elas

As an aside, it should not go unnoticed that the main problem for all those mentioned, is being famous. For lesser mortals persistance pays off. From '76 to '86 hundreds of South Africans arrived in the Carribean and tried to gain entry into the USA or, failing that; the UK. Passports were available at £1000 and $1000. The US supplier was eventually caught but refused to return to the USA instead he had a thriving bussiness in the Carribean. The UK supplier refused to supply more than six per year because that was the maximum the department could lose without causing an investigation. But, South Africans are well verse in dealing with hard nose goverments and by carefully testing the system a way was found to acquire a valid passport from US authorities simply by juggling the system. All white South Africans rapidly dissapeared to become anomalous US citizens, regardless of their often extreme racial views. Unfortunately the method did not work for the one very moderate coloured S African (of Indian desent) who sadly was forced eventually to return to SA. South Africans now find it easier to go to Australia, but I did hear a rumour that USA immigration are soft on SA illegal immigrants as part of a campaign to keep English as the main language. Sadly my days as a Carribean beach bum ended long ago, but the stories of attempts to enter the USA formed a large part of beach bum chatter and probably still does. The key to success is anonimity.

I have repeatedly said that constructive criticism is the best aid to progress and over the past 20 years I have pestered the forum experts for just such criticism. Starting with integral and the nutcases on the theory development forum, I have met with varying responses, the worst case being Tom Matteson who for some years has refused to read my submissions. My fellow nutcases have long ago dropped out of view, most are silent but one or two can still be found on less critical forums. So you will appreciate that my thanks to you for staying this far is both genuine and heartfelt. A testable theory is probably the best I could hope to achieve being unsure of how to proceed; not that I am going to stop but clearly there is a whole new area to study and it may be some time before I have anything further to contribute. So this is an appropriate time to say a sincere thank-you for your help this far, regards elas

And this is where the wheels come off the wagon. No, mass is not treated as one particle — Since any element of mass is attracted by a symmetric sphere as if the sphere were a particle, it follows that the force a symmetric sphere exerts on any other mass distribution can be calculated by replacing the sphere by a particle of equal mass located at its centre. In particular then, the force that two symmetric spheres exert upon each other is the same as if each sphere were replaced by its equivalent particle. Thus as far as the forces of gravitational attraction are concerned, symmetric spheres behave exactly as if they were particles Extracted from ‘Classical Mechanics’ by R Douglas Gregory. (Author's emphases in bold.) Wrong emphasis "the force that two symmetric spheres exert upon each other is the same as if each sphere were replaced by its equivalent particle." There is no claim that it is a single particle REPLY I made clear (in brackets) that the emphases are Gregory’s not mine. Neither am I claiming that they are single particles. What the G constant proves is that all spheres can be treated as single particles complete with point-like mass – my case is that this can only be so if all particles have the same content. If the contents of a quark differed from the contents of an electron then the gravitational force between neutron stars and other bodies would require a different G constant than the G constant between a hydrogen star and other bodies. Alternatively it can be observed that stars made from different compositions of the elements have different ratios of neutrons to proton/electron pairs, therefore there would be no G constant if the particles within the neutrons had a different content (i.e. density:volume ratio) from the particles outside the neutrons. It is the existence of a G constant found by experiment that proves the linear force model to be correct; that is why the linear force model is the only model that predicts the G force constant via the G/2 constant of single particle linear force. Because G/2 is the single particle constant; G/2 is the fundamental constant. mr = G/2 Using the same units for mass and radius in all experiments will produce a G constant because all the particles that make up a single mass are different states of a single elementary particle and the contents of each single elementary particle is conserved throughout all changes of state.

