with the Realms of BiologicalCells, Clusters of Atoms , andGRW Dynamical Collapse.

0.07 eV mu-neutrinos would have kilometerscale

Many-Brane-Universes, Gravity,and Size-Scales

This is my view of the relationships among

Musaka/Ganesha FundamentalElementary Particles,

Gaja/Ganesha PhysicalCompton Vortex Elementary Particles,

GravitoEM Static Region Gaja/GaneshaCompton Vortex Phenomena, and

GravitoEM Induction Region Gaja/GaneshaCompton Vortex Phenomena:

Neutrinos, with neither Electric norColor Charge and with no tree-level mass, have such a large ComptonRadius that our Universe is in the interior of a NeutrinoCompton Radius Vortex, as described by Sidharth.

LEP electron-positron scattering experiments have determined thatElectrons, Muons, Tauons, C-Quarks, andB-Quarks are pointlike at least down to the scale of the Z mass,about 90 GeV, or about 10^(-16) cm.

U-Quarks, D-Quarks, and S-Quarks are so light that it is hard toseparate them from QCD confinement effects, and there are not manyknown T-Quark events (all at Fermilab, none atLEP), but jet cross-sections at Fermilab and LEP are consistent withall Quarks being pointlike.

Also, cross-sections indicate that photons,gluons, and weak W and Z bosons are all pointlike.

These high-energy Deep Inelastic Scattering experiments do not seethe physical Proton and Electron of a Hydrogen Atom; rather, theysee

the Valence Quarks and Sea Quarks and Gluons that are within theGravitoEM Static Region Proton Vortex whoseCompton Radius is about a fermi, 10^(-13) cm,

and

the Valence Electron and Sea Electrons, Positrons, and Photonswithin the GravitoEM Induction ElectronVortex whose Compton Radius is about 10^(-11) cm.

(Since the physical Electron has only one Valence Electron, unlikethe physical Proton with three Valence Quarks, Deep InelasticScattering results can be interpreted (incorrectly in my opinion) asshowing that the physical Electron is pointlike down to at least10^(-16) cm.)

In light of all this, there is a need for terminology todistinguish between the Valence and Sea pointlike particles seen byDeep Inelastic Scattering, and the Physical Compton Radius VortexElectron and Quarks of the Proton of the Hydrogen Atom, so I call

the Valence and Sea pointlike particles Musaka/Ganesha particles,and

the Physical Compton Radius Vortex particles Gaja/Ganeshaparticles,

following the suggestion of Sidharththat the terminology for distinction should come from the Hindu GodGanesha who connects the Macrosphere(elephant-Gaja) with the Microsphere(mouse-Musaka) by using Mathematics.

Within the GravitoEM Static RegionGaja/Ganesha Compton Radius Vortex, there are ValenceMusaka/Ganesha particles (Electron or Quarks) that determine thenature of the Vortex (Electron or Proton), and Sea particles andantiparticles that make up the cloud of Musaka/Ganeshas that occupythe Vortex.

Within the GravitoEM Static RegionGaja/Ganesha Compton Radius Vortex, the Zero-Point-Fluctuationsof the cloud of Musaka/Ganesha particles produce a Salam-typestrong gravity force.

Outside the Gaja/Ganesha Vortex, but still within a limited range,the Zero-Point-Fluctuations do not produce the Salam-type stronggravity force, but do produce GravitoEM InductionRegion Virtual Gravity Waves.

The GravitoEM Induction Region is largerthan the Gaja/Ganesha Compton Radius Vortex by a factor of about thecube root of the Planck Length divided by the Schwarzchild radius.Since the Planck Length is about 10^(-33) cm, the Proton Schwarzchildradius is about 10^(-52) cm, and the Electron Schwarzchild radius isabout 10^(-55) cm:

The Proton GravitoEM Induction Regionradius is about 10(-7) cm = 1 Nanonometer,

and

the Electron GravitoEM InductionRegion radius is about 10(-4) cm = 1 Micron.

Within the GravitoEM Induction Regionradius, the Virtual Gravity Waves interact with strengthscharacteristic of the Zero-Point-Fluctuations that create them, sothat:

The ProtonGravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravitons, being derived fromZero-Point-Fluctuations of Color Force Musaka/Ganesha Quarks andGluons, would interact within their Nanometer range with strengthcharacteristic of the Color Force that holds nuclei together, on theorder of MeV. This is in fact the energy range of Nanometer-sizedXenon cluster phenomena.

