the proton to date, using two complementary experiments. When we began the exercise,
we suspected that our results would help add levels of precision to the known size of the
proton. We were wrong. Our measurements of the proton's radius differ by a huge gulf.
The difference is more than five times the uncertainty in either measurement, implying
that the probability that this is all due to chance is less than one in a million."
I put the above quote here to indicate how small a hydrogen proton is.
1-30-14 From this article page 88 the ( charge radius of 0,8409 femtometer plus or minus
0.0004 ) is smaller than old radius 0.877 femtometer.
The NewFoundationPhyscis that the link below takes you to is the basis of APM similar to
My concept Aether Physics Model which is the main topic of this blog in comparison to
the Standard Physics Model.
The Aether Physics Model quantifies quantum structure within an Aether/angular momentum paradigm (as opposed to the mass/energy paradigm of Einstein). It is destined to merge with Quantum Mechanics and provides the means for tapping Zero Point Energy.
Modern physics describes the mechanics of the Universe. We have discovered a new foundation for physics, which explains the components of the Universe with precision and depth. We quantify the existence of Aether, subatomic particles, and the force laws. Some aspects of the theory derive from the Standard Model, but much is unique.
A key discovery from this new foundation is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. Other fundamental discoveries follow, including the origin of the fine structure constant and subatomic particle g-factors, a slight correction of neutron magnetic moment, a geometrical structure for charge, the quantification of electromagnetic charge as separate from electrostatic charge, a more precise meaning of spin, the quantification of space-resonance in five dimensions, and a new system of quantum units.
The Aether quantifies as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic, electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures. Subatomic particles quantify as angular momentum encapsulated in a quantum, rotating magnetic field. All quantum, atomic, and molecular processes can be precisely modeled, leading to discrete physics with new understandings and insights.
The Aether Physics Model (APM) is a paradigm of quantum structure, which is based upon
- a clearer definition of dimensions,
- a different structure of units based upon distributed charge dimensions,
- a new system of units based on electron values,
- the structure of non-material existence (Aether),
- a new system of geometrical evaluation,
- new fundamental constants in addition to the established fundamental constants,
- the quantification of a previously unknown type of charge,
- and the quantification of matter as angular momentum
We can postulate that the Universe composes from force, matter, and environment. Space-time is a subset of “environment", which is quantified as Aether. The ontology of the APM assumes quantum matter exists within a quantum environment, and that the quantum environment constructs from primary force acting on quantum dimensional measurements. Let us assume the force as primary, and demonstrate that it factors from Coulomb’s constant and Newton’s gravitational constant. We name the primary force “Gforce" and assume it is constant, and thus the Universe is a closed system. In this paper, we do not present Gforce as a derived constant from constants that are more fundamental.
The Aether Physics Model (APM) is mathematical and based upon empirical quantum data. Whereas modern physics focuses on what the Universe does, we quantify what the Universe is.
A Quick History of the Aether
The concept of Aether is not new. Historically, the Aether was the prevailing theory in what later became modern physics. Ancient Greek philosophers discussed Aether, and the theory continued in acceptance through millennia. In 1644, Rene Descartes put forth a philosophy of an all-pervading Aether with mechanical properties. “Descartes assumed that the Aether particles are continually in motion. As however there was no empty space for moving particles to move into, he inferred that they move by taking the places vacated by other Aether particles, which are themselves in motion. Thus, the movement of a single particle of the Aether involved the motion of an entire closed chain of particles; and the motions of these closed chains constituted vortices, which performed important functions in his picture of the cosmos."1 The Descartes concept of Aether compares to fish moving in a tank of water. In the Descartes model, the Aether acts as both a solid and a fluid.
Whitaker wrote, “All space, according to the young [John] Bernoulli, is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the Aether appears to possess, and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools; for, owing to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate, and so presses against the neighboring whirlpools."2
Fresnel’s formula, as developed by Eisenlohr, suggests that Aether is denser in matter than in free space.3 While Descartes saw the Aether as both a perfect solid and perfect fluid, Nikola Tesla deduced that the Aether had the qualities of a perfect gas.4 The above hypotheses are born out in the Aether Physics Model. The quantum Aether units are able to fold and bind to each other where subatomic particles are present. The rotating magnetic field of the Aether, driven by the enormous Gforce, manifests as a perfect solid, fluid, and gas, simultaneously. As explained below, it is because the mass associated with the Aether is reciprocal mass that Gforce and Aether have these abilities.
When Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment to identify the particulate medium as absolute space-time, resulting from Aether drifting through Earth as Earth moved through space, they found no overwhelming evidence for the magnitude of Aether drift they expected. However, they did measure an Aether drift. Dayton Miller later conducted extensive tests that verified an Aether drift relative to the Earth at about ten thousand kilometers per second.5 The results indicated that if Aether exists, it must drag relative to Earth6, which Augustin Fresnel also posited.7 Since the prevailing understanding of Aether did not easily accommodate Aether dragging along with the planet, many touted this as evidence against the existence of the Aether. This premature conclusion against a dragging Aether also caused many to proclaim the erroneous assumption that the Michelson-Morley experiments showed absolutely no Aether drift.
Further speculating on the structure of the Aether, Albert P. Carmen wrote, “We can think of the ether as having an indefinitely large number of infinitesimal "ether dipoles."8
Albert Einstein invented his own principle of a space-time/mass-energy tensor and attributed it to Ernst Mach. He essentially stated that space-time acts upon mass and mass acts upon space-time. However, Einstein’s view changed on this matter several times over several years, due to his inability to pinpoint a precise physics basis for his General Relativity Theory (GRT). As a result, aspects of Einstein’s earlier erroneous thoughts present as valid physics concepts today (Mach’s principle, cosmological constant), this despite that Einstein ended up disowning these ideas due to their conflicting nature with GRT.9 10
Albert Einstein did not disprove, nor did he attempt to disprove, the existence of the Aether. On May 5, 1920 at the University of Leyden, Einstein gave a lecture11 in which he defended the existence of Aether, albeit, to his own liking. Einstein’s theory depended heavily upon keeping any reference to an absolute space-time from entering the physics, so he had to stay on top of the Aether discussions of his time. In a review of Miller’s work by Robert Shankland, Einstein posthumously brought pressure to bear against Dayton Miller’s work and Shankland attempted to write off Miller’s measured Aether drift as temperature anomalies within the apparatus.12
The APM substantially quantifies the earlier concepts of Aether and provides a solid foundation for Einstein’s GRT, although it does not support his Special Relativity Theory.
Goals and Objectives
The APM has the capacity to explain all aspects of physics. However, the theory is extensive and space is limited, so we will present some essential foundations in this paper. Some concepts may not seem comprehensive in presentation; however, our book, Secrets of the Aether13, further develops the APM. ___________________
SEE EQUATIONS BLOG FOR THE UNDERLINED PBS COPIED TEXT ONLY OF SECRETS OF AETHER ABOVE ^^>
The Gforce quantifies as the cause of Aether. Aether in turn quantifies as the non-material environment in which matter exists. Understanding the quantum environment is essential for understanding how quantum matter moves and how the Gforce produces the electrostatic, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. From this new understanding of Aether, the APM proposes a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, and as such, succeeds in unifying all the forces with simple, mathematical laws.
Definitions - Dimensions
A dimension, as defined here, is a non-material, measurable quality relating to the foundation of existence and being. The definitions presented below are essential to the foundation of the Aether Physics Model. The definitions were determined by critically analyzing empirical data and the equations used to express the data. For details beyond those given below, see Secrets of the Aether13.
The concepts of “mass to energy equivalence" and “rest mass"14 have no meaning within the APM. Dimensions are components of units, but not equal to units. In this theory, mass as a dimension has a different order of reality15 than energy as a unit. Let us define mass as a dimension, which when given a quantity, becomes a measurement of inertia. The primary quantity of mass in this theory is the mass of the electron (me) (as opposed to the kilogram or gram). If we need to use a mass quantity in analyzing the behavior of other than the electron, we simply reference it as mp for the proton, mn for the neutron, and mafor the mass associated with the Aether. Mass cannot be directly observed, but attributes can be inferred from the arrangements of mass dimensions within units. Since mass usually appears as a single dimension in a unit, let us then assume the geometry of the mass dimension is linear in nature. Since we will deduce that the environment at the quantum level curves, the linear nature of mass would also curve. When the mass dimension multiplies the length dimension, it produces a quantum structure we call the ligamen circulatus (LC).16 Think of the LC as a circular string of mass.
Let us define charge as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures electricity. There are two manifestations of charge, electrostatic and electromagnetic. In previously established theory, the electromagnetic charge quantifies as a relativistic expression of electrostatic charge. In the APM, electromagnetic charge quantifies using simple Newtonian type expressions with dimensions of Coulomb squared.
From observation, we see that charge covers a surface, yet leaves no null spaces in between charges. Since charge exists over a distributed length (area), let us then assume that charge dimensions are also distributed. In the APM, the quantum electrostatic charge is the same value as the elementary charge in established theory, except its dimensions modifies to represent distributed charge. Therefore, we notate the quantum electrostatic charge as e2. Charles Coulomb also proposed the distribution of charge.17
There is a second type of charge, named electromagnetic, or strong charge, which notates as eemax2 for the electron, epmax2 for the proton, enmax2 for the neutron, and ea2 for the Aether. The strong charge quantifies as the angular momentum of the subatomic particle times the conductance of the Aether and has a quantifiably different geometry than the electrostatic charge, as explained later in this paper. All charge is distributed, although there is no length associated with this geometry unless the distributed length dimensions specifically appear with charge dimensions in a unit (such as ).
The dimension of charge is not the same as an electron or proton. Therefore, in the Aether Physics Model it cannot be said that a quantity of charges exist in a given volume of space. It would be correct to say that electrons and protons have distributed charge, and that electrons and protons exist in a given volume of space.
Let us define length as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures distance. By applying a technique unique to the APM called Quantum Measurement Analysis, we can determine that the Compton wavelength is the quantum length to which the whole Universe is constructed. We will take the specific case of Planck’s constant; however, this technique applies to all the quantum constants. Planck’s constant calculates to be:
According to Max Planck18, this constant is the “quantum of action". Since there are only three subatomic particles that can “act" at the quantum level (electron, proton, and neutron), and the electron is the most mobile of the three, let us assume that the quantum of action refers directly to the electron. Therefore, we can deduce that the mass dimension represents by the mass of the electron. This leaves three remaining dimensions, two of which produce the unit of velocity. Let us assume that the quantum velocity is the speed of light. This leaves a remainder:
which is equal to the Compton wavelength.
Therefore, let us define the quantum length as the Compton wavelength and notate it as λC.
Let us define frequency as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures duration. Normally we think in terms of time dimension. Nevertheless, all of our time-keeping devices measure directly as frequency. In the APM, frequency is the dimension normally expressed, as evidenced by time dimension appearing in the denominator of unit expressions. Once familiarity develops for cardinal and ordinal values of dimensions, frequency as the normal dimension makes more sense. Using the method of Quantum Measurement Analysis, we define the quantum frequency as the quotient of the speed of light divided by the quantum length and notates as Fq.
All dimensions have both an obverse and reciprocal characteristic. We can think of the obverse dimension as flat or linear and the reciprocal dimension as curved or cyclical. In general, the reciprocal dimension reads as obverse cycles per reciprocal unit. For example, time is an obverse dimension and has a linear characteristic, while its reciprocal, frequency is cycles per time. The same logic applies to the obverse dimension of length, which is linear, and its reciprocal of wave number, which is a cycle per length.
There is also a reciprocal aspect to mass. We can consider reciprocal mass as inertia that cycles positive and then negative. A reciprocating piston cycles inertia along the forward and backward length dimension. However, in the Aether and Gforce constants, the mass of the Aether cycles inertia along the forward and backward time dimensions (or frequency dimension). Although the Aether has a huge reciprocal mass associated with it, its net inertia appears as zero.
Reciprocal mass also manifests in gravity. In the APM, the mass of the electron cannot exist apart from its quantum of action, which is angular momentum. In the APM, we call this quantum of action primary angular momentum and view it as a particular form of existence.19 In addition, primary angular momentum, which does not exist within the Aether, names dark matter (in the sense widely used in modern astrophysics). When dark matter is absorbed into a quantum Aether unit, the Aether imparts various qualities of charge to the primary angular momentum, and thus it becomes visible matter (and antimatter).
Let us assume that primary angular momentum can only spin in the forward direction of time, thus as the Aether inertia oscillates between forward and backward time, the primary angular momentum only sees half the cycle. Therefore, primary angular momentum has half-spin.20, 21 It is assumed that when the Gforce acts upon the mass dimension within primary angular momentum, it can exert either a push or a pull, but not both. Whether the Gforce exerts a push or a pull on the mass dimension appears to depend on the spin parity of the subatomic particle. Thus, matter would attract to matter and antimatter would attract to antimatter, but matter would repel antimatter.
Charge is a misunderstood dimension. Current is the only unit in widespread use where charge is obverse. In the unit of current, charge is a linear quantity. However, charge normally appears in the denominator of other unit expressions, and expresses in its reciprocal form. In the reciprocal form, we read cycles per charge. For example, potential is the unit of energy per charge. Magnetic flux is angular momentum per charge. Resistance is magnetic flux per charge, and so on.
In the SM, there is only one type of charge quanta, the elementary charge. In an attempt to quantify the strong force, the previous theory assumed the existence of gluons and pions and defined the charges in terms of color and flavor.21 As such, the concept of angular momentum per charge sounds meaningless within the understanding of previous theory. However, in the APM, there are two types of quantum charge and the elementary charge is the less significant of the two. The electromagnetic charge is the charge referred to in all charge related units except magnetic moment. In the case of magnetic moment, the unit refers to both types of charge, as explained in section 12 of this paper. It is because the units generally refer to electromagnetic charge, and not electrostatic charge, and previous theory does not quantify the electromagnetic charge of each subatomic particle relative to the electrostatic charge, that previous theory is not capable of unifying the forces.
Cardinal – Ordinal Relationships
We postulate in the APM that the numerator in a physics expression tends mathematically to have a cardinal value (quantity), and the denominator tends mathematically to have an ordinal value (position). From a physics perspective, we could identify the numerator as an absolute dimension, and identify the denominator as a relative dimension. Multiplication takes place between cardinal-valued-absolute-dimensions and it takes place between ordinal-valued-relative-dimensions. However, cardinal-valued-absolute-dimensions divide by ordinal-valued-relative-dimensions and vice versa. The absolute quantity also equates to objectivity, while the relative position equates to subjectivity, or environment.
Mass is a cardinal valued dimension, and reciprocal mass is an ordinal valued dimension. The Gforce and Aether derive from reciprocal mass and thus are ordinal, or relative, in nature, as opposed to the physical manifestation of mass we are familiar with, which is cardinal, or absolute, in nature.
Charge is a reciprocal dimension in most cases. When it appears as an obverse dimension (as in the unit of current) then charge is an objective quantity. However, charge most often appears as an ordinal value, and thus applies to the subjective environment.
We can think of cardinal mass and charge as being associated with objective reality, while ordinal mass and charge is associated with environmental, or subjective, reality. The environment is non-material, but the quantification of the environment is as essential for understanding existence as the quantification of the matter that abides in it.
Explaining Gforce in Terms of Ordinal Mass
The value of Gforce derives in the APM to:22
Consider two obverse masses equal in total value to the mass associated with the Aether. With being the Newton gravitational constant, which has been determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy,23 let these masses be one quantum length distant from each other. The resulting force between them will be
Transposing we see that Gforce is environmental, or subjective.
The value of the Aether unit derives in the APM to:
is the Aether electromagnetic constant and is the Coulomb electrostatic constant. If we take two objective quantities of charge equal to the strong charge of the Aether (see Quantum Values below), and separate them by one quantum length:
Then environmental Gforce is also reciprocal to the objective quantity of strong charge:
(When distributed charges multiply, empirically only one dimension from each distributed charge is used.)
|Mass of electron
||9.10910-31 kg 25
|Mass of proton
||1.67310-27 kg 26
|Mass of neutron
||1.67510-27 kg 27
|Mass of Aether
||3.2681015 kg 28
||2.56710-38 coul2 29
|Strong charge of electron
|Strong charge of proton
|Strong charge of neutron
|Strong charge of Aether
Relationship of Dimensions to Form
Let us assume that the dimensions of length and frequency develop geometry, while the dimensions of mass and charge develop substance. The geometrical and substance dimensions relate to specific geometrical constants. Due to resonance in the Aether unit, the Aether has curved geometry, of which the curved geometry, itself, takes on the nature of dimension.
There is a progression of geometry within the Aether. Observing that mass appears as a single dimension throughout the units, we can assume that mass has a linear quality. Since a circle is a curved, linear structure, let us correlate the 2π geometrical constant with mass.
In addition, since the APM defines charge as distributed, we can assume that charge has a surface quality. The resonance within the Aether unit generates two spheres, which also observes to correlate with a type of static frequency we can call electrostatic charge. The value of this static frequency of electrostatic charge is the source of the elementary charge. Let us then assume that electrostatic charge is spherical and has the 4π geometrical constant.
We find in the APM that electromagnetic charge is equal to angular momentum times the conductance of the Aether.
We will find that the angular momentum models as a circular string of mass (LC) moving perpendicular in a greater circle. Since a toroid is a small circle scanning a larger circle, let us assume that electromagnetic charge correlates to a toroid and has the 4π2 geometrical constant.
The 16π2 constant is equal to the spherical constant squared. As seen in figure 1, the Aether unit hypothesizes to be two orthogonal spheres over which the double loxodrome31 of the four forward time spin positions32 exists. Each of the four spin positions will accommodate only one subatomic particle. Since the subatomic particle is equal to its angular momentum, and that primary angular momentum spinning within the Aether unit produces toroidal strong charge, then the four spin positions multiply the toroidal constant of 4π2 to produce the 16π2 Aether geometrical constant.
Thus, we can see the progression of the geometrical constants.
Empirically we find that the electromagnetic constant (Au) pertains to a time-influenced toroidal, or more accurately, a cardioidal geometry,33and that the electrostatic constant (kC) pertains to a spherical geometry.34 From equation 4.8 we can hypothesize that Coulomb’s constant demonstrates a solid angle of 1 and the Aether unit demonstrates a solid angle of 16π2.35 This also reflects when viewing the electromagnetic and electrostatic constants within the cgs system of units:
kC = 1 (5.12)
Au = 16π2 (5.13)
As seen in equation 5.14, the Aether is composed of three dimensions of length orthogonal to two dimensions of frequency.
