There is one other facet to this problem of finding slight excess mass which should be mentioned (after all, this is vortex.) That is the antigravity property of some types of matter; which property has, of course, been attributed to the electron in some fringe theories.
This idea goes back a long way, and pops up on many forums, but it is also a part of the theory of R. Mills (although a minor part). Here is a typical amateur site where it is explored: http://www.sciencenook.com/gdt/nt_1ag.htm At any rate, consider the antigravity electron WRT either the positron or the (*e-) particle. Is the positron also antigravity? And if not, what is the interaction of gravity with (*e-) ? Dirac's theory predicts the "negative energy" electron - but NOT in our space/time continuum. It may show up as what can be called a 4-space "hole", but NOT a 3-spatial thing. To "exist" here, a particle has to have our dimension of time, so it must "occupy some positive timeline" but the negative electron of Dirac does not . I am in the habit of calling Dirac's sea "reciprocal space" rather than a true fourth dimension, for reasons too complicated to get into now. But in short, if "time" is a *volume,* of sorts - and we normally experience it as a straight line (IOW as one-dimensional, then time is T=1 for us). Consequently, reciprocal space could be [3-space] plus[ T=2] and "full" four dimensionality is only possible when [3-space] encounters [T=3]. There are other variations on this theme. When Dirac's negative electron has a forced interaction with 3-space matter, it "eats" an electron, so to speak, leaving a positive charge, which we call the "positron" (it's actually at that point where a 3-space "hole" appears instead of an extra-dimensional "hole." Thinking in both 3-space and 4-space at the same time is necessary - sorry for the verbal confusion. That remant positron, which came into our 3-space as a result of Dirac's negative electron having removed a 3-space electron, is then poised to annihilate with another 3-space electron - so from our perspective we have lost two real electrons. IOW we have lost the equivalent of an electronium (*e-). In the *converse* of that well-known process (which goes on all the time in the "froth of virtual foam" which characterizes the quantum world) - we can gain one (*e-) from reciprocal space, in exhange for a like amount of EMF. I believe that this is what happens when two deuterium fuse into an alpha particle. Instead of the characteristic 24 MeV photon - we effectively exchange that mass/energy for about two dozen (*e-) particles. Now, we can, and some cosmologists do consdier the negative electron of Dirac as the force which generates the acceleration of the expanding universe, the so-called dark energy, and furthermore, we can consider the *positron* both as a "hole" in reciprocal space or surprisingly, as something akin to gravity itself in our space, since all massive objects will be drawn towads that dimensional "hole". This verbalization would bolster the view that the electron is antigravity and its anti-particle, the electron, is the reverse situation - that is, the positron can be identified with "gravity" itself (as part of a graviton particle). If the positron exists as associate or particulate of the graviton, where the mass of the graviton in many GUTs is many GeV and the positron about half an MeV... then perhaps positron holes tend to "group" into an aglommeration of about 10^6 to 10^7 which is... coincidentally about the size of certain other hypothetical particles... including possibly an EVO? Is that why an EVO does not experience antigravity even though its component elements all appear to be anti-gravity - and also why the normal charge differential of all those massed electrons is nullified? This line of thought could also mean that the (*e-) will appear far heavier when captured in any atom, because it has in effect "pinned" that atom to a gravity-inducing particle (not the graviton itself but probably a multiple)... wouldn't it be elegant if the multiple involved the fine-structure constant ? something like K*[1/alpha]^2 or higher power law .... In short, perhaps we should be looking for a rather "heavy" isomer of any element, if we want to find electronium... do any exist? Stay tuned. Jones
