Zephir

Where, please? It isn't actually mass, even though mass and energy are related. - the claim, no reasoning here. In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. - the claim, no reasoning here. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation E^2 = M^2c^4 + p^2c^2 - the claim, simply based on circular reasoning... one can say that the light in the box must have mass to even add any mass to begin with - but actually, it is more accurate to say it contributes to the mass - but do not use this as some kind of justification that light indeed has mass. That is simply not true. But actually, it is more accurate to say, this is simply no relevant reasoning again... ;-))) Do not use this as some kind of justification of anything. You guys are believing in your textbooks so much, you're not even able to distinguish between claim (tautology) and reasoning (induction). You're just a new sort of believers of modern era, who only have switched the Bibles. And this is just bad and sad. One can prove/explain whatever by such approach, don't you think? This is not, what the science is supposed to be.

Where? Absorbed by pair of electron orbitals, which are serving as a resonator as well? Such absorption replaces one resonator just by another smaller one... But the photon doesn't. In fact, its energy is moving all the time inside of resonator - no matter, whether it's absorbed by resonator cavity itself, or by some smaller cavity between orbitals or atoms. The case of nucleus in spectrometer is nice, but it doesn't detect photon mass, but the excited nucleus mass.

Why waves? The diagram presented by me illustrates the stationary magnetic field of fixed current, passed through solenoid.

Of course not, but here's a practical limit in our ability to see them due the limited speed of light spreading. If we consider, the distribution of galaxies density is uniform, this effectively rules out the possibility, we can ever see an infinite number of galaxies at the same moment.

OK, I've no problem with this - but which equation describes the increasing of resonator mass after trapping of photon into resonator, after then? A) None, no mass increasing should be observed. Here's no way, how to detect, the photon is inside from outside. B) None, it's completelly new phenomena, worth honoring by Nobel price.

Why wrong? Whether the photon doesn't increase the mass of resonator, into which is being trapped? Which equation would describe this phenomena, after then?

Why not? Is the m=E/c^2 equation violated at the case of photon?

Nope, what I'm just saying is, the Popper methodology is perfectly symmetric in this point, because every negative stance ("the XY doesn't exist" or "the XY isn't possible") is the very new hypothesis, which must be considered false and as such proven independently. Therefore, the Popper methodology doesn't give us an relevant criterion of unverified hypothesis validity, in fact. I'd preferr to handle every new hypothesis or connection with caution, as it can help us in understanding of reality less or more later. Not to forget the ideas - if we don't understand them, we cannot consider them refuted on principle. For example, the silly Aether concept was considered false due the trivial missunderstanding of dense matter behavior. Everybody has believed, the Aether is a sort of thin gas, while such concept has no meaning, as it doesn't enable the very high light energy density spreading, in fact. But who ever considered the vacuum as a dense particle matter? Now we can see, this model can explain the strings, the character of light spreading, the foamy structure of vacuum, and many other concepts, which were ad-hoced by mainstream science in recent years. In fact it doesn't violate anything. This is not good, as it means, we've deformed the meaning of Popper methodology. The pathological disbelief can be as harmfull, as the blind belief.

Currently, the Hawking mechanism is believed to be the only source of black hole evaporation. I don't believe so, but it's not difficult to explain the Hawking radiation from many perspectives. You can use the optical refraction model, for example. By this model the event horizon is sort of total refraction phenomena due the immense vacuum density gradients in its neighbourhood ("curved spacetime"). Therefore every energy wave is reflected by this gradient like the light wave reflects itself from internal surface of water droplet. But this surface is permanently "scratched" by Brownian motion of vacuum particles (the "quantum noise"), which allows the subtle portion of radiation to escape from black hole. Note, that the decreasing radius of black hole decreases the effectiveness of total reflection phenomena as well, which should mean, the tiny black hole will explode fast (if we neglect the surface tension phenomena, which can stabilize such object - this is still opened question for me). Anyway, if the size of black hole increases, the surface density gradient near of event horizon decreases (it changes itself into fuzzball), which allows to escape even the axions and neutrino from black hole. After certain size limit, the surface gradient will not effective in total reflection anymore and the black hole will change itself into giant brightly shinning star, so called the quasar, which evaporates itself, until it reaches the thermodynamical equillibrium. Due the gravity brightening of rotating black holes the polar jets are formed in this stage of BH evaporation - we can see, such object doesn't differ from other giant stars so far.