The three dimensions of length are the two dimensions of length coincident to the surface of the double loxodrome and the one dimension of length between Aether units. The two dimensions of frequency are coincident to the two spheres and produce the unit of resonance. Frequency squared, according to Classical physics, is equal to resonance.
Classical physics chooses to view resonant frequency as the square root of resonance. However, we can predict that the direct measurement of resonance would eliminate the need for Fourier transforms, as the data would already be in the correct dimensional form.
Notice that there are five spatial-temporal dimensions to the Aether. There are the three dimensions of length appearing as a volume, and there are the two dimensions of frequency, appearing as resonance. Therefore, the Aether unit actually exists as five-dimensional space-resonance, as opposed to four-dimensional space-time.
Frequency is inherently a distributed dimension in that it constantly changes direction, thus producing a curve. Frequency squared, or resonance, is two orthogonal curves, which can resolve to a three dimensional curved surface. This three dimensional curved surface does not involve length dimensions, but it contributes to the curved structure of the double loxodrome. Put simply, resonance is the cause of curvature in space-time. The double sphere of resonance appears in the Aether in conjunction with its 2-spin nature.36
Remember, the mass associated with the Gforce is reciprocating inertia. The Gforce gives rise to both the double loxodrome structure and the resonance by acting upon the quantum dimensions of length squared per Aether strong charge.
The resonance occurs to the direction of time. There is a forward and backward direction of time, with which the reciprocating inertia of the Gforce is oscillating.
The Aether unit is composed of four discrete spin positions. There are the two positive spin positions (positron and proton) and the two negative spin positions (electron and anti-proton). The electron and proton are both left hand spin and the positron and anti-proton are right hand spin. This agrees with violation of spin parity theory advanced by Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang.37 These Aether spin positions have no inherent physical matter in them, but provide the space-resonance in which subatomic particles can exist.
Summing up quantum frequency, there are three axes. The first axis of quantum frequency is that of forward and backward time. The second axis of quantum frequency is that of right and left hand spin. These first two axes of quantum frequency are dynamic. The third axis of quantum frequency is static, and is that of positive and negative electrostatic charge.
Geometry of Aether
Our perception of space-time arises from the quantum Aether unit, which is a quantum, rotating magnetic field. The Aether unit constructs from the Gforce acting on the dimensions of area per strong charge. The Gforce may have arisen from a more primary cause. The strong charge arose from a split in the singularity. However, neither the origin of the Gforce nor the mechanics behind the split in the singularity are suitable material for this paper. For now, we must establish the foundation of this new physics from the mechanics of physical existence.
The Gforce is Aether mass, which is accelerating, and decelerating. As the inertia of the Aether cycles toward positive and then toward negative, it speeds up and then slows down in each direction of resonance. The Gforce is equal to:
The Gforce gives rise to the Aether by acting on surface per strong charge, named the “stroke" of the Aether.
As previously mentioned, the Universe constructs of three essential qualities: force, environment, and matter. The Aether unit is then equal in terms of force to:
The Aether unit is the environment in which matter exists and is also equal to Coulomb’s constant times 16π2:
The Aether also expresses in terms of matter. We will give the specific case of the electron, but it also expresses in terms of the proton and neutron as well.
Essentially, the Universe exists within a rotating magnetic field. To understand the quantum, macro, or cosmic levels of existence would seem to require a thorough understanding of the rotating magnetic field. As such, the APM strongly supports the Plasma Cosmology, first proposed by Hannes Alfvén.38
The Coulomb constant further constructs of four constants, the speed of light, the conductance of the Aether, the permeability of the Aether, and the permittivity of the Aether.
Let us, for now, define the important conductance constant of the Aether as:
The relationship of Coulomb’s constant to the above constants is:
The angular momentum of the electron is Planck’s constant (h). We can notate the angular momenta of the proton and neutron as hp and hn, respectively. Then let us assume the structure of the proton and neutron angular momentum follows the same structure as for the electron:
As Albert Carmen hypothesized,8 the quantum Aether unit has a dipole structure. We can show that there are three dipoles: the electromagnetic, electrostatic, and gravitational. In figure 3 are three diagrams depicting the Aether unit and its dipoles.
The electromagnetic dipole applies to the electromagnetic (strong) charge. The strong charge value is equal to the conductance of the Aether times the angular momentum of the subatomic particle:
The electrostatic dipole donates from the Aether’s electrostatic quantum frequency dimension and is simply e2. The electrostatic charge arose from the split in the singularity, but for now, let us hypothesize that electrostatic charge is a fundamental, quantum frequency.
The gravitational dipoles are due to the spin parity of the subatomic particle angular momentum. Angular momenta with similar spin parity are gravitationally attractive and opposite spin parities are gravitationally repulsive. Therefore, matter is gravitationally repulsive to anti-matter.
In the APM, the neutron quantifies as a bound electron and proton, resulting in a neutral electrostatic charge.39 Nevertheless, when the neutron decays, we see that the electron and proton retained their electrostatic charges. Similarly, the angular momentum of the photon defines as the mass of an electron equally divided between the electron and proton spin positions within the Aether unit.40 In the APM, the photon quantifies as the total angular momentum times the speed of light.
Since the photon has the total mass equal to one electron, but the mass divides equally as matter and antimatter, the masses nullify each other gravitationally, therefore giving the appearance of a massless photon. Nevertheless, when an atom absorbs photons, the angular momenta of the photons can combine and produce individual electrons and positrons with net mass. These phenomena are recognized as the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, and pair production.
A device exists, which demonstrates how absorbed photons can emit electrons and positrons. We call the device a Crooke’s radiometer. As photons are absorbed, electrons emit from the dark side of the vane and positrons release from the reflective side of the vane. Charge does not accumulate in the bulb due to the annihilation of matter and antimatter. Before the matter and antimatter annihilate, the emitted electrons and positrons impart force to the vanes. The annihilation of the electron and positron creates more photons. Some of the resulting photons return to the vanes to repeat the process. The standard explanation of the heated molecules does not substantiate with an increase in bulb temperature. Rapid heating and cooling of the air molecules adjacent to the vanes is implausible as an explanation for the rapid rotation achieved with bright sunlight.
Thus, the relationship of the photon acting on the surface of the vanes is equal to:
In equation 7.2, phtn and forc are quantum measurements units as defined by the Aether Physics Model. The unit of a true quantum photon is phtn and quantum measurement unit of force is forc. The unit of forc is equal to .034 newton.
The APM includes a complete new system of quantum measurement units. All of the quantum measurement units are expressed as a four letter abbreviation, except where quantum measurement units are already defined (h is the quantum measurement unit of angular momentum, and c is the quantum measurement unit of velocity).
Charges, Electromagnetic and Electrostatic Charges
As indicated in the definition of quantum charge, there are two distinct manifestations of charge. The empirical elementary charge defines the APM quantum of electrostatic charge.
The electromagnetic charge, also called the strong charge, as it mediates the strong force, is derived from the angular momentum of the subatomic particle times the conductance of the Aether. Based upon the quantum measurement analysis that the quantum of action of the electron, Planck’s constant, is equal to:
let us define the angular momenta of all the subatomic particles according to equations 6.11 through 6.13.
As equations 6.4 and 6.10 show, the structure of the Aether unit in terms of Coulomb’s electrostatic constant, hypothesizes to construct from the speed of light, Aether conductance, Aether permeability, and Aether permittivity. We have assumed that equality 6.9 represents the conductance constant of the Aether.
Therefore, we can quantify electromagnetic charge as being equal to the angular momentum of the subatomic particle times the conductance constant of the Aether, as in equations 6.14 through 6.16. Each subatomic particle then has a unique, but constant electromagnetic charge, which is directly proportional to the mass of the subatomic particle.
Because mass is linear, it exists with just one dimension of length when associated with matter. Matter at the subatomic level exists as primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is equal to a circular line of mass (ligamen circulatus) spinning a velocity perpendicular to the circle. The angular momentum of the electron is the “quantum of action" also known as Planck’s constant.41
Since Planck’s constant is the quantum of action, it is directly quantifying the electron. Planck’s constantis the electron. Since the facts surrounding Planck’s constant are clear, we should not arbitrarily dictate that subatomic particles could not be a unit of primary angular momentum.
Similar structures hold for the proton and neutron. Again, the mass of the subatomic particle is not separable from its angular momentum. Thus when the mass of a subatomic particle is given, we can assume its angular momentum, and likewise, when the angular momentum is given, we can assume its mass.
The electron, being a circle of mass moving a velocity, fits inside the Aether electron spin position. Angular momentum has the same construction for each subatomic particle, each filling a unique spin position. The concept of subatomic particles is somewhat different in the APM than in previous theory and so, at the suggestion of Henry Margenau, we name them onn (onta for plural).42
Dark matter views as primary angular momentum, which exists outside the charge structure of the quantum Aether unit. Empirically, there is a vast sea of dark matter that does not interact with visible matter, except gravitationally. This is because primary angular momentum does not have inherent strong charge or electrostatic charge. The Aether unit imparts these two charge characteristics when primary angular momentum is absorbed.