The Electron GravitoEM InductionRegion Virtual Gravitons, being derived fromZero-Point-Fluctuations of Electromagnetic Musaka/Ganesha Electronsand Photons, would interact within their Micron range with strengthcharacteristic of Electromagnetism that holds atoms together, on theorder of eV. This is in fact the energy range of the cosmologicalera of recombination forming atomsfrom electrons and protons, and of molecular bonds. The Micron is thesize range of biological cells, largeAtomic Clusters, and of a proposed range for GRWDynamical Collapse.

**The GravitoEM Static Region is theregion in which gravity acts like ElectroMagnetismin the ElectroMagnetic Static Region, where the Electric Field variesas 1 / r^3.**

The magnitude of ZPFfluctuations in the curvature of space in an Electron ComptonRadius Vortex should be determined by considering the staticalteration dg of the SpaceTime metric g as given by the **GravitoEMStatic Region** equation 95 on page 72 of Wheeler's bookGeometrodynamics (Academic Press 1962):

where Lp is the Planck Length (about 1.6 x 10^(-33) cm), and L isthe characteristic length of the system under consideration.

For the Sidhartha model, L = Rc , the Compton Radius, is about3.86 x 10^(-11) cm for Electrons and about 10^(-13) cm forQuarks.

(Note that theGravitoEM Induction Region[for Virtual Gravity Waves] fluctuation formula of equation 96,dg = Lp / L which is given by equation 96 on page 72 of Wheeler's book Geometrodynamics (Academic Press 1962) and also given as equation 43.29 on page 1192 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (Gravitation, Freeman 1973), is not correct for the Compton Radius Vortex.

As Jack Sarfatti says, you should "... use dg = Lp / L for the

GravitoEM Induction Region[for Virtual Gravity Waves] and use Nick's formula [ dg = ( Lp / L )^2 ] forGravitoEM Static Region- which is what makes sense for Sidharth's model! ...".)

**As Nick Herbert points out**, the formula dg = ( Lp / L )^2 =Lp^2 / L^2 implies that the magnitude dR of ZPFfluctuations in the curvature of space in a region ofcharacteristic dimension L is given for the **GravitoEM StaticRegion** case by

(Compare equation 43.31, dR = Lp / L^3 , on page 1193 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, which would come from theGravitoEM Induction Region[for Virtual Gravity Waves] fluctuation equation 43.29, dg = Lp / L.)

**As Jack Sarfatti calculates** in August 1998 e-mail messagesusing order of magnitude estimates (so that factors like 2 and pi canbe omitted for clarity of argument):

For the Electron Compton Radius Rc = hbar / m c

and a Quantum Black Hole of Schwarzschild Radius Rsw = G m /c^2

the classical curvature R is given by

Therefore, the dimensionless measure of curvature fluctuation dR /R is given by

so that

= ( G hbar / c^3 ) / (( hbar / m c ) ( G m / c^2 )) = ( G hbar m cc^2 ) / ( c^3 hbar G m ) =** 1**

**Jack Sarfatti then concludes**:

"... Nick Herbert's ... formula for the quantum fluctuations inthe curvature tensor using Newtonian constant for gravity ... showsthat quantum gravity curvature fluctuations are enormous at theCompton wavelength of an elementary particle.

This is an alternate way of picturing creation of realparticle-antiparticle pairs which are strong when distances below theCompton scale are probed. ...

... This supports the idea that elementary particles are quantumblackholes as Jack Sarfatti suggested more than 25 years ago ... thisalso shows that quantum gravity fluctuations are large on a scalemuch larger than the Planck scale. They are large at the Compton wavelength. ... "

**The ****Herbert-Sarfatti GravitoEMStatic Region picture**** supports the conclusion of****Sidharth****:**

"... In other words the entire curvature of the [Electron Compton Radius Vortex] ... can be thought to have been created by thesefluctuationsalone ...".