By my private opinion, most of massive black holes are of primordial origin, 'cause they were created just during universe inflation as so called quasars, i.e. "white holes" with excessive matter/energy, which has evaporated gradually into galactic clouds, surrounding the cold remnants. The animation on the left illustrates the vacuum condensation, which is supposed to be similar to crystallization of supercooled/saturated fluid, the picture on the right is the resulting foamy structure of dark matter, in the nodes of which the largest black holes and gallaxies are residing. Such hypothesis could be tested, if we'll found the central black holes of most large gallaxies of the approximatelly same size, for example. After then it will be evident, the size of cold remnant doesn't depend on the amount of surrounding matter, but the thermodynamical equillibrium between matter and radiation. Another evidence is, the most distant / oldest qusars observed so far are surprisingly well developed, but no visible matter can be observed around them. Here are many other indicia for such model, which we can dispute in detail, if somebody will be interested about it. This model doesn't require, all matter was originated from black holes, though. The smaller ones can still appear by gradual accretion of finelly divided matter, i.e. by normal way of "classical cosmology". Currently its difficult to say, which portion of matter has appeared in finelly divided state and which was evaporated from supersaturated quasar droppled subsequently. By my opinion, the smaller gallaxies are spherical and without central black holes, because they never pass the evaporative period of central black hole, which is followed by formation of jets and "fountain effect", which makes the gallaxy a flat and rotating disk.

Many connections were revealed less or more acidentally and explained later. Surprisingly enough, just the best scientific ideas were originated by such way. Do you know for example, whole the periodic table was completelly empiric at the time of its creation, because no atom structure was known in Mendeleyev time? Mendeleyev has obtained Nobel price in 1903, but the atom structure was revealed by Rutherford eperiments in 1909-1911. Up to this time whole the periodic table was a simply one big ...guess.

Briefly speaking, Vts has found an important coincidence and everything, what the physicists are supposed to do by now is to explain it or to prove, it's just a coincidence. But I'm not big friend of purelly geometric explanations, like the Lisi Garret theory, no matter how deep and farseeing such explanation can be. Such geometry coincidence has always some deeper reasons behind it.

While I like the "surface charge" concept in your explanation, your hypothesis wouldn't work at the case of magnetic field of solenoid. Here are no protons on its end, which should be capable of electron trapping.

None such difference exists, in fact. We already know about some macroscopic versions of quantum phenomena, like the double slit experiment. In real world, everything is composed of smaller objects, so that every observation is influenced by quantum uncertainty undeniably. The denomination "quantum state" basically means "the state, where mass density is proportional to energy density". As an example of macroscopic object with quantum behavior can serve the foam, which gets more dense under shaking temporarily. This leads to the quantization of energy at the case, the wave will start to bounce from the internal walls of dense blob, which is created by such motion due the resonance condition. After then, the energy of every particle cannot fall bellow certain limit (so called the "ground state"), or the particle would dissolve into vacuum foam again - from this the quantization of energy follows.

The slightly more comprehensive answer should sound, photon has a well pronounced relativistic (i.e. dynamic) mass, while its rest mass is bellow 10E-50 kg limit, which should correspond the deBroglie mass of photon of deBroglie wavelength comparable with the observable Universe diameter). Which is well bellow experimental limit so far, I admit - but some serious experiments trying to detect rest mass of photon are in development. Another evidence of nonzero photon rest mass follows from experiments with photon-photon scattering, for example. And no, the photon hasn't "just the momentum". If we trap some photon into resonator, it should exhibit a real measurable weight difference due the mass energy equivalence principle (E=mc^2=hf) - not just momentum. The physics is no good place for short minded people with schematic thinking.