Dark matter is absorbed into the Aether by the generation of photons via the Casimir effect.43 The equation for calculating the attractive Casimir force between two plates of area A separated by a distance L is shown below. We choose the length and area to be the quantum distance for quantum measurement analysis purposes.
L = λC : (9.2)
The Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir developed the form of equation 9.2 in 1948. In 1996, Steven Lamoreaux conducted an experiment that verified the Casimir effect equation to within 5%.44
Looking at equation 9.2, we see in the numerator. In the Aether Physics Model, is equal to the unit of the quantum photon. Let us modify the equation by replacing with the phtn unit and express the force in units of forc from the APM.
Because we chose the quantum distance for L and the quantum distance squared for A, the numerical terms produce an identity.
The numerical π divided by 480 is too close to 1/16π2 () to ignore. Could it be that the Casimir equation was calculated or inferred incorrectly? Perhaps it should be:
A comparison of the numerical term in the original Casimir equation to the assumed 16π2 numerical term gives:
The Casimir value is just 3.3% greater than the 16π2 value. In 1996 Steven Lamoreaux empirically measured the Casimir Effect to within 5% of the Casimir equation. Therefore, the assumed 16π2 value could be correct. Of further interest is that phtn/16π2 is equal to the strong charge of the electron times Coulomb's constant.
We see the so-called "virtual photons" created through the Casimir effect to be the result of the strong charge of the electron acted upon by the strong force. So the Casimir equation can transpose as:
Therefore, it appears that the Casimir effect is the result of the electron strong charge of the atoms in the metal plates affecting each other through a form of Coulomb's law. However, Lamoreaux clearly states in his paper, “There was no evidence for a force in any of the data…." 44 Nevertheless, even though the force is not an inverse square force, it does increase rapidly with the closer distances, as he writes, “The Casimir force is nonlinear and increases rapidly at distances less than 0.5 μm." This is entirely consistent with the strong force law as it increases according to the inverse square law, but at a rate 16π2 times sharper than the electrostatic force.
Taking the area and lengths to be the quantum length, the adjusted Casimir equation transposes and simplifies as the APM strong force equation for the electron:
Therefore, the success of the Casimir effect experiments is evidence of the existence of the strong charge of the electron, as well as the electron strong force law. It also provides evidence to support the assertion that the photon is equal to the angular momentum of the electron times the speed of light.
Interaction of Forces
Having quantified the electrostatic and strong charges, we can quantify the weak interaction. The proportion of electrostatic charge to strong charge is equal to 8π times the fine structure of the onn.
Fine Structure of the Proton and Neutron
The Standard Model of physics does not adequately recognize the unique fine structures of the proton and neutron. However, we can calculate the proton fine structure and neutron fine structure based on the assumption that all onta share a similar construction. Based upon the structure of equation 9.1, we can calculate the fine structures of the proton and neutron.
Because each onn has its own strong charge, it will also have its own "weak interaction" constant. Designating p and n as the fine structure constants of the proton and neutron, respectively, we can write:
Equations 10.1, 10.4, and 10.5 represent the unified charge equations for each onn. Taken together these equations are the basis for the Unified Force Theory.
The unified charge equations dictate a general geometry for the onta. The concept of charge geometry is new, so we will explain how spherical electrostatic charge geometry converts to steradian, strong charge geometry.
Figure 4 illustrates the two charges of the electron. Electrostatic charge has the solid angle of 1 (tiny yellow sphere in center of light green sphere) while the strong charge has the solid angle of a steradian (projected as the dark green band. The graphic is only for conceptualizing the solid angles; it does not represent the shape of an electron.
The strong charge has a solid angle equal to of the spherical electrostatic charge. The electrostatic charge has 1-spin due to its geometrical relation to spherical Aether resonance. The strong charge has ½ spin, due to the ½ spin of the onn (subatomic particle) angular momentum. Therefore, multiplying ½ spin by 2 converts ½ spin to 1-spin. Multiplying the steradian solid angle of strong charge by 4" converts the strong charge steradian solid angle to a solid angle sphere. Therefore, the geometrical constant relating electrostatic charge to strong charge is equal to:
The electron shape follows the spin position shape of the quantum Aether unit.
Due to Aether having five-dimensional space-resonance, the electron shape appears as in the loxodrome image in figure 5. However, since our human perception moves through linear time, the four-dimensional perspective of space-time applies. Hence, the electron appears to physically embodied humans, made from half spin matter, as a cardioid, as in figure 6.
Laws of Forces
There are three recognized forces, the gravitational, electrostatic, and strong force. The weak interaction is not a force at all, but merely a proportion of the electrostatic and strong forces. The gravitational force is directly proportional to the strong force by way of a universal mass to strong charge ratio.
It is due to this universal proportionality of mass to strong charge that Albert Einstein incorrectly developed GR based upon gravity, when it should have based upon the relationship between electrostatic and strong charge. The electrostatic force, weak interaction, and strong force all work together. The electrostatic force law works for electrostatic charge at a relatively long distance, but not at a very close distance. In addition, the strong charge law works for electromagnetic charge at a very close distance, but not at a relatively long distance. The two forces actually trade off, depending on the distance between the charged bodies. GR should have developed around the unified charge equations. The example of the proton unified charge equation notates below with the generalized Einstein field equation:
(11.2)G = 8πT(11.3)
Electrostatic Force Law (Coulomb’s Law)
The Coulomb law is the law governing the force between electrostatic charges. Coulomb’s experiments with the torsion balance involved spherical surfaces to maximize electrostatic potential. Coulomb claimed that the distance squared was inversely proportional to the amount of the electrostatic charges (although some scientists question whether he actually observed this45):
In expression 11.4, where is Coulomb’s electrostatic constant, represents the electrostatic charge, L is the distance between the charges, and F is the resultant force. Coulomb observed that the above law does not hold when the charges become very close to each other. This is because the strong charge begins to take over. However, the boundary between the electrostatic charge dominance and the electromagnetic charge dominance is gradual. We hypothesize that the balance between these two forces results in the weak interaction.
Sir Isaac Newton developed the gravitational law as in expression 11.5. G is the Newton gravitational constant, M1 and M2 are two masses, L is the distance between the masses, and F is the force between the masses. Early in the study of gravity, Henry Cavendish made very accurate measurements of the value of G.47 Information is widely available concerning the nature of the gravitational law, therefore it is not further elaborated here.
Strong Force Law
The strong force law was, before this paper, unknown to modern physics. According to established physics theory, the strong force is, “in physics, the force that holds particles together in the atomic nucleus and the force that holds quarks together in elementary particles".48 There is no practical equation for calculating the strong force in previously established physics because the pi meson and gluon are not practical strong force carriers. However, the strong force calculates in the Aether Physics Model using the electromagnetic charge, or strong charge. The strong force law is similar in structure to that of the electrostatic force law and the gravitational law. As in the case of the electrostatic law, the product of two strong charges calculates from a single dimension of each charge. Since the binding force causes the protons and neutrons to have large “small radii" and small “large radii", the onta appear spherical. Thus, the Coulomb constant is the force mediator instead of the Aether unit constant.
The strong force of the neutron is similarly calculated:
The strong force law for free protons and free neutrons likely begins by using the Aether unit constant, but graduates to using the Coulomb constant once the onta bind. This is because free protons and free neutrons are more toroidal in shape, while bound onta are spherical in shape.49 Since the Aether is always acting upon strong charge, whether or not there is another onn present, the strong force per onn is actually the strong force of a single onn. In other words, the Aether is acting on onta to produce force even when there is no other onn around to interact with the force. This must be so since the onta have no proximity system that can sense when another onn is nearby, and then react to it. The total nuclear binding force is the sum of all force acting upon onta in an atomic nucleus. The total force acting upon a single neutron, even though there are no other neutrons or protons nearby is:
However, due to the changing of the onta radii during binding, the total strong force for an atomic nucleus of deuterium is:
The nuclear strong force expression is then:
where Z is the number of protons and N is the number of neutrons in the nucleus. The nuclear strong force equation quantifies nuclear binding force. A nuclear binding energy equation that predicts the nuclear binding energy for all isotopes is within reach, although work on this equation is not complete. However, as of September 27, 2006, we have discovered the electron binding energy equation as a practical application of the Aether Physics Model.
Force Carrier Relative Strengths
In the Aether Physics Model, the force carriers are the electrostatic charge, electromagnetic charge, and mass. The so-called “weak force" is a proportion of electrostatic charge to electromagnetic charge. Since experiments express in the established systems of units, which determine the relative strengths of the forces as single-dimension charge, we will have to compare the square root of APM charges to the single-dimension charges in order to observe the relative strengths. In terms of electrostatic charge, the proton and neutron strong charges are each nearly 100 times greater in magnitude. The electron strong charge is only 2.335 times stronger than the electrostatic charge. Established physics does not recognize the strong charge of the electron.
(11.11)(11.12)(11.13)(11.14)Relative Strengths of the Force Carriers
| ||Unified Force Theory|
Relative Charge Strengths
Force Carrier Strengths
||(Strong nuclear force of
electron not recognized)
||(Weak interaction of
electron not recognized)
The weak nuclear interaction calculates for the proton and neutron as:
Since both results are already ratios comparing the electrostatic charge to strong charge, they remain just as they are.