Jack Sarfatti remarked (e-mail August 1998) that Abdus Salaminvited him to Trieste in 1973 because Sarfatti and Salam both "...had the idea that elementary particles were little black holes. Itwas Salam who realized that ... gravity must get very strong on asmall scale - that Newton's gravity is for macro - distances only.... you DON'T use Gnewton = 6.67 x10^(-11) MKS in Sidharth's[Compton Radius Vortices] ... You use instead

Gsalam exp(-r/L) + Gnewton where in Salam's original L is of theorder of a fermi [, or 10^(-13) cm] ... Gsalam = 10^40Gnewton ..." In other words:

**G_Near Field Salam = 1**

Note that the mass factor for gravitation has a visualization (arising from e-mail discussion with Dick Andersen). Gauge bosons are visualized as going from a source through a medium to a target. The graviton by itself is long-range and massless, but virtual Planck-mass black holes in spacetime absorb some of the gravitons as they go through the spacetime medium, thus weakening the gravitational force and producing the weaker effective gravitational force that is observed by experiments.

In the Near Field Induction/Static Region, the gravitons effectively bypass thevirtual Planck-mass black holes in spacetimethat absorb some Far Field gravitons as they go through the Far Field Region of the spacetime medium.

The GravitoEM Induction Region is the region in which gravity actslike ElectroMagnetism in theElectroMagnetic Induction Region, where the Electric Field andMagnetic Field both vary as 1 / r^2.

**As Jack Sarfatti calculates** in August 1998 e-mail messagesusing order of magnitude estimates (so that factors like 2 and pi canbe omitted for clarity of argument):

Wheeler's formula for the order of magnitude of classical R is

Take the density of an elementary particle of observedrenormalized mass m to be density = m / Rc^3, where Rc = hbar / mc isits Compton Radius, so that

Then, the dimensionless measure of curvature fluctuation dR / R isgiven by

= ( Lp / L^3 ) / ( Rsw / Rc^3 )

For the case of **GravitoEMInduction Region **unit **dR / R = 1** curvature fluctuationsfor an **Electron** with Compton Radius 3.86 x 10^(-11) cm, of theorder of 10^(-11) cm,

= 10^(-11) ( 10^22 )^(1/3) = 10^(-11) 10^7 = 10^(-4) cm **= 1Micron**.

As Jack Sarfatti says, these **GravitoEM Induction Region**Virtual Gravity Wave fluctuations correspond to Virtual Gravitons,not real gravitons. Therefore

For the case of **GravitoEM InductionRegion **unit **dR / R = 1** curvature fluctuations for a**Quark** with Compton Radius 6.31 x 10^(-14) cm, of the order ofa fermi, 10^(-13) cm (using the constituent mass of Up and DownQuarks from the D4-D5-E6 physics modelof 312.8 MeV, or 612.1 times the Electron Mass) ,

= 10^(-13) ( 10^19 )^(1/3) = 10^(-13) 10^6 = 10^(-7) cm **= 1Nanometer**.

As Jack Sarfatti says, these **GravitoEM Induction Region**Virtual Gravity Wave fluctuations correspond to Virtual Gravitons,not real gravitons. Therefore

GravitoEM Induction Region phenomena occur outside the outerboundary of a Compton Radius Vortex,

where physical SpaceTime is 4-Real-dimensional

(unlike the 4-Complex-dimensional SpaceTime at and within theboundary of a Compton RadiusVortex.)

Jack Sarfatti has noted that "... Wheeler's **[GravitoEMInduction Region] formula [for ****0.07eV mass mu-neutrino**] gives a really big range. Theclassical wormhole radius ... is 10^(-62) cm. So that[Planck/Classical] = 10^(-33) / 10^(-62) = 10^29 So 10^(29/3)= 10^(2/3) 10^9 ... So effective GravitoEM Induction Region range isof order 10^(-4) 10^9 = 10^5 cm or a thousand meters [or a**kilometer**]. ..."

