Dear Constantin,
I am grateful for your comments because they give me a chance to describe a few important aspects of my essay. I also appreciate your taking the time to read it and look for problems and inconsistencies. This kind of feedback is valuable and can only make an idea (if valid) better by facing them. So I admire your willingness to point things out.
1) The exploration I am attempting takes the premise that quantum mechanics provides a useful tool but does not accurately describe the internals of photons, electrons, and protons. So I am not describing quantum mechanics but an alternative which may at times seem to contradict but hopefully will ultimately explain. Of course there will be similarities because we are all trying to explore the same things. I did use "quantum vacuum" in my title which I'm sorry if it made it confusing. My post above mentions this.
This desire for a better explanation leads to questioning previously accepted ideas. The essay describes exploration of something internal to photons, electrons, and protons that is not quarks but a single undefined substance propelled by a single sustaining potential. By receiving internal sustaining acceleration from outside of itself, a photon, for example, can exhibit the long life and other properties that we see. It doesn't violate thermodynamics but it explains the reason behind it.
While quantum mechanics does not behave classically, there may be ways of looking inside particles that are suddenly classical again, but with some interesting twists. For example, acceleration, velocity, and position work as expected. It is what causes the acceleration that is interesting.
The essay proposes a single sustaining potential with units of L^2/T^2 that is spread evenly through the universe. This potential provides the internal acceleration of the undefined particle substance. The quotes you selected are describing this internal motion.
2) That is a good point that I could have references for the idea of gravity using the same mechanism as electromagnetism. It is quite a common pondering of how these forces could be unified, and Penrose in my references briefly discusses similarities on page 392. Do you have any suggestions for references in particular? I didn't intend to say that uniting the two forces is my idea, but I do think the specific mechanism proposed for how this idea would work is unique. See 4) below.
3) The conventional wisdom certainly is that the strong nuclear force is much stronger than the electromagnetic force, and that is why I think the mechanism I describe is so interesting. In exploring internal motion I see a way that electromagnetic forces can suddenly become much stronger through synchronization of their revolving fields instead of experiencing the average repulsion two protons normally have. It takes a combination of protons, electrons, and photons to achieve this synchronization. I really like this avenue of exploration so far. Again the key is the single sustaining potential that propels the particles like a motor. From outside a particle it then behaves similar to a quantum mechanics particle because as fields get out of synch they suddenly repel. From a macro view this can be predicted through probability.
4) I appreciate your comment because it gives me a chance to offer an alternatives to spacetime. I am starting to call mine the single sustaining potential. It is this potential that propels motion that we use to measure time. As it produces motion a particle develops a secondary potential in the form of electromagnetic potential. In the process of producing electromagnetic potential, the available magnitude of electromagnetic potential is reduced for other particles. Interestingly, the denominator in Newton's gravitational equation and in the Coulomb force equation are both r squared as just about everyone has noticed and wondered how they are related. See 2) above. I believe this is it. The single sustaining potential induces electromagnetic potential but the magnitude is reduced as it sustains other particles. The gradient of electromagnetic potential reduction gives the equation for gravity.
I sincerely thank you for commenting on my essay and questioning its assumptions. I would hope that every point would be critiqued if it is to withstand scrutiny. Please post any further questions or observations you have. I may not be able to respond with this much detail, but I welcome them the same.
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen