_absolute_speed_is_possible http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.34960, 2013.
9. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?. e-print,http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.48709, 2016.
10. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The informational model – gravity. e-print http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0031 http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4332.9925, 2016.
11. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The notion “speed” and the Lorentz transformations. e-print https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317067896_The_notion_speed_and_the_Lorentz_transformations http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.802365, 2017.
12. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.About some conventions in mechanics.e-print https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics, http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0673 http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1142628, 2017.
13. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V. The informational model: twin paradox.e-print https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34064.51201/1, 2018.
14. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The “Information as Absolute” conception: the consciousness. e-print https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720/1, 2018.
15. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The Information as Absolute” conception: Marxism and “now”.e-print https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now,DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1116209, 2018.
16. Duff, M.J. Top ten problems in fundamental physics. International Journal of ModernPhysics A2001, Volume 16 (5), pp. 1012-1013 .
17. Roland E. A.;Lidström, S.Life, the universe, and everything – 42 fundamental Questions. e-print https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.08730, 2018.
18. Newton, I. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. 1686. In Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n349/mode/2up.
19. Eddington, A. S. The Nature of physical World. Cambridge at the university press, 1948.
20. Von Weizsäcker, C.F.Eine Frage Über die Rolle der quadratischen Metrik in der Physik. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A, 1952Volume 7(1), p 141.
21. Von Weizsäcker, C.F.Komplementarität und Logik. Die Naturwissenschaften 1955, Volume 42, pp 521–529, pp 545–555 .
22. Fredkin,E.Digital Philosophy. http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/digital_philosophy/toc.htm 2000.
23. Poincaré,H. Science and Hypothesis. New York: the Walter Scott publ., 1905, p. 171 .
24. Einstein, A. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Ann. Phys., 1905, Volume 322, pp 891–921 .
25. Dingle,H. The Case against Special Relativity. Nature 1967, Volume 216, pp 119-122 .
26. De Broglie,L. Recherches sur la théorie des quanta, Réedition du texte . 1924, Masson &Cie, Paris 1963 .
27. Asif, M. M. Khan S. Zitterbewegung, internal momentum and spin of the circular travelling wave electromagnetic electron. e-print https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07534 2016.
28. FitzGerald, G. F. The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere. 1889 Science, Volume 13, p 51 .
29. Minkowski, H. Space and Time. In The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity;Lorentz, Hendrik A., Albert Einstein, Hermann Minkowski, and HermannWeyl, Dover, New York, 1952.
30. Lorentz,H. A. Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light. Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1904, Volume 6, pp 809–831 .
31. Poincaré,H. Sur la dynamique del’électron. Comptes Rendues, 1905, Volume 140, pp 1504 – 1511 .
32. Poincaré, H. Sur la dynamique de l’ electron.Jourmal Rendiconti del circole Matematico di Palermo1906,Volume XXI, pp 129-155 .
33. Bell, J.S.How to teach special relativity. Progress in Scientific culture1976, Volume 1 (2), pp 1-13 .
34. Дирак, П.А.М. Теoрия пoзитрoна (in Russian). Атoмнoе ядрo. Сбoрник дoкладoв 1 всесoюзнoй ядернoй кoнференции.Гoсударственнoе техникo-теoретическoе издательствo Ленинград-Мoсква, 1934, pp 139-144 .
35. Stueckelberg, E.La signification du temps propre en mécanique ondulatoire. Helv. Phys. Acta 1941,,Volume 14, pp. 322–323 .
36. Feynman, R. The Theory of Positrons. Phys. Rev. 1949, Volume 76, pp 749-757 .
37. Landau, L. Lifshic, E.The Classical Theory of Fields. 4th ed., Volume 2 (Course of Theoretical Physics Series),Butterworth-Heinemann, 1980. a. Landau, L. Lifshic, E. Mechanics. 3-rded. Volume 1 (Course of Theoretical Physics Series) Pergamon press , 1976.
38. Dirac, P. A. M.Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. 1931, Volume A133, pp 60–72 .
39. Milton, K.A. Theoretical and experimental status of magnetic Monopoles. Review article. e-print https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0602040 2006.
40. van de Vis, R. N.; Sfakianakis, E. I. et, al. Nonlinear Dynamics of Preheating after Multifield Inflation with Nonminimal Couplings. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, Volume 123, pp 171-301 .
41. Guth, A. H. The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution To The Horizon And Flatness Problems.Phys. Rev. D 1981, Volume 23, pp 347-355. a. Linde, A. Inflationary Cosmology after Planck 2013.e-print https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0526 2014.
42. Von Seeliger, H. Über das Newton'sche Gravitationsgesetz.Astronomische, Nachrichten 1895, Volume 137 (9), pp 129–132 .
43. Hatch,R. R. A new theory ofGravity: overcoming problems with general relativity. Physics Essays 2007, Volume 20 (1), pp 83-100 .
44. Okun, L.B.; Selivanov, K.G.; Telegdi, V. L. Гравитация фoтoны часы (in Russian) Uspehi Physicheckich Nauk 1999, Volume 169 (10), pp 1141 –1147 .
45. Pound, R.Rebka, G. Apparent weight of photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1960, Volume 4, pp 337-341 .
46. Pound, R.; Snider, J. Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett 1964, Volume 13, pp 539-540 .
47. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V. On the photon spectrums of some monochromatic beams in Earth gravitation field. e-print https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.4657v2.pdf 2007.
48. Boyle, L.; Finn, K.; Turok, N.CPT-Symmetric Universe. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, Volume 121, pp 251 - 301 .
49. Volovik,G.E. Comment to the CPT-symmetric Universe: Two possible extensions. e-print https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07584 19, 2018.
50. Singal, A.K. Solar system peculiar motion from the Hubble diagram of quasars and testing the Cosmological Principle.e-print https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.09390, 2019.
51. Shevchenko, S.V.; Tokarevsky, V.V.The informational physical model and fundamental problems in physic.Presentation onConference Gravitational Physics and Astronomy 2022 , Cairo, Dec 4 – 9, 2022.