They could possibly be tested experimentally by looking formicron-scale effects ofVirtual Gravitons. However, I don't think that detecting themwith conventional experimental equipment will be easy. For example,Hans Christian Von Baeyer in his article Big G in the March 1996issue of Discover Magazinesaid: "... three independent laboratories announced newhigh-precision measurements of the strength of the force of gravity.To the astonishment of the audience, the three measurements disagreedwith one another by considerable amounts, and worse, none of themmatched the value that physicists have accepted as correct for morethan a decade. No one could offer so much as a hint to explain thediscrepancies. ... the uncertainty in the value of G remainsastronomical by today's exacting standards. Historically, G was thefirst universal constant of physics, and ironically it is by a widemargin the least well known. ..." Further, the 1998Particle Data Group Review of Particle Properties says:"... GN gravitationalconstant ...Value: = 6.70711(86) x 10 ^(-39) hbar c (GeV/c^2 ) ^(-2)- Uncert. (ppm): 128 - Absolute lab measurements of GN [havebeen] performed only on scales of 10^(-1 +/- 1) m [from acentimeter to a meter] ...". Since, according to the1998 Particle Data Group Review ofParticle Properties, "...Absolute lab measurements of [Gravity have not been]performed ... on scales [smaller than a centimeter] ...",as of now no experiments would have directly detected the effects ofGravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravity Waves, which areMicron-Scale for Electrons and Nanometer-Scale for Quarks. However,according to an articlein the New Scientist of 24 October 1998, "... **Table-topexperiments are under way at Stanford and the University of Coloradoto test ... [the strength of gravity at scales of less than 100micrometers]** ... 'We expect preliminary results within ayear,' says John Price of the University of Colorado in Boulder....'. See also ElsevierScience Article 8090301 and ElsevierScience Article 9090101, which also deal with submillimetergravity.

In PhysicalReview Letters 86 (2001) 1418, Hoyle, Schmidt, Heckel,Adelberger, Gundlach, Kapner, and Swanson say: "... Motivated byhigher-dimensional theories that predict new effects, we tested thegravitational 1 / r^2 law at separations ranging down to218 microns using a 10-fold symmetric torsion pendulum and arotating 10-fold symmetric attractor. We improved previousshort-range constraints by up to a factor of 1000 and find nodeviations from Newtonian physics. ...".

In Nature 421 (27 February 2003) 922-925, Long, Chan, Churnside,Gulbis, Varney, and Price, of the University of Colorado, say: "...we report a search for gravitational-strength forces using planaroscillators separated by a gap of 108 um [micrometers] ..which has a 6-um uncertainty ...

... No new forces were observed ... our result is a 95% confidencelimit on the Yukawa strength alpha ... relative to gravity ... as afunction of range lambda [in meters] ... An unpublished limitfrom the Stanford experiment is also shown; it is derived in thepresence of a background force. ...The cosmological energy densityneeded to close the universe, if converted to a length by taking itsinverse fourth root (in natural units where hbar = c = 1),corresponds to about 100 um. This fact has led to repeated attemptsto address difficulties connected with the very small observed sizeof Einstein's cosmological constant by introducing new forces near100 um. Our result is the best upper bound on alpha in this region,but we have not quite reached gravitational sensitivity. ... it is animportant goal for the future to reach gravitational strength at evenshorter distances, perhaps down to 10 um. Experiments atttempting toreach such distances will confront rapidly increasing backgroundforces, especially electrostatic forces arising from the spatiallynon-uniform surface potentials of metals. ... because of the finitestiffness of any shield they ... cause background forces to betransmitted between test masses. Stretched membranes (as used by theWashington group) are more effective than stiff plates at theshortest distances, but it remains to be seen down to what distancethe background forces can be effectively suppressed. ...".

In addition to GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravity Waves,the Kaluza-Klein SuperString people have also described a model ofgravity in which some of their extra dimensions are compactified atmillimeter scales rather than Planck scales, resulting in gravity atsub-millimeter levels that could be "... millions of times strongerthan the inverse-square ..." according to theNew Scientist 24 October 1998, as well as ElsevierScience Article 8090301, ElsevierScience Article 9090101, and hep-th/9809124and related papers. However, Mirabelli,Perelstein, and Peskin in hep-ph/9811337 have shown frompresent-day collider physics experimental observations that:

- if 6 of the Kaluza-Klein SuperString extra dimensions are large, they cannot be larger than 6.9 x 10^(-12) cm;
- if 4 of the Kaluza-Klein SuperString extra dimensions are large, they cannot be larger than 1.9 x 10^(-9) cm;
- if 2 of the Kaluza-Klein SuperString extra dimensions are large, they cannot be larger than 4.8 x 10^(-2) cm.