— you made it sound like the electron being treated classically is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, and upon reading the entire quote one realizes that this is not what MacGregor is claiming. He admits that the QM viewpoint is almost universally accepted, and if one were to only look at your quote, one would not get that impression. That is not the way McGregor puts it; he main thrust is that there is a case for an alternative, despite the popularity of the Standard model. This business of falsifying has always baffled me, being unedified; but I might be able to get some help and come back later on this point It's what separates science from nonscience. Rigor vs ad-hocery. So does: Explaining the cause of G Explaining why light waves have the same energy as two particles. Explaining the anomalous magnetic moment on the muon. Explaining why all observed elementary particles have the same charge. Explaining the structure of an atom of each element in a manner that allo0ws the elements to be explained without any of the exceptions common to the current model. (Table of elements). It’s what separates science from mathematics. I cannot find where I have entered Rqmc/Rc Last column of the first table in the first post. This column can be omitted without doing any damage to the proposal. And this is where the wheels come off the wagon. No, mass is not treated as one particle — Since any element of mass isw attracted by a symmetric spere as if the sphere were a particle, it follows that the force a symmetric sphere exerts on any other mass distribution can be calculated by replacing the sphere by a particle of equal mass located at its centre. In particular then, the force that two symmetric spheres exert upon each other is the same as if each sphere were replaced by its equivalent particle. Thus as far as the forces of gravitational attraction are concerned, symmetric spheres behave exactly as if they were particles Extracted from ‘Classical Mechanics’ by R Douglas Gregory. (Author's emphases in bold.) This means that going from the densest compaction to the least dense compaction one step at a time; each compaction is a 'particle' within a weaker 'particle' compaction state. Because of this, the linear force constant (G/2) is common to all compactions and the force between any two particles (G) is common to all compactions. All that is needed is a measurement of the total number of elementary particles in each compaction and this is achieve by measuring the mass. Hence in all compactions mr = G/2 (the linear force constant) and the force between any two particles (regardless of compactions) is G. Note that what is currently referred to as gravity covers a large number of different compaction states. The gravitational forces around galaxies, stars and planets are different compaction states that share a common constant (G). Your units don't match up. Which means that the relationship between the two depends entirely on the unit systems chosen — if you did this in english units, or even cgs, you would not get the relationship you claim. That indicates that it is accidental rather than physical. Numerology. All one would get is a different arbitrary value for G. Science not mathematical prediction.

elas is selectively quoting MacGregor; if you read the entire passage What is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander! (or perhaps one man's snippet is not another man's passage.) This business of falsifying has always baffled me, being unedified; but I might be able to get some help and come back later on this point. I cannot find where I have entered Rqmc/Rc As given in the table. Although experimenters give G in units (because they are only dealing with one force (i.e. compaction state); the value in reality is an arbitrary value that can be used in all compaction states (i.e. for all forces). Recall that in the law of gravity, the mass of stars and planets are treated as one particle then obviously one unit cannot be applied to both cosmic bodies and particles. Perhaps it will help if the diagram showing the relationship between the particle and anti-particle fields of the linear force model is repeated on this thread; the field is shown in logarithmic form to match Fig.1.1 copied from McGregor’s book. It shows that the electric radius (R[e]) is indeed point-like. The electromagnetic radius (classical electron radius (R[o]) extends to the high and low force and anti-force concentric. The Hall radius is on the concentric where the forces change over. And the two Compton radii (and the proposed mr = G/2 radii) are the possible field limits. The sections below A and B are the extract from McGregor.

