Response to the Hotson / Westergard Model of the Universe

Billie Westergard made the comment that Don Hotson's work (originally published in Infinite Energy magazine in 2002) was "some of the best in physics".

I agree in as much as I've drawn a large amount of inspiration from Don's work myself. In particular the theme of the Dirac Equation predicting 4 kinds of electron tallies with my own analysis which is based purely on a gravitational standpoint (allowing gravitational and inertial mass to take on positive and negative values independently).

Also Don's prediction of a negative-energy electron-positron pair or "epo" as part of the quantum vacuum matches my simulation of annihilation to produce the BD pair.

You can find copies of Don's articles here:

I attempted to contact Don and he sent me the following reply on 6th July 2013:

Dear Mark,

My health is such that I can't give your work the attention it deserves. I agree we have many points in common. However I would point out that the four roots of Dirac's equation have no mass-- Dirac had to add the mass in 'by hand' to get the electron and positron. Hence I believe that the negative energy sea also has no mass-- the positive mass-energy is added to the two negative energy roots when they are raised to positive energy by 'pair production'.

Sorry to be unable to comment in more detail...

Best, Don

Billie theorised about many things, including a model of the proton from 9180 epos. This was derived from a 10-dimensional model of the universe, which makes less sense to me.

If it takes that many epos to model a proton, then how do we explain that the proton and neutron are stable whilst pretty much everything else isn't? Surely we would expect to see many particles with intermediate masses, some with a few more epos and some with a few less?

Note that this criticism would apply equally to a naive model of the proton where we just try to make up the mass from 1840 electron masses. A more convincing model would have fewer constituents (to satisfy Okham's razor) and would predict the intermediate particles that we actually see (such as the Muon, Pion and Kaon), rather than a vast range of ones that we don't.

Mark Mansfield, 11th July 2013