In a different theoretical context (that of large dimensions inSuperString theory), LawrenceHall and Christopher Kolda in hep-ph/9904236 show that "... Ifspacetime contains large compact extra dimensions [or, perhaps,if Strong Gravity in the Induction or Static Regions couples Gravityto Electromagnetism], the fundamental mass scale of nature,LAMBDA, may be close to the weak scale, allowing gravitationalphysics to significantly modify electroweak symmetry breaking. ... AtRun II of the Tevatron collider, a signal for extra dimensions {orStrong Gravity] will be discovered if LAMBDA is below 2.5 (1) TeVfor a Higgs boson of mass 100 (300) GeV. Furthermore, such a signalwould point to gravitational physics, rather than to new conventionalgauge theories at LAMBDA. The discovery potential of the LHC dependssensitively on whether the gravitational amplitudes interfereconstructively or destructively with the standard model amplitudes,and ranges from LAMBDA = 3 - 10 (2 - 4) TeV for a light (heavy) Higgsboson. ...". They indicate that the general effect of couplingGravity to Higgs and Photons is to enhance Higgs decay to twoPhotons, while the general effect of coupling Gravity to Higgs andGluons is to enhance Higgs production by Gluon-Gluon fusion, but alsoto diminish the branching ratio of Higgs decay to two Photons.

A typical Cell has a nucleus (central red blob), a Cell wallmembrane (red boundary), a Structural Framework of **Microtubules**(long gray lines), and a Centrosome from which (in most animal cells)Microtubules grow.

Alfred Schoeller (by an e-mail message) told me about a paper byhis friend Min Wang - Microtubule polarity and the direction ofpigment transport reverse simultaneously in surgically severedmelanophore arms (Cell. 1984 Jul;37(3):753-65) - reporting that"... They severed arms of erythrophores (special cells from certainfish) by microdisection and found that microtubules can form a newcell center in the severed arms (without a nucleus) ... This meansthat cells are some sort of holographic with an incrediblecytoplasmic organization ...".

That is exactly what is implicit in the microtubule model ofquantum consciousness. Not only canmicrotubule information patterns form thoughts, but they can alsocontain holographic information about how to organize new cellcenters etc. In my view, the whole body (all of which hasmicrotubules) can be involved in consciousness, not just the brain,although the brain has a neural organization structure that enablesthe thoughts to be expressed by muscles (vocal, gestures, writing,etc) whose activity is directed by the brain neural center, so that anaive first approximation is to consider the brain as the center ofthought in the body. However, more nearly accurately in my view,consciousness is a whole-body holographic microtubule process. I amamazed that such an important result as the Min Wang paper has notattracted massive attention over the past 20 years.

The Centrosome, in most animal cells, acts as a

MicrotubuleOrganizing Center.Most Centrosomes contain a pair of Centrioles arrranged at right angles to each other in an L-shaped configuration.

is about 200 nm wide and 400 nm long. Its wall is made up of 9 groups of 3 microtubles. You can regard the A microtubule of a triplet as being a complete microtubule, with the B and C microtubules being incomplete microtubules fused to A and B respectively.

Each triplet is tilted in toward the central axis at an angle of about 45 degrees.

(The illustrations and information about cells, microtubules, and centrioles are from Molecular Biology of the Cell, 2nd ed, by Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, and Watson (Garland 1989).

The 9 groups of 3 Microtubulesin a Centriolemight correspond to the

27 Complex Dimensions of E7 / E6xU(1) and to the each of the two 27-dimensional representations of the Lie Algebra E6 of the D4-D5-E6 physics model.

If the 2 orthogonal Centrioles of a Centrosome are taken together to make 27x2 = 54 microtubules,

the 54 might correspond to the

54 Real Dimensions of E7 / E6xU(1).

and to

both of the two 27-dimensional representations of the Lie Algebra E6 of the D4-D5-E6 physics model.

If the Centriole's central tube is added to make 28 tubes,

the 28 might correspond to the

28-Quaternionic-Dimensional E8 / E7xSU(2)

and to the

28-dimensional representation of the Lie Algebra D4 = Spin(8) of the D4-D5-E6 physics model.

If the 2 orthogonal Centrioles of a Centrosome are taken together to make 28x2 = 56 microtubules,

the 56 might correspond to the

56-dimensional representation of the Lie Algebra E7.