elas is selectively quoting MacGregor; if you read the entire passage you'll see that he says that experiment confirms that the electron is indeed a million times smaller (at least) than the classical radius, and that as a result classical physics does not apply. My copy of McGregor’s book states: The electron was the first elementary particle to be discovered, and all its properties have been exhaustively investigated. Hence the question as to it size is one that seemingly should have been decided long ago. And, indeed, in the minds of most present-day physicists, this question has already been decided: the electron is a point like particle – that is, a particle with no measurable dimensions, at least within the limitations of present day instrumentation. However, a rather compelling case can be made for an opposing viewpoint: namely, that the electron is in fact a large particle which contains an embedded point like charge. Emphases are the authors own. swansont has failed to grasp the purpose of the book as a whole. The Compton radius depends on the mass of the particle, and AFAIK the QM corrections to it are a constant, so it's not surprising that certain ratios give you a constant. 5/10 is the same as 3/6. OMG! That is not what I have shown which is: mr =G/2 And therefore: The constant of gravitation (G) is twice the constant of the single particle linear force. To support this proposal I have also shown that the wavelength of a photon contains the linear force of two particles; and explained why. Note that the constant of gravitation and photon wavelengths are found by experiment (not by prediction) therefore my ratio is not a matter of chance but can be related to the results of two entirely different types of experiment (measurement of G and measurement of spectral wavelength). Gregory states that QT cannot predict G; the linear force model shows why - it is because particles are not point like entities they only appear to be so in quantum theory just as the law of gravition considers the Earth to be a point-like body; but who believes that the Earth is a point like body.....(OMG surely not swansont!).

Douglas Gregory is professor of Mathematics at the University of Manchester. He is a researcher of international standing in the field of elasticity, and has held visiting positions at New York University, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Washington. He is hghly regarded as a teacher of applied mathematics. 'Classical Mechanics' was published in 2006 Going by the text, it seems they are his own statements. elas PS: http://www.cambridge.org/features/mathematics/gregory/ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Another quote that applies to the proposed model comes from the work of Malcom H McGregor in his book 'The Enigmatic Electron' which descibes in great detail the various radii measurements applied to the electron. With respect to the way we regard the electron, the factor of a million disparity between the radii R(QMC) and R(E) is crucial. If the electron has a radius that is comparable to RQMC, then we can quantitatively reproduce its basic properties in a classical context, which demonstrates that classical physics still apply in this domain. The application of G to the electron radius is a classical physics application. The radius found using G falls between R(QMC) and the 'corrected' R(QMC).

The proposed model is the only model that explains the cause of the constant of gravitation.

“There is presently no theory (general relativity included) that is able to predict the value of G” .....In particular then, the force that two symmetric spheres exert on each other is the same as if each sphere were replaced by its equivalent particle. Extracted from ‘Classical Mechanics’ by R Douglas Gregory. Cambridge University Press, Previously swansont had objected to the use of the classical electron radius, this caused a change to the quantum mechanical Compton radius where the similarity between the electron radius and the gravitational constant started a chain of thoughts that eventually lead to the following: Table 1 uses the equation: Mass multiplied by radius = constant (Table 1:col.d) Noting that the constant is close to G/2 and as there is no generally accepted measurement of particle radii, the next stage was to construct a table with particle radii determined by G/2 as shown in Table 2. The new particle radii are compatible with the values for e given by McGregor. This allows the linear force model to explain G as follows: Within the graviton compaction state each body (electromagnetic compaction) is treated as a single particle. Without G the equation for finding the gravitational force applies the inverse square law to two ‘particles’; with G the equation multiplies two particles by twice the linear vacuum force constant (i.e. G) to produce the linear vacuum force (i.e. gravitational force) for the given distance. Note that the G/2 constant is the same for all force carriers proving that there is only one elementary force. Taken together with other submissions this also proves that there is only one elementary particle and that the only true conservation law that applies throughout infinity, is the conservation of particle numbers. Because the ratio of neutrons to protons can vary between cosmic bodies it follows that the Law of gravitation cannot be applied to a system with more than one elementary particle.

I placed some mathematics regarding photon structure at the bottom of the Atomic radii thread and I am still waiting for some constructive criticism.

'Three roads to Quantum Gravity' by Lee Smolin has in its prologue, a clear explanation of the professional view of space and time.

Lousy education but, according to military examiners (years ago); slightly above average IQ. I take the 'massless' field to run from the radius of the electric charge to the quantum-mechanical Compton radius, but I will not take up more of your time; instead, I have ordered a book that I hope will lead to a better understanding your paper. Most forums seem to have gone quiet lately and I shall be most disappointed if others better qualified than myself do not comment on your work, the challenge to existing mathematics is most interesting; thanks for your reply, jhmar

As an amateur working only in classical physics I cannot enter into this debate, that said; I came to the above conclusion in my classical work and would be interested to know if your work explains why massless particles cannot exist separately.