There are many extensions of the Aether Physics Model presented in Secrets of the Aether. Below is a sampling of the concepts developed. We also develop nuclear and electron binding force equations, a truly quantized photon, pair production, beta decay, eddy current, nuclear structure, Zero Point Energy, the quantification of why gross matter takes the forms it does, a possible quantification for the values of the proton and electron masses, consciousness, the science of complexity (closely related to taxonomy), and many other topics.
Quantification of Neutron
The neutron quantifies as a bound electron and proton. The Aether folds such that the electron and proton share the same spin position relative to each other.
A cavity forms between the proton and electron that encapsulates dark matter existing between Aether units. This encapsulated dark matter becomes the neutrino. The cavity that the anti-neutrino confines to is electromagnetic in nature, due to the strong charge of the electron and proton binding. Therefore, the cavity must follow the spin position and geometry rules of strong charge, which, like all quantum geometry, describes in terms of unit radii. The geometry of the neutrino must be toroidal (4π2) if it exists within the Aether structure. Moreover, since the anti-neutrino couples to the electron it exists between half of the electron and proton Aether units minus half-spin . In addition, since the anti-neutrino exists between proton and electron strong charge binding, it must have steradian angle. This gives the anti-neutrino angular momentum, in terms of coupled electron angular momentum, as:
Simplified, we get:
Equation 12.2 reflects the observed behavior of the neutrino when it releases during beta decay. In established physics, this neutrino labels as “anti-neutrino". However, the neutrino must share the same spin direction as the proton and electron, so we would correctly label it a neutrino. The anti-neutrino would exist between a bound positron and anti-proton. Because the beta decay is due to the “weak interaction", the neutrino can violate conservation of parity. To understand this, we observe that spin from electrostatic binding is due to two onta and therefore mirrors. Spin from strong charge binding is due to two onta and mirrors. However, the spin due to the neutrino in a decay process involves only the neutrino and therefore there is only one spin parity. We also observe in equation 12.2 that 8π is the weak interaction constant.
Neutron Magnetic Moment
Magnetic moment is a unit that measures the influence of the Aether’s electrostatic charge against the strong charge of the onn. The magnetic moment of the electron as defined by NIST50 in SI units is:
The NIST value of electron magnetic moment expresses in terms of quantum measurements as:
where the is the electron g-factor as measured in the Lamb Shift. In the electron unit of magnetic moment, the strong charge cancels out, since the electrons are acting on electrons. Nevertheless, the strong charge terms belong in the equation in order to show that electrons are acting against other onta in the other measured magnetic moment values. The g-factor is an essential value related to the magnetic moment of the onta, as it corrects for the precession of the onn. The NIST value50 for the proton magnetic moment in SI units is:
The NIST value of proton magnetic moment expresses in terms of quantum measurements as:
where the proton g-factor ( ) is 5.58569 as listed on NIST. The NIST value50 for the neutron magnetic moment notates in SI units as:
and can be expressed in quantum measurements as:
where gn − nist , the g-factor of the neutron, is -3.82608545 as defined by NIST50. Notice that the equation balances by use of the strong charge of the proton instead of the neutron. This is highly unlikely. It appears that the magnetic moment data for the neutron was misread, or the value for neutron g-factor was simply miscalculated. That the neutron magnetic moment depends on the proton strong charge, and hence on the proton mass, seems impossible. The above analysis also shows rather conclusively that all charge should distribute, including the elementary charge. Based on Charles Coulomb’s observation that all charge must distribute in order for the force laws to work, and for consistency with the Aether Physics Model, we transpose the magnetic moment electrostatic charge dimensions. The electron magnetic moment in the APM system is:
The proton magnetic moment in the APM system is:
And based on the NIST values for the neutron magnetic moment, the neutron magnetic moment would be:
However, it is highly unlikely that nature has given a magnetic moment to the neutron, due to the strong charge of the proton. So assuming the accuracy of the magnetic moment, correcting the quantum measurements changes the g-factor for the neutron:
The g-factor (gn) for the neutron must be -3.831359 if the measurement is accurate. This compares to the NIST neutron g-factor (gn − nist) of -3.826085. From the expressions of magnetic moment in the Aether Physics Model, it appears that magnetic moment physically manifests by the interaction of the electrostatic and electromagnetic charges within each onn. It is further apparent that the electron plays a key role in causing magnetic moment for each of the onta.
In figure 8, triangle side b is a unit length, equal to the radius of the sphere on which the cardioid path rests. As can be seen, side a is half the unit length and side c is the hypotenuse of right triangle . is a special form of right triangle where side b is twice side a, which we can call a Phi triangle (it is not a Golden triangle). The Phi triangle is so named because in a unit triangle where b = 1, then
c + a = Phi(12.13)
c − a = phi(12.14)
where Phi is the golden ratio and phi is its inverse. This is easily proved by substituting the Pythagorean expression for c and a in terms of unit length b:
Since b = 1, we get:
1.118 + .5 = 1.618 = Phi(12.17)
The value for phi similarly reduces to:
1.118 − .5 = 0.618 = phi(12.18)
Since subatomic particles are their angular momentum, the g-factor is equal to the spiraling LC (ligamen circulatus) spinning through the Aether unit and quantifies as:
And the proton g-factor quantifies as:
As shown in the quantification of the neutron, it is a composite particle consisting of an electron bound to a proton. A possible solution for the neutron g-factor is:
This is in agreement with established physics measurements and observations.51 Note, however, that the APM calculated electron and proton g-factors only agree with presently established electron and proton g-factors to the thousandths, while the established values presume accurate to a much greater magnitude. In addition, the electron g-factor quantifies with a negative value, supposedly attributed to the negative charge of the electron. However, the neutron g-factor also has a negative value. Could the same logic apply to both the electron and neutron, when the neutron has neutral charge? The logic does not support a negative electron g-factor. For this reason, the electron g-factor has a positive value in the APM.
The Aether Physics Model is mathematically viable and bases on the same empirical data as established physics. Although we present only a small portion of the APM here, there is a sufficient case for the scientific community to take a closer look and to verify or disprove the theory. The promise of a Unified Force Theory is motivation enough, but the model also proposes to answer many more unanswered questions about the nature of the Universe from the quantum level through the cosmic level.
The APM has the potential to unite all of science into one extensive theory, thus providing a true Theory of Everything. No other theory has ever come close to matching the scope and promise of the Aether Physics Model.
We would like to extend special thanks to Phil Risby, PhD, for mentoring us through the editing of this paper.
See Discussion page
1. Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity; The Classical Theories (London; New York, American Institute of Physics, 1987) p. 6
2. Ibid pp. 95-96
3. The Ether, Science, Vol. 18, No. 447. (Aug. 28, 1891), pp. 119-122.
4. Lawrence M. Cockaday, New York Herald Tribune, (Sept. 22, 1929), pp. 1, 29.
5. Dayton C. Miller, Science, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 1635 (Apr. 30, 1926), pp. 433-443
6. “The outcome of the Michelson - Morley experiment would, therefore, suggest that the ether is dragged along with the earth, as far as the immediate neighborhood of the earth is concerned." Peter Gabriel Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity (New York, Prentice Hall Inc., 1947) p. 27
7. Quoted from Abraham Pais, Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982) p. 113.
8. Albert P. Carman, Science, New Series, Vol. 71, No. 1834 (Feb. 21, 1930), pp. 214-215.
9. Robert Matthews, Science, New Series, Vol. 263, No. 5147. (Feb. 4, 1994), pp. 612-613
10. John D. Norton, General Covariance and the Foundations of General Relativity: Eight Decades of Dispute, Rep. Prog. Phys. 56 (1993) pp. 791-858 printed in UK.
11. Michel Janssen et al, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein Vol. 7, The Berlin Years: Writings , 1918 – 1921 (Princeton University Press, 2002) pp. 305–309; 321
12. Robert S. Shankland, Science, New Series, Vol. 176, No. 4035 (May 12, 1972), pp. 652-653
13. David W. Thomson and Jim D. Bourassa, Secrets of the Aether; Second Edition (Alma, IL, The Aenor Trust, 2005)
14. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p 97
15. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p 17
16. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p 38
17. "Above all, Coulomb confirmed by very refined methods the fact already noticed by Gray, that electricity is only situated on the external surface of conductors; and he observed that this also is a consequence of the inverse square law, and can only be true if the latter holds exactly." Philipp Lenard, Great Men of Science: A History of Scientific Progress, trans. H. Stafford Hatfield (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933) pp. 157-8.
18. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going?, trans. James Murphy, 1st ed. (New York: Norton, 1932) 59.
19. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, pp 15, 34, 36
20. G. W. Ludwig, Science, New Series, Vol. 135, No. 3507. (Mar. 16, 1962), pp. 899-905.
21. Arthur L. Robinson, Science, New Series, Vol. 217, No. 4565. (Sep. 17, 1982), pp. 1127-1129.
22. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, pp. 41-51
23. Arthur L. Robinson, Science, New Series, Vol. 222, No. 4630. (Dec. 23, 1983), pp. 1316-1317.
24. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p. 62
25. NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty
26. NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty
27. NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty
28. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p. 50
29. NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty
30. NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty
31. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p. 33
32. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p. 33
33. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p. 38
34. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, pp. 103, 131
35. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, pp. 130-132
36. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p. 33
37. C. N. Yang, Science, New Series, Vol. 127, No. 3298, (Mar. 14, 1958), pp. 565-569
38. Hannes Alfvén. Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology (W H Freeman & Co, 1966) ISBN: 0716703173
39. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, pp. 164-168
40. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, pp. 171-173
41. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going?, trans. James Murphy, 1st ed. (New York: Norton, 1932) p. 59.