## GravitoEM Static Region, inside the Electron Compton Radius Vortex, as an organizer of elementary particles of the physical Standard Model plus Gravity as in the D4-D5-E6 physics model;

## GravitoEM Induction Region, outside the Electron Black Hole but within the Micron scale of the Electron GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravitons, as an organizer of microtubules that could carry the Quantum Information of consciousness.

As a physical mechanism of consciousness, Hameroffdescribes a quantum gravity process: "... When the quantum gravitythreshold is reached according to

[where **E** is energy, hbar is Planck's constant, and**T** is time] self-collapse = (objective reduction) abruptlyoccurs. ..."

Penroseand Hameroff have named that process **Orch OR** (forOrchestrated Objective Reduction).

Jack Sarfatti has noted that the Micron-Scale Electron GravitoEMInduction Region length "... may be the proper scale for **OrchOR** ... That is [in the equation] **E = hbar / T**[you should use]

..."

Then, if you round off things like G to 10^(-7) from 6 x 10^(-8),you get for the characteristic time:

= (10^(-27) g cm^2 / sec) / ((10^(-7) cm^3 / g sec^2)(10^(-20) g^2/ cm)) =

= 10^(-27 +7 +20) (g cm^2 g sec^2 cm) / (sec cm^3 g^2) = 10^0 sec**= 1 sec**.

which is indeed the order of the time scale proposed by Hameroffand Penrose.

Therefore:

Jack Sarfatti says "... It is interesting that the Wheeler[GravitoEM Induction Region] formula for an electron giveslarge curvature fluctuation ... out to a micron. Is there some kindof electron-**neutrino**-quantumgravity resonance here on the mesoscopic scale of a micron? ...".

Further, OSCILLATIONS betweenmu-neutrinos (Compton radius ofabout a micron) and e-neutrinos(Compton radius as big as our universe ) might form some sort oflink between

Many phenomena involving Clustersof Atoms are poorly understood by conventional theories.

The aqueous solutionphenomenon of Cold Fusion.

Extraordinary Quantum Properties of Massive Gold Clusters:According to and April 17, 1977, announcement by Dr.Robert L.Whetten, Professor of Physics and Chemistry at GeorgiaTech, a new series of highly stable and massive gold-clustermolecules that possess a set of extraordinary quantum properties. ...Each molecule in the new series has a compact, crystalline gold core.This pure metallic core, just one-to-two billionths of a meter (1-2nanometers) across, is encapsulated within a shell of tightly packedhydrocarbon chains linked to the core via sulfur atoms. The principalmembers of the series have core-masses of about 14,000; 22,000 and28,000 protons, corresponding to about 75, 110 and 145 gold atoms,respectively, and are thus in the same mass range as larger proteinmolecules. ... The precise structures of the cores are ... unknown.... The conduction electrons of the clusters are quantized both intheir number -- charge quantization -- and in the states they canoccupy -- energy quantization. ... In crystals larger than a fewnanometers, these effects can only be observed and used at very lowtemperatures, such as that of liquid helium, near absolute zero. ...The new gold cluster materials are the first to exhibit thecharge-quantization effect in a macroscopically obtained material,for which every cluster behaves identically. **The Micron-Scale ofthe massive gold-cluster molecules suggests involvement of the****Electron****Micron-Scale ****GravitoEM InductionRegion****,** while it is possible that **the compact goldcore structure could involve the ****Quark****Nanometer-Scale ****GravitoEM InductionRegion**.

The high energy yield of explosions of clusters of Xenon atomswhen hit by ultrashort (150 fsec), high-intensity (2 x 10^16 W/cm^2)laser pulses. It is not yet understood why clusters explode so muchmore violently than molecules (producing 1 MeV ions as opposed to 100eV ions), according to scientists at Imperial College (London) asreported in PhysicsNews Update Number 311 (Story #1), March 13, 1997 by Phillip F.Schewe and Ben Stein, who say "The researchers look on theirexplosions as a novel and modest way of achieving high-temperatureplasmas in a gas of clusters. They point to the possibility oftabletop fusion experiments.", citing T. Ditmire et al., Nature, 6March 1997. **The 1 MeV energy level suggests ****involvementof the SU(3) Color Force as opposed to U(1)Electromagnetism****, and therefore involvement of the****Quark**** Nanometer-Scale****GravitoEM Induction Region**.

......