Before this question can be answered there is a requirement to define mass, matter and anti-matter, the solution follows on. Einstein found that the terms mass and energy are inter-changeable quantities; he did not prove that they are separate entities. Without mass there is no energy; without particles there is no mass.

In the first table below I have used the Quantum Mechanical Compton radii, the radii given by Codata (underlined) and the Compton wavelength (Codata Compton wavelengths underlined); they are all proportional to each other which means that either can be used to produce the CLF constant (mass times radius = linear force). Table 3 is an adaption of the original CLF table. The radii are given in Au to allow the spectral wavelengths (quoted in Au in The Handbook of Chem. And Phys.) to be added at the bottom. Between them the two tables show that photons are two particle composites, the proton is a three particle composite and the neutron is a five particle composite. This agrees with particle ‘decays’ observed by experiment but, it does not agree with the Standard model interpretation. In the CLF model there is only one conservation law, that is, the Conservation of the contents of the Elementary Particle . The graph illustrates how this works for the photon. A and B show the particle and anti-particle which have both (vacuum) force and (elasticity of matter) anti-force; the vacuum alone can collapse into a (vacuum) zero point leaving the elasticity of matter in a relaxed state with half of the energy of the charged elementary particle (unbroken line in C). Two particles with collapsed vacuum fields are shown with a dashed line to have the same energy as a single charged (i.e. with vacuum field) elementary particle. (Force + anti-force = anti-force + anti-force). Bubble chamber experiments prove that we observe only the movement of vacuum fields and the collisions of matter fields; hence the photon has the collision energy of one elementary particle, but it has the wave of both particles in the form of a horizontal S. Differences in spin are caused by differences in particle state. The fractions exist because particles have to fit the wavelength pattern that is repeated in all compaction states even on a cosmological scale. Nature repeats a simple structural pattern on an infinite scale, no beginning, no end; just the occasional appearance of the odd universe here and there: pinpricks in infinity caused by vortex compaction. This is only possible because the number of particles in infinity, together with their momentum, is conserved.

A preliminary (mathematical) investigation suggest the following solution: (Recall that ‘The Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle’.) Within an atom of each element the electrons are compressed into different density states. The photons captured and emitted by each electron are emitted at the density state of the emitting electron given the photons different radii and therefore, different wavelengths. As the electron states change in quantum steps (CLF model uses fractions) so also do the photon wavelengths. That is to say those changes in spectral wavelengths are proportional to changes in electron (CLF model uses a single elementary particle) density. I have started on the production of a mathematical table to demonstrate the above statement but the solution only works if (as previously suggested) the photon is a two particle composite; so there is an additional explanation to be written; that will take time. Some time ago one member submitted a reply on a different thread, stating that Fermi once had the same (two particle photon) idea but, was distracted by another discovery; and never completed the research; I would appreciate any information on this anyone can supply. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAfter a little more thought I will put the formula as follows: The mass[energy] (MeV) of the charged elementary particle divided by the wavelength (Au) of a photon with the same energy as the charged elementary particle equals the radius (Au) of the charged elementary particle. Using the same data to find the linear force reveals that the photon has double the linear force of the elementary particle; indicating that the photon is a two particle composite.

