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

Also, Field Theories in Word:

& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:

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

Fitz's 1966 book in PDF

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

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

Feynman's QED

A delayed response to Dr. Michio Kaku


A long time ago Dr. Michio Kaku responded to an article that I had written but it has taken me this long period of time to find the complete linkage of string theory with what Dr. Milo Wolff is saying.

Einstein said he envisaged himself traveling on a light wave through space. Hermann Minkowski showed us that it was really spacetime, so this means one might also consider riding with a wave through time as well.

When you get a picture of an electronic wave on an oscilloscope then you see a simulation of actually riding with that wave through time. Electronically the oscilloscope allows you to see this invisible wave as a visible pattern by simulating the movement of both you and the wave at the same speed.

This gives us an important message: It tells us that perhaps we might actually perceive certain groups of invisible waves or strings as things only if we also moved at the same speed through time with them.

We know this quantum world is really made up of waves or vibrating strings. Could we be tuned in to the rest of this universe much like a superheterodyne radio receiver?

I'm sure everyone interested in string theory has had this thought too, but now I must add to this what Dr. Milo Wolff has discovered and that is the manner in which these frequencies or vibrating strings reproduce themselves. Anything that goes through time has to either reproduce or be gone.

My good friend Milo Wolff has shown us exactly how this constant reproduction takes place over time. He also has given us the mathematical proof that to reproduce themselves, these waves or vibrating strings combine into a spinning, spherical, standing wave entity. One of these entities we call the electron.

But standing waves by themselves cannot transmit energy. So how does this reproduction take place?

Anyone who has built his own radio transmitter knows that if he doesn't eliminate the vast majority of standing waves then the signal he is transmitting simply doesn't get out. In radio we must eliminate all the standing waves we can but this universe - does exactly opposite - and evidently uses spherical, standing waves to build itself.

Milo Wolff has found, and proven mathematically, that each electron is a spherical, standing wave that is constantly in the process of being re-built from all the surrounding electrons out to the Hubble Limit. But from there on out the building, for this one particular electron, ceases entirely, Milo discovered. Thus we have Einstein's "unbounded yet finite" universe.

So what is a vibrating string? Is it a standing wave or is it a wave that transmits energy?

The answer we get is that it takes on both roles. This all depends on the relationship with each electron to other electrons. And the secret of the electron is that it prevents most of these vibrating strings from radiating their energy.

How does it do this?

Via its spin! Any antenna that receives energy must be parallel to the antenna receiving this energy. What the spin does is prevent these parallel paths from forming thus keeping energy leakage - to other electrons - to a minimum.

Thus the vast majority of the frequencies or vibrating strings making up the electron are scalar, standing waves. But Milo has discovered the electron spin frequency also appears to be a scalar wave as well. Knowing this, we must observe electron spin orientations where a definite pattern of constant non-alignment, of spins, is there. Yet with the three elements (iron, nickel & cobalt) - at the very peak of the energy curve - we see some definite spin alignment (magnetism) taking place. Why? Ah, the distant surroundings now enter the picture!

Berkeley, Mach, Einstein and even Maxwell told us that inertial mass depended on our surrounding universe. All the gyro instruments used on airplanes and ships depend on gyros that hold their positions of alignment to the fixed stars. So some sort of binding is there too. We also know we gain energy with a change in close binding. In fact this is called binding energy. The gyro shows us there must be a far distant binding as well as close binding. From this you can see what energy really is: Kinetic energy - for a particular electron - is merely a binding exchange: the electron loses a bit of far distant binding and gains that same amount of close binding as this electron gets a quantum of kinetic energy.

Later, when we discuss the sigma bond, you will see why these binding exchanges from far to close, must always be of equal intensity. More binding with the far distant surroundings means more inertial mass.

This binding exchange is why we have the formula E=mc2.

With iron, nickel & cobalt - at the very peak of the energy curve - we have a situation where these elements have about the same amount of binding - with the fixed stars - that they have with closer entities. You can only have more spins in one direction (magnetism) when the binding from the far distant surroundings approximately equals close binding.

Elements to the right of the peak, of the energy curve, are large enough to have more binding with the far distant surroundings than close binding. Therefore energy comes when the same amount of binding is being shifted from far to close, via fission, where smaller entities are created from the original entity.

Elements to the left of the peak, of the energy curve, are all less massive than iron but when they can fuse together via atomic fusion - becoming even closer together - then they too acquire even more closer binding and lose that same amount of binding (mass) with the surrounding stars.

The higher the binding with the fixed stars then the higher the inertial mass.

But how is all this binding being done?

Let's look at how it's done with magnetism and sigma and pi chemical bonding. Let's remember too, what all the chemists know, that you can never have a pi bond unless you also have a sigma bond.

Everyone knows that the smallest element of magnetism is the spinning electron. There are two types of orientations where electrons attract other electrons in both magnetism and chemical bonding.

The stronger magnetic attraction and the weaker chemical bond is where both electrons with the same spin have the same spin axis. This polar type bond is called a pi bond in chemical bonding.