42. Henry Margenau, Open Vistas Philosophical Perspectives of Modern Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961) p. 118.
43. Charles Seife, Science, New Series, Vol. 275, No. 5297. (Jan. 10, 1997), p. 158.
44. Lamoreaux, Steven K., Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6 mm Range (Phys Rev Let, Vol 78, Num 1, 1996)
45. Steven Dickman, Science, New Series, Vol. 262, No. 5133. (Oct. 22, 1993), pp. 500-501
46. Quoting the writings of Charles Coulomb. Morris H. Shamos, Great Experiments in Physics: Firsthand Accounts from Galileo to Einstein (Dover Publications Inc., New York, reprint 1987) p. 65
47. "Gravitation ," The Columbia Encyclopedia , 6th ed.
48. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, et al.
49. Ibid Secrets of the Aether, p. 33
50. National Institute of Standards and Technology, The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty
51. F. J. Belinfante, Science, New Series, Vol. 118, No. 3067. (Oct. 9, 1953), p. 397.
- Reviews:Book:The Quantum Key
- Article:The Successor of Quantum Mechanics
- PowerPedia:Quantum Ring Theory
- Paper:A New Foundation for Physics, by Quantum Aether Dynamics Institute
- Article:Quantum Field Theory is being developed in the wrong way The math of the "New Foundation of Physics" above will be looked at.
- Added a copy of "Secrets of the Aether" on Equaions web page partialy in PBS with no images.
A UNIFIED FIELD THEORY
Author: J.Ghitis firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract: This essay deals with the what the universe is made of. No reference is made to the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, or to the Beginning and the End, or to Nothingness and Infiniteness. Many of the ideas expressed are actually statements based on uncontested facts. Other ideas represent postulates accepted by many scientists, while others are clearly posited as the author's own which are influenced by what he calls the "Geometrical Principle" which considers that there are 3 to 4 basic components of physical reality since the triangle is the first planar figure with a fourth side providing it depth. A dramatic example of such principle is provided by photons which are composed of two antithetical halves with the photon actually being a neutral "pair," which represents the third constituent of the said "triangle."
Keywords: matter, vibration, mass, particle, inertia, energy, spin, gravity.
Matter, Mass, & Energy
MATTER: is protium and its derivatives. Protium is better known as hydrogen, which is made up of one proton and one encircling electron. Hydrogen, in evolutionary physics, is the atomic emergent: the primal chemical entity. Subsequent elements created by the natural fusion process are thereby derived from hydrogen. H2 is the molecular emergent. For the purposes of this essay, the following definitions are used:
There is only one matter (M) and there are three categories of mass:
The one in matter, known as m,
The nonmaterial mass, which I will refer to as nm.
The proto-mass (pm).
There are three categories of energy which will be described later on in detail. Yet, since it is impractical to explain mass without mentioning energy, the term proto-energy will be used now as referring to the most elementary form of energy.
MASS (m): that aspect of matter that is made up of nonmaterial mass (nm) that underwent extreme compaction, as explained later on. They compose units called quarks, which in turn are compacted into a proton.
Yet even the nonmaterial mass (nm) is composed of subunits, which are the proto-mass (pm). Proto-mass is made of vibrations, while proto-energy is in their various spins. These vibrations are distinct from what we understand by that name because they are not properties of an elastic body, but physical entities. I refer to them as Physical Vibrations (PV).
I posit that the elementary particles are of two incongruent kinds of which one is "dominant" and more stable than the other. I further posit that they spin in opposite directions, and are configured in "pairs." The basic structure of PVs and nm is conserved in the final material manifestation as e-p+ pairs. Subsequently, a trio of quarks is compacted into a proton after the expulsion of one electron. The latter reaches a distant location that is determined by the proton's "micro event-horizon," which fixes the atom's boundaries. Protium is thus born.
I further posit that gravity derives from the paired opposite spins of PVs, nonmaterial mass (nm) and the e-p+s that constitute the mass in quarks. It is this gravitational pull that successionally compacts them into protons. At the present time, it is not clear if the hundreds of entities called "nuclear particles" that have been described so far are real individualities or shattered derivatives of the basic ones in the quarks. For that reason, the isolated term "particle" will be used in a non-committal way.
ENERGY: an entity that must invest itself unto elementary and material (m) masses. In the quantum realm, it might be considered as a fluid that flows directly from one particle to another, assuming the properties that are dictated by the given particle. For instance, the energy attached to electrons is called electricity. In the Newtonian realm, energy flows through atoms, molecules, and their derivatives.
I therefore posit that all energy ultimately derives from the spins of PVs. Thus matter is "packets of spinning vibrations." Mutually "annihilated" particles actually change their PV's composition and spins, meaning that the particles undergo a complex processes, but cannot be destroyed, i.e., mass cannot be converted into energy.
There are three tiers of energy:
- BASAL ENERGY (bE): is the immanent one in mass (all "particles"); it can not be removed, being perhaps a remnant of the component PVs' spins. It forbids temperature to reach absolute zero and movement to cease, thus perhaps being related to the principle of indeterminacy.
- POTENTIAL ATOMIC ENERGY (E): is that which is in matter and is normally unavailable.
- NEWTONIAN ENERGY: is the freely available energy, which is the surplus of gravitationally-induced kinetic energy from when matter is created.
Potential, atomic E of matter (M) is convertible to photonic energy (pE) as explained later on.
The dynamics of energy are the expression of "change," and are interpreted as "time." Thus, in the absence of energy, Minkowski's space-time graph would be static. The international unit of time is the second, which is a subunit derived from the duration of a complete rotation of the planet Earth.
Inertia is an intrinsic property of mass which is manifested by the opposition of a body to a change in motion. A resting body's inertial critical limit is the maximal force that is unable to move it. A moving body's inertia's critical limit varies linearly relative to its velocity. These properties of mass I call “Limits of the First Kind.”
When a mass/matter/body attains a velocity approaching light's, a Limit of the Second Kind is reached at a given point, where the mass is considered as being "increased" or possessing "high energy," and its "time" is said to be "warped." A certain parallelism to such postulate may be considered to be manifested by the factual changes suffered by molecules submitted to very high heat intensity, which at a "critical point" become reversibly ionized gas (plasma).
Weight, as usually understood, is a standardized quantification of any mass under the influence of the Earth's gravity. The international unit of weight, inertia, and mass is the kilogram. This means that only weight is absent in interstellar space while inertia and mass remain. In any place, in the absence of friction, an astronaut will find the same opposition to movement from the same body because their respective quantitative masses and therefore their inertial properties remain unchanged.
Force, in the present essay, is first defined within the classical mechanical framework, as being a property of mass in motion, a hybrid of mass and velocity, which is called momentum. It is considered to be kinetic energy, which is manifested according to its intensity and manner of acting.
In the special case when a resting body that possesses potential kinetic energy, due to gravitational or electrical attraction, starts moving toward the attracting body, said energy becomes force, i.e. momentum. Regardless of the source of movement, when impacting another body, the velocity constituent of that momentum is converted into heat and another part into the kinetic energy (momentum) of the affected body if it is free to move.
If the impact is tangential, it is called friction. The friction of a body in motion alongside a static one, causes a decrease in momentum at the expense of heat and static electricity in both. If both bodies are in motion, the one with less momentum gains more kinetic energy at the other's expense. Heat and electricity changes depend on the respective component materials.
Kinetic energy is a unique energy because it depends on mass. Since, in the Newtonian realm, it derives from gravity's surplus of matter-creative momentum, it well might be considered as the source of all available energies. Being movement related to change, and therefore to time, it could be seen as a fifth dimension of matter.
Pressure is force that is applied to a resting body that is unable to change its position. In space only gravitational attraction can act in such manner with the particularity that the body is a cloud of gas or dust that the force originates from the very same cloud that is undergoing compaction.
When immense "clouds" of PVs and subsequently nm reach critical densities, their own gravity then compresses them culminating in the creation of protium. In turn, once critical concentrations are attained, the clouds of protium (with some deuterium and tritium) are compressed, giving rise to different sorts of stars. The critical concentrations are perhaps influenced by the proportion of dust arriving from supernovas, thus explaining the variegated star properties.
As quarks and then protons are formed, the originator momentum, acting as pressure, becomes potential protonic energy. This energy is perhaps in the form of gluons, which are theoretical entities that embody the force that is invested in creating quarks and protons. Part of this momentum gives the protons their almost everlasting spin, the electron falling under the influence of the spinning proton.
Further gravitational pressure converts some protons and electrons into neutrons. The stage is then ready for even a greater pressure in colossal hydrogen clouds to force hydrogen and isotopes to overcome their repulsion and fuse them into helium. In this fusion process, protons and their quarks open up letting out a small proportion of their mass particles and their associated protonic energy. The resulting products of the investment of the liberated protonic energy on the myriads of PVs dissociated from the expelled mass, constitute now a whole spectrum of photons. They are the radiating star energy, affecting whatever distant target they reach, and originating a self-sustaining (chain reaction) process modulated by the presence of the resulting helium. This bonding, considered to be mediated by mesons, is called the strong nuclear force, which is now potential nuclear energy. A minuscule portion of such nuclear energy is liberated by the fission of heavy unstable atoms.