swansont 04-14-2009 08:55 PM ________________________________________ What is the physical justification for using mr^2 = constant? Are you still using the classical electron radius for the electron, which is known not to be the actual electron radius? In a thread on electron radii I took the work of Malcolm H McGregor to show how the various radii given for the electron are in reality measurements to different points on a balanced force/anti-force field; using the radii of your choice does no more than change the value of the constant. (The longest radius given by McGregor for the electron is the ‘quantum mechanical Compton radius’). Why should these fractions exist? (Your whole justification seems to boil down to the FQHE, which is a collective behaviour expressed only under a very specific, narrow range of circumstances) Extract from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughlin_wavefunction In condensed matter physics, the Laughlin wavefunction is an ansatz Extract from ‘Composite Fermions’ by Jainendra K Jain. “Unfortunately, a comparison with real life experiments also necessitates an inclusion of the effect of non-zero thickness of the electron wave function………at present, the quantitive agreement between theory and laboratory experiment is roughly within a factor of two although a 10-20% agreement has been reached in some cases”. I am proposing a theory based on data from ‘real life experiments’ with ‘non-zero thicknesses’. (see also ‘Composite Fermions’ sec.5.15). Ansatz not required. If these are manifestations of a single particle, how do you reconcile this with different spin states …….. The proposed model is a classical model with two fields (force and anti-force) therefore the classical explanation of spin is applied to the elementary particle as described in the section on ‘Conservation of angular momentum’ on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PrecessionOfATop.svg the two field particle has spin ½. The anti-force field, being the elasticity of matter, cannot be reduced to a Zero Point but, the force field being a vacuum field is reducible to a ZP; when the vacuum field is collapsed the particle has a single (matter) field and spin 1 or 0 depending on the cause of the change of state. Pairs of particles are kept in line by the external field and therefore are spin zero but, pairs where both particles undergo compaction to the next higher compaction state (J/PSI and Upsilon) have a degree of freedom and rotate around a common centre hence spin1. Particle triplets consist of a pair of particles and a single particle that orbits the vortex binding the particle pair. The single particle acts as a drag on the pair causing the pair to rotate once for each 180 deg. Traverse of the singleton. Compaction of three particles of equal volume into the next highest compaction state (i.e. Omega-) alters the drag ratio hence spin 3/2. …….and different charge that we observe? As was explained in the very first article on the CLF model charge is the ratio of force to anti-force at any point within the particle, this is always 1:1 for two field particles. When the vacuum force is confined to a dimensionless ZP, the matter is relaxed (i.e. without elastic tension) hence there is no charge in a particle in its single field state. Note that compression in one plane causes a change in angular momentum, but compaction (i.e. equal compression in all planes conserves angular momentum). Returning to the Table of Elements note that in the Standard model all but one of the noble gases has 6 electrons in their outer shell, the exception has 2. In the CLF version there are no exceptions, all noble gases have inner and outer zones; with equal numbers of electrons. Most important is the fact that the CLF model does not require the introduction of electromagnetism to explain particle and atomic structure; it obeys the Law of Economy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/ On the above site you will find articles under the heading “What we don’t know” they include: “What is the Universe made of”? And “Can the laws of physics be unified”? These are questions that I believe can be answered by the development of a new understanding of particle structure. So far I have shown that using ‘mass times radius equals a constant’ arranges the particles listed by the Particle Data Group in a sequence that can be expressed in fractions in then order 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc (the standard electron is 1/5 and the radii are proportional to the wavelength). This was dismissed as numerology. The work presented on this forum applies a development of the fractional system to atomic structure and I do not think this can be rejected as numerology. This model uses only one fundamental particle (all particles have the same content in different states of compaction or compression) and one fundamental force (requiring mathematical variations for each compaction state [gravity, electromagnetic and nuclear]). That means that the model goes some way towards solving “What we don’t know”. This does not call for an abandonment of QT but it does provide QT with an underlying ‘cause’; the physical frame that makes mathematical prediction (i.e. QT) possible. (At present we have the purely mathematical frames of QT).

There is no need to account for, or explain; those things that QT already does very well. There is a need to explain those things that QT does not do. My proposal uses a new proposal for a Structural Table of the Elements and a new proposal for a Fractional Structural Table to show how two different QT predictions for atomic radii together with atomic radii found by interpretation of crystal structures can be interpreted as parts of an overall atomic structure. Particle fractions originate in the QT applicable to TFQHE and occur again in composite fermions, both are two dimensional theories. Jain explains that the results of the two dimensional theories can be applied to the three dimensional world, but, the mathematics of two dimensional theory are non-transferable. I have shown that by replacing the entities of QT with the entities of classical theory, the fractions can be found in atomic structure in their three dimensional form. That implies that the proposed Table of Structural Fractions is applicable to both QT and classical theory.