The weaker magnetic attraction but the stronger chemical bond is when a spin up and a spin down electron are spinning in the same spin plane. This equatorial bond is called a sigma bond.

And one thing more of supreme importance is that the strength of these bonds do not decrease with distance but fall off entirely at the distance of the Hubble limit. Only the number of these bonding pairs decrease with the square of the distance. So Be carefull: The field concept can only be used within certain parameters. In 1954, shortly before Einstein died, he said, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included [and of] the rest of modern physics."

A sigma bond keeps its full strength all the way to the Hubble limit. This is why a quantum of light, from a distant star, comes to your eye full strength. Your eye needs about 7 of these quanta - a change in binding of 7 electron pairs - to discern even the slightest bit of light.

You get a spark in the spark plug of your car after the coil disconnects from the battery. Your eye works similarly in that the quantum of light from a star appears in your eye after the electron in your eye disconnects its sigma bond from the distant star and reconnects that same strength sigma bond to another closer electron in your eye.

But now more about bonding methods: Why is the weaker magnetic attraction also the stronger chemical attraction?

Ah, it's because Niels Bohr was closer to the truth 90 years ago than our quantum scientists are today. It seems that these electrons are really in orbits and not orbitals. They really have to be thought of as actually traveling around the nucleus for the stronger magnetic attraction to be the same orientation as the weaker chemical attraction. Here's the reason why:

The polar bond in magnetism is the stronger bond but in chemical bonding the polar bonding of an electron below with one above it, can only happen when they are both perfectly lined up above and below each other on the same spin axis. And this is a very short portion indeed of the entire orbit time.

While the equatorial bond in magnetism is the weaker magnetic bond, it is the stronger chemical bond because the spins of both electrons, in a sigma bond, are in the same spin plane constantly. The sigma bond is a constant bond. This is why you must always have a sigma bond before you can have a pi bond. It's the sigma bond that really establishes the construction form or symmetry.

Why do we have this binding?

It's Ampere's Laws or in phase binding. Please click that red link and read all about this before you go any further.

Once you see and realize this is the way our entire universe is actually working then you have everything at your disposal to solve what Einstein was trying to solve. You can put the pieces of the puzzle all together and unify the forces as Einstein tried to do. But recognize the parameters or limits of your present concepts and math: Not only your math but your concepts of motion, size and even the spacetime interval are limited to one single spacetime realm.

You really need to read all of my papers to see the entire picture. These are not my ideas. I have merely been lucky to have lived a long enough life and to have learned the ideas of many others. I am indebted to people like Caroline Thompson who showed me the essential part phase was playing in all of this. Others like David Bohm saw it before Caroline but it was Caroline who e-mailed it to me.

I consider myself lucky to have exchanged ideas with Van Flandern who convinced me that with gravity having no aberration and light having aberration that the speed of gravity had to be, as Newton suspected, an almost infinite velocity. I was surprised indeed to find out that almost the entire astronomical world agreed with him. I deeply miss my exchanges with both Caroline Thompson and Tom Van Flandern who are both gone now.

One night, on the Charlie Rose show, I heard Stephen Wolfram say that we would not find a mathematical Theory of Everything until we had far, far, better super computers. Milo and I both knew this because we knew all the surroundings were involved but how did Stephen Wolfram know this, I wondered. So I read his 1,000 page "New Kind of Science". After that I added, to my agenda, these three supremely important ideas of Stephen Wolfram:

  1. Mathematics can only explain simple things.
  2. Only a model can explain complicated things (like our universe).
  3. But a simple model can explain complicated things.

What I now see is that a simple phase model can fully explain this complicated universe and even the principle of equivalence or why we see gravity as acceleration.

When a quantum of light comes to your eye from a distant star then a tiny portion of that electron - a number of strings - releases a sigma bond to an electron in your eye. This electron then swaps that same amount of in phase binding - same number of strings in phase - with another closer electron in your eye.

So, you could also say that quantum of light was really a small number of strings that for a brief interval of time changed from an inert standing wave to a perfectly in phase (with the detector) transmittable wave.

But the electrons must be reproducing via even higher frequency strings than these light frequency strings.

And the quarks must be reproducing via even shorter length, higher frequency strings than that.

I do not know where the shortest, highest frequency string is but it seems to me that there must be some limit as string theory implies.

And it is this message I'm finally sending to Dr. Michio Kaku.



For more about all this see: From where do we get this quantity c squared?

Also read this:

Be sure to read:

See this short, clear picture:



There's a lot more too.

And this you can find out by buying my latest book Universities Asleep at the Switch at or by reading it FREE simply by clicking the following links: (This link is faster if you have dial up.) (This is the book FREE in Adobe.).

Web pages are at: &

Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers and Thoughts

Thanks for reading this. Let me know what YOU think. e-mail is

This page can be copied and published by anyone as long as it is copied and published in its entirety.

August 02, 2010

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.