The same tetrahedral relationship is valid for meson table by Standard Model. Before some time I created an interactive model of it, which should be still working in MSIE 5.X-6.X

At first, Mr. Woit and Smolin didn't say, the string theory isn't interesting (after all, at least Mr. Lee Smolin was a deep string theory proponent for years). They're just saying, such theory will become useless, if it cannot serve as source of money. Many math theorists are working on the field of fractals and other less or more abstract things - we are just not calling such people a physicsts, that's all. Fortunatelly, the situation isn't far so bad. The string theory is deeply substantiated even from physical perspective, because even LQG and Aether theory is full of strings and "hidden dimensions", it just doesn't call them by such way. The string net concept connects both string, both Aether and LQG conceptually each other. This is simply because the reality must remain inertial to become observable by inertial creatures and inertial systems have their own laws based on multinomial distribution of their fluctuations. What we can see in the depth of vacuum or at the cosmic scales is the only thing, which the reality allows to see us from inertial chaos - the tiniest density fluctuations which we can see here are all 1D strings! So I don't think, the string theory is worse, then - let say - LQG theory. Currently its just more elaborated, which can become both advantage, both disadvantage for every theory, as the conceptual holes of theory are visible better. We should remember, the string theory was originally designed on the bacground of nuclear force theory, because the dense character of nuclear fluid makes the fluctuations (the gluons, which can be elongated at the distance like strings) a pretty well pronounced here. On the other hand, the foamy character of the gluons isn't so apparent here due high degree of QG condensation, so that LQG proposes a somewhat better description of vacuum with compare to string theory, which remain "particle centric". By my opinion, both theories are in fact pretty complementary, i.e. dual by the same way, like relativity and quantum mechanics theory - just in less pronounced way. We will need a more deep and illustrative theory to imagine this in its full extent. We should realize, both LQG, both string theory are based on more fundamental theories, as they're using a relativity/quantum mechanics postulates on the background without further explanation), while the Aether theory as a recursive Newton theory explains these postulates by its own way. But if we suceede in recursive formulation of quantum mechanics or relativity theory, we can use whatever theory without significant loss of information.

The problem is, the black hole concept is poorly defined. If we define the black holes as a pinpoint singularity surrounded by event horizon, we can always propose models, which will violate such definition apparently.

1) violates the 2), as insane_alien already said. This effectively renders the rest as an inconsistent view of reality, if all points depends each of other. 2) cannot be disproved at this moment, but here are many theories, based on such approach already, for example Wheelers geometrodynamic 3) Aether Wave Theory (AWT) violates this. Every space can be interpreted as a surface of gradient of matter/energy density, enabling the transversal energy spreading, the time is direction normal to this surface, after then. 4) Is disputable, because in Universe everything is related to everything 5) AWT doesn't requires this. The completely chaotic state of matter doesn't exhibit both time, both space, but still can exists. 6,7,9) By AWT the mass, energy, time and space are related together via wave equation, from this the theory name follows. 8) It can be right, but it violates the 2) and 3) again, apparently. 10) The motion is relative, therefore the absence of motion is relative too. Therefore any claim about rest is relative as well.

Why we should consider this insight? Which new testable predictions we can derive from the above claim?