Were it possible to liberate all of the nuclear and protonic energy that is packed in heavy atoms, it would be as if all the gravitational pressure (momentum or kinetic energy) and heat invested in shaping them were suddenly freed back in the form of various kinds of fast particles and energies. The power of such energies, due to their instantaneous liberation (in perhaps less than a femtosecond) and extreme momentum of particles, is also manifested as a shock wave in the presence of an atmosphere. A kilogram or less of uranium deeply buried could pulverize Earth, due to the explosive power of the plasma resulting from the nearly instantaneous release of heat. In fact, I posit that the "gamma-ray bursts" are the only example of utter disintegration of engulfed matter by massive black holes at a given critical point. The absolute atomic energy thus liberated and resulting in particle momentum can affect whole galaxies.
The protonic energy (E) embodied in matter is therefore formulated as:
m\fP} --> m+E --> nm' + pE (see note 1 in addendum)
where \fP is the function of (gravitational) pressure acting on elementary mass to convert it into material mass plus potential energy. The inverse process is insignificant and even not incontrovertibly validated. nm' represents the numerous transformed particles liberated from quarks. Notice how the protonic energy (E) generated by fP becomes photonic energy (pE). Indeed, photons of all the spectrum are created from most of the liberated protonic energy and PV derivatives.
Thus, it is hereby postulated that mass (m) is not convertible to energy, and that protonic energy is manifested when the pressure from the creative momentum springs out from protium. The energy immediately attaches to the liberated particles, assuming identities in accordance to their nature.
Mutual "annihilation" is a change of the particles' configuration, with the liberation of specific energies. When e-p+ pairs escape shattered quarks, they assume multiple random "identities" and "charges," constituting a menagerie of partial "particles." Electromagnetism is a manifestation of energy invested on electrons with the formation of a magnetic field around them. I posit that the spin of the charged electrons is responsible for this phenomenon.
The undefined "charge" of electrons and positrons is just their invariable basal energy. Only electrons are suited to convert free energies into electricity and to conduct it along a conductor according to the intensity gradient.
Electromagnetic radiation is a confusing name given to the different types of photons, as a result of Maxwell's deduction that light is a manifestation of electromagnetism. Photons are formed when the vibrations of atomic electrons in a state of low-energy equilibrium are excited by added energy. Outer electrons will emit photons in the radio to UV spectrum, while inner electrons of heavier atoms will emit penetrating photons of the X-ray type. Excited nuclei emit the uppermost penetrating gamma-rays. Photons are therefore extra-atomic entities. Their energies increase with their frequencies, from radio waves to gamma waves ("rays"). Thus, the intensity or "brightness" (an antropomorphical word) of a given type of photon can be increased only by appropriate aggregation, culminating in the laser beam.
I posit that photons are particles that have a yet undetectable mass because they are made of a few spinning PVs from the excited electrons. When they reach target electrons, the delivered energy excites them to incorporate the PVs. Photons differ from other particles, which also vibrate and move with their characteristic waves, in that they are composed of two halves with inverse spin, which do not annihilate reciprocally. The halves can be separated, manifesting then a sort of "identical-twin synchronicity."
The impressive nature of photons is their being "code-bearing" carriers of specific energies. The effect on their incidental targets varies with the frequency (sharpness) of the photon waves. In biological cells, "sharp" photons are effectors of apoptosis ("cell suicide") because they initiate proteolytic pathways. Infrared photons are penetrating, nudging some types of target molecules to vibrate, the interacting momentum of mutual friction being converted to heat. From extreme UV photons onward, target molecules are ionized, resulting in direct damage to the various components susceptible biological cells.
Should the Universe be considered as an integrated system, photons might have evolved as successful messengers and balancers of energy. The peculiar characteristics of a very small fast-moving mass and "twin synchronicity" point to such a direction.
As happens with all variable properties, the intensity of the photons traversing a transparent crystal is subject to limits as far as linearity (non-complexity) of the process is concerned. At a given high intensity, the photons interact and also react with the crystal, the traversing becoming non-linear and arriving at a Limit of the Second Kind.
In physics, the realm of complexity was intuitively grasped by the mind of Albert Einstein as being (anthropomorphically) "relativistic," in that it is relative to the people observing an event from different vantage points. Partly based on the concepts published by Lorentz and Shwarzchild, Einstein developed his universally famous formula E=mc2, deducing that c2 was the constant of an equation in which an undefined mass is the only variable. Thus, gravitationally induced pressure and fusion derived heat were not recognized as being the forces responsible for the atomic potential energy.
My concept of "relativity" is different since I consider material mass, in its many molecular configurations, as having critical (and hypercritical) “points” in its reaction to the various energies, while physical properties such as gravitational attraction and velocity, have critical “limits.” It is the nonlinear (complex) "warped" behavior of matter exposed to these critical limits of gravitational pull and velocity that creates "strange" (not "relativistic") behavior of mass.
The concept of gravitational body (GB) may assist us in a better understanding of gravity, as follows:
Hydrogen molecules are formed by the gravitationally induced coalescence of hypothetical clouds of elementary particles. In turn, the resulting hydrogen molecules may coalesce when reaching a critical concentration. Their mutual gravitational attraction then acts centripetally until the density of the resulting spherical body reaches a point that it becomes a GB. This means when a gravitational field has been created around them, whose intensity is then determined by the GB's density.
Star-creating fusion occurs when the hydrogen-containing GB reaches a critical density, allowing for the self-sustaining process, which is moderated by the resulting helium, which being heavier than hydrogen, remains in place under the gravitational pressure. The non heat-producing photons created anew also act as moderators by pushing the hydrogen fuel away. When the pressure of the fuel decreased by consumption to a critical point when it is unable of immobilizing the helium, the unchecked conflagration becomes a cosmological event of successive stages. Planets are but secondary GBs that are formed by a parallel process, in which various materials from exploding stars serve as the raw components.
The present essay has attempted to contribute toward a better understanding of the Quantum Field Theory by proposing that the spins of e- and p+ in quarks are the source of gravity and derived energy of matter, while the spin of charged electrons creates the electromagnetic field. A suggested special role of photons may also contribute towards this aim.
1. The formula offered above applies only to the potential protonic energy (in which just gravitational pressure is involved) may now be complemented as follows:
Once helium is produced by fusion, not only pressure but also heat allows for the further coalescence of nucleons into heavier atoms, now possessing potential nuclear energy. The formula for total atomic potential energy should take into consideration the added material mass, pressure, and heat.
2. There exists yet an enormous number of "Primal-Particle Clouds" (PPCs) that have not reached the critical point for centripetal coalescence into protium. I posit that they are the not-accounted-for-material that has been wrongly called "dark matter" (actually "dark mass") or "dark energy." These clouds are too tenuous to be detected by present day telescopes, so that they are not dark but rather transparent. PPCs eventually will coalesce into visible hydrogen clouds. Such phenomenon ought to be detectable, as a hydrogen cloud appears where previously there was "empty" space with microlensing properties.
It is not preposterous to posit that these primal packet clouds of spinning vibrations are the source of attractive and/or repulsive phenomena that have bedeviled physicists since Einstein's time. If confirmed, the number of "essences" and "dimensions" would be limited to the basic three to four dictated by the "Geometrical Principle."
Page 34 Scientific American, May 2014 "For decades physicist have been working on a beautiful theory that has promised to lead to a deeper understanding of the quantum world. Now they stand a crossroads: prove it right in the next year or confront an epochal paradigm shift By Joseph Lykken and Maria Spiropulu
Supersymmetry and the
Crisis in Physics IN BRIEF Supersymmetry postulates that every known particle has a superpartner. Physicists love supersymmetry because it solves a number of problems that crop up when they try to extend our understanding of quantum mechanics. It would also potentially solve of the universe's missing dark matter.
4-22-14 Deleted Journal Home Link that was above that didn't work.
4-28-14 I have always been uneasy with particles as if they are points. A unified description of the waves that a particle is composed of has been my concept of how this can be described.
4-29-14 My Disclosure Concept Is that particles are made up of J_Waves in different configurations.
5-2-14 The new paradigm that I am studying that my concepts that are in this blog are new and unique.
- 5-7-14 Using FIREFOX 29.0 that works with edit OK ! Now I study why Dark Matter and Dark Energy if they have electrons why are they Dark and their electromagnetic spectrum is Dark relative to our spectrum detectors? J_Wave h-bar and Plank's Constant (h) or (h/2Pi) could have a different J_Wave Value that Quantum Mechanics has Not considered.
- 5-10-14 See if quantum-mechanics+planck's-constant is on Firefox29 search.Planck's constant:
Early in the investigation of what makes up atoms, a physicist named Planck noticed a logical problem for the structure of the atom. Planck noticed a fatal flaw in our physics by demonstrating that the electron in orbit around the nucleus accelerates. Acceleration means a changing electric field (the electron has charge), when means photons should be emitted. But, then the electron would lose energy and fall into the nucleus. Therefore, atoms shouldn't exist!