By strict definition QT is a Mathematical Prediction Theory it does not tell us How or why; hence the explanation you refer is part of a model. It is now many years since the moderators agreed that this is correct but, only after I did considerable research and wrote at length on this very subject ( The date in the membership list Is the last time of joining, I have been around since 1989 in days when Integral kept us in order). The mathematics of QT are correct, but, as the quotations show the numbers are conjured up to match the experiments they do not provide an explanation in words as to the cause of each number. I do not want this forum sidetracked into a repeat of that debate; I am looking for comments on my work and so, for that reason, in future will only reply to constructive comments and criticisms. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged On reflection I realize that I have not given a clear explanation of my aim; it is to propose an alternative explanation of atomic structure. For example: The first two elements and the last six elements on each atomic shell, form two distinct groups but the number of elements between these two groups varies from shell to shell. At present we have mathematical theories to predict the numbers of shell electrons but, as far as I am aware we have no explanation of the underlying cause (i.e. why is fluorine corrosive and neon inert?). My graph shows that all Noble Gases have inner and outer fields with equal numbers of electrons and Halogens are elements with one less electron in their outer field than in their inner field. A slightly more complex explanation is needed for the grouping of the last six elements of each shell; but it is the explanation (of the last six elements of each shell) that are used to propose a cause. At present I am writing an article that explain the relationship between the different Density Functional Theory atomic radii predicted in two papers one by Gosh-Biswas and the other by Mihai, Russo and Sicilia; and the standard atomic radii taken from The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. The unification of these three different values for atomic radii provides the data needed to present the case for the cause of the proposed groups within each shell. I hope this reply will be of more interest to you than my earlier reply, thanks for your interest, elas

In pursuit of a believable explanation. 1) Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980) It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0 The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained. 2) Extract from “The Elegant Universe”. Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science). 3) Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that: Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.Extract from "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" by Richard Morris : "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". 4) Extract from "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" by Richard Morris : "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". 5) Extract from ‘Beyond Measure’; Jim Baggott (2003) about QT he writes: “The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged My aim is to explain the structures of particles and atoms; your question concerns the actions of particles and atoms, a subject that I have yet to approach. However, it is an interesting question; first let me point out that I have no disagreement with the mathematics of QT (except for one or two assumptions). My disagreement is with the words used to describe events and structures. With that in mind I will attempt to answer your question by criticizing the current description and suggesting an alternative using the structures describe in my articles (note that I use the word 'article' because they are not published papers). This will take a little time but, I will give you a reply soon.

For some years I have been advocating a classical explanation of particle and atomic structure. This has been rejected by those who believe that only Quantum Theory should be used for particle physics. This article shows how the table on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32854 (structural Fractions) combined with method used to create a table of elements on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38485 (table of elements) and the explanation of particle structure given on: http://69.5.17.59/clf8.pdf (CLF model) can be combined to explain the difference between atomic radii predicted by QT and classical atomic radii found by the interpretation of crystal structures. For the full article see: http://69.5.17.59/Atomic%20radii%20Putz.pdf I will transfer the article to this forum as soon as time permits.

Thanks once again; right from the beginning I have said 'QT predicts, CLF explains'; but that is a generalization, I have recently shown that CLF also predicts and I am currently awaiting a copy of a paper that I hope will confirm the predictions. CLF needs re-writing using the correct academic terms; I will struggle on with that revision.

Just found: http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM2.html Clearly there is an accepted classical concept of a vacuum field where the vacuum field has a centre of effort that is also a zero force point. It is this classical concept of a vacuum field that I seek to refer to. But, what term do I use to distinguish between the classical and quantum concept of a vacuum zero point?