We're talking just about ideas here. If the idea doesn't fit the logic, then here's no way, how to verify it by logical way or to derive a testable predictions by using it. Such idea can still hold the truth, but from utilitarian point of view is meaningless - so that every useful idea should fulfill some rudimentary logic, at least locally, if not correspondence principle. Some ideas can even become harmful with respect of the process of understanding, because they're based on misleading homologies, not analogies - for such ideas is better not to have some logic at all (a Ptolemy's epicycle concept as an example). The ideas can be considered as a density fluctuations of causal space-time, as they're expected to intensify the energy spreading inside the civilization by the same way, like the density fluctuations inside of condensing vapor for example. Therefore if some idea doesn't behave by casual way (it appears as a discontinuity in causal space-time), it cannot be considered as a part of causal reality due its irreproducibility. History knows many poorly substantiated ideas, which were forgotten repeatedly, until somebody created a meaningful theory from them. If some particular idea must be invented repeatedly before using in theory, it has no meaning, it's true, because it can be deduced from anything. My opinion is, every part of observable reality should fit some logic (at least very subtle analogy at the first sight) - or the scientific method cannot be used for testing it.

Of course not, it's just the easiest fusion reaction, which can be even catalyzed by free neutrons. But for example the Lithium 2H-6Li fusion is much cleaner source of energy producing stream of &-particles with low amount of neutrons, which can be utilized into electricity directly - it "just" needs a 500x higher activation energy (temperature x time factor) for ignition. But here's a neat proposal of inertial Z-pinch plasma fusion involving the lithium deuterides, which I consider a quite feasible.

I'm not saying it is. It's a manifestation of it, which can be detected everywhere. By the same way, the Doppler shift at the water surface isn't fixed point at the bottom of river. It's just and indicia, such point exists somewhere. The gravitational field is the direct consequence of Universe expansion. By relativity theory (the geometrodynamic theory in particular) every particle formed by gravitational waves (so called geon) should be forced to collapse into singularity. The expansion of Universe prohibits it. By reciprocal (dual) way of quantum mechanic, every particle formed by probability wave should expand into infinity (this is steady state solution of Schrödinger equation for free particles, which isn't difficult to derive). The gravitational force prohibits such destiny, but the gravity can not be derived from quantum mechanics by any way and we can see, the same result can be achieved by omnidirectional collapse of universe. If so, how the gravitational field appears, after then? We can imagine, the Universe collapses together with observable matter. But the matter is collapsing more slowly, being pre-collapsed and "more stiff" by such way. The subtle difference in space-time expansion near observable matter is the gravitational field. We can observe the difference between matter and vacuum collapse speed by dilatation of iridium meter prototype, by weight loss of iridium meter prototype or by fading of standard supernovae candles with time (which has lead into finding of the acceleration of universe expansion), for example. So we can say, the omnidirectional Universe expansion is not just source of gravity, it's a source of "dark energy" as well.

The gravitational field is the direct consequence of Universe expansion. By relativity theory (the geometrodynamic theory in particular) every particle formed by gravitational waves (so called geon) should be forced to collapse into singularity. The expansion of Universe prohibits it. By reciprocal (dual) way of quantum mechanic, every particle formed by probability wave should expand into infinity (this is steady state solution of Schrödinger equation for free particles, which isn't difficult to derive). The gravitational force prohibits such destiny, but the gravity can not be derived from quantum mechanics by any way and we can see, the same result can be achieved by omnidirectional collapse of universe. If so, how the gravitational field appears, after then? We can imagine, the Universe collapses together with observable matter. But the matter is collapsing more slowly, being pre-collapsed and "more stiff" by such way. The subtle difference in space-time expansion near observable matter is the gravitational field. We can observe the difference between matter and vacuum collapse speed by dilatation of iridium meter prototype, by weight loss of iridium meter prototype or by fading of standard supernovae candles with time (which has lead into finding of the acceleration of universe expansion), for example. So we can say, the omnidirectional Universe expansion is not just source of gravity, it's a source of "dark energy" as well. This is still a "classical physics" explanation. For explanation of Universe expansion as such we should consider more deeper theory.

What's the criterion of meaningfulness? The fact, something gives testable predictions, which agree with reality and you cannot refute it by logical way.