To resolve this problem, Planck made a wild assumption that energy, at the sub-atomic level, can only be transfered in small units, called quanta. Due to his insight, we call this unit Planck's constant (h).
I inser here (5.1)
The word quantum derives from quantity and refers to a small packet of action or process, the smallest unit of either that can be associated with a single event in the microscopic world.
Changes of energy, such as the transition of an electron from one orbit to another around the nucleus of an atom, is done in discrete quanta. Quanta are not divisible. The term quantum leap refers to the abrupt movement from one discrete energy level to another, with no smooth transition. There is no ``inbetween''.
The quantization, or ``jumpiness'' of action as depicted in quantum physics differs sharply from classical physics which represented motion as smooth, continuous change. Quantization limits the energy to be transfered to photons and resolves the UV catastrophe problem.
The wave-like nature of light explains most of its properties:
- Doppler effect
But, the results from spectroscopy (emission and absorption spectra) can only be explained if light has a particle nature as shown by Bohr's atom and the photon description of light.
This dualism to the nature of light is best demonstrated by the photoelectric effect, where a weak UV light produces a current flow (releases electrons) but a strong red light does not release electrons no matter how intense the red light.
Einstein explained that light exists in a particle-like state as packets of energy (quanta) called photons. The photoelectric effect occurs because the packets of energy carried by each individual red photons are too weak to knock the electrons off the atoms no matter how many red photons you beamed onto the cathode. But the individual UV photons were each strong enough to release the electron and cause a current flow.
It is one of the strange, but fundamental, concepts in modern physics that light has both a wave and particle state (but not at the same time), called wave-particle dualism.
Perhaps the foremost scientists of the 20th century was Niels Bohr, the first to apply Planck's quantum idea to problems in atomic physics. In the early 1900's, Bohr proposed a quantum mechanical description of the atom to replace the early model of Rutherford.
The Bohr model basically assigned discrete orbits for the electron, multiples of Planck's constant, rather than allowing a continuum of energies as allowed by classical physics.
The power in the Bohr model was its ability to predict the spectra of light emitted by atoms. In particular, its ability to explain the spectral lines of atoms as the absorption and emission of photons by the electrons in quantized orbits.
Our current understanding of atomic structure was formalized by Heisenberg and Schroedinger in the mid-1920's where the discreteness of the allowed energy states emerges from more general aspects, rather than imposed as in Bohr's model. The Heisenberg/Schroedinger quantum mechanics have consistent fundamental principles, such as the wave character of matter and the incorporation of the uncertainty principle.
In principle, all of atomic and molecular physics, including the structure of atoms and their dynamics, the periodic table of elements and their chemical behavior, as well as the spectroscopic, electrical, and other physical properties of atoms and molecules, can be accounted for by quantum mechanics => fundamental science.
de Broglie Matter Waves:
Perhaps one of the key questions when Bohr offered his quantized orbits as an explanation to the UV catastrophe and spectral lines is, why does an electron follow quantized orbits? The response to this question arrived from the Ph.D. thesis of Louis de Broglie in 1923. de Broglie argued that since light can display wave and particle properties, then perhaps matter can also be a particle and a wave too.
One way of thinking of a matter wave (or a photon) is to think of a wave packet. Normal waves look with this:
having no beginning and no end. A composition of several waves of different wavelength can produce a wave packet that looks like this:
So a photon, or a free moving electron, can be thought of as a wave packet, having both wave-like properties and also the single position and size we associate with a particle. There are some slight problems, such as the wave packet doesn't really stop at a finite distance from its peak, it also goes on for every and every. Does this mean an electron exists at all places in its trajectory?
de Broglie also produced a simple formula that the wavelength of a matter particle is related to the momentum of the particle. So energy is also connected to the wave property of matter.
Lastly, the wave nature of the electron makes for an elegant explanation to quantized orbits around the atom. Consider what a wave looks like around an orbit, as shown below.
The electron matter wave is both finite and unbounded (remember the 1st lecture on math). But only certain wavelengths will `fit' into an orbit. If the wavelength is longer or shorter, then the ends do not connect. Thus, de Broglie explains the Bohr atom in that on certain orbits can exist to match the natural wavelength of the electron. If an electron is in some sense a wave, then in order to fit into an orbit around a nucleus, the size of the orbit must correspond to a whole number of wavelengths.
Notice also that this means the electron does not exist at one single spot in its orbit, it has a wave nature and exists at all places in the allowed orbit. Thus, a physicist speaks of allowed orbits and allowed transitions to produce particular photons (that make up the fingerprint pattern of spectral lines). And the Bohr atom really looks like the following diagram:
While de Broglie waves were difficult to accept after centuries of thinking of particles are solid things with definite size and positions, electron waves were confirmed in the laboratory by running electron beams through slits and demonstrating that interference patterns formed.
How does the de Broglie idea fit into the macroscopic world? The length of the wave diminishes in proportion to the momentum of the object. So the greater the mass of the object involved, the shorter the waves. The wavelength of a person, for example, is only one millionth of a centimeter, much to short to be measured. This is why people don't `tunnel' through chairs when they sit down.
Young Two-Slit Experiment:
The wave-like properties of light were demonstrated by the famous experiment first performed by Thomas Young in the early nineteenth century. In original experiment, a point source of light illuminates two narrow adjacent slits in a screen, and the image of the light that passes through the slits is observed on a second screen.
click here to interference movie click here to see a wave experiment
The dark and light regions are called interference fringes, the constructive and destructive interference of light waves. So the question is will matter also produce interference patterns. The answer is yes, tested by firing a stream of electrons.
However, notice that electrons do act as particles, as do photons. For example, they make a single strike on a cathode ray tube screen. So if we lower the number of electrons in the beam to, say, one per second. Does the interference pattern disappear?
The answer is no, we do see the individual electrons (and photons) strike the screen, and with time the interference pattern builds up. Notice that with such a slow rate, each photon (or electron) is not interacting with other photons to produce the interference pattern. In fact, the photons are interacting with themselves, within their own wave packets to produce interference.
But wait, what if we do this so slow that only one electron or one photon passes through the slits at a time, then what is interfering with what? i.e. there are not two waves to destructively and constructively interfere. It appears, in some strange way, that each photon or electron is interfering with itself. That its wave nature is interfering with its own wave (!).
click here to see a particle experiment
The formation of the interference pattern requires the existence of two slits, but how can a single photon passing through one slit `know' about the existence of the other slit? We are stuck going back to thinking of each photon as a wave that hits both slits. Or we have to think of the photon as splitting and going through each slit separately (but how does the photon know a pair of slits is coming?). The only solution is to give up the idea of a photon or an electron having location. The location of a subatomic particle is not defined until it is observed (such as striking a screen).
Role of the Observer:
The quantum world can be not be perceived directly, but rather through the use of instruments. And, so, there is a problem with the fact that the act of measuring disturbs the energy and position of subatomic particles. This is called the measurement problem.
Thus, we begin to see a strong coupling of the properties of an quantum object and and the act of measuring those properties. The question of the reality of quantum properties remains unsolved. All quantum mechanical principles must reduce to Newtonian principles at the macroscopic level (there is a continuity between quantum and Newtonian mechanics).
How does the role of the observer effect the wave and particle nature of the quantum world? One test is to return to the two slit experiment and try to determine count which slit the photon goes through. If the photon is a particle, then it has to go through one or the other slit. Doing this experiment results in wiping out the interference pattern. The wave nature of the light is eliminated, only the particle nature remains and particles cannot make interference patterns. Clearly the two slit experiments, for the first time in physics, indicates that there is a much deeper relationship between the observer and the phenomenon, at least at the subatomic level. This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence.
If the physicist looks for a particle (uses particle detectors), then a particle is found. If the physicist looks for a wave (uses a wave detector), then a wave pattern is found. A quantum entity has a dual potential nature, but its actual (observed) nature is one or the other.
Quantum Wave Function:
The wave nature of the microscopic world makes the concept of `position' difficult for subatomic particles. Even a wave packet has some `fuzziness' associated with it. An electron in orbit has no position to speak of, other than it is somewhere in its orbit.
To deal with this problem, quantum physics developed the tool of the quantum wave function as a mathematical description of the superpositions associated with a quantum entity at any particular moment.
The key point to the wave function is that the position of a particle is only expressed as a likelihood or probability until a measurement is made. For example, striking an electron with a photon results in a position measurement and we say that the wave function has `collapsed' (i.e. the wave nature of the electron converted to a particle nature).
The fact that quantum systems, such as electrons and protons, have indeterminate aspects means they exist as possibilities rather than actualities. This gives them the property of being things that might be or might happen, rather than things that are. This is in sharp contrast to Newtonian physics where things are or are not, there is no uncertainty except those imposed by poor data or limitations of the data gathering equipment.
Further experimentation showed that reality at the quantum (microscopic) level consists of two kinds of reality, actual and potential. The actual is what we get when we see or measure a quantum entity, the potential is the state in which the object existed before it was measured. The result is that a quantum entity (a photon, electron, neutron, etc) exists in multiple possibilities of realities known as superpositions.
The superposition of possible positions for an electron can be demonstrated by the observed phenomenon called quantum tunneling.
Notice that the only explanation for quantum tunneling is if the position of the electron is truly spread out, not just hidden or unmeasured. It raw uncertainty allows for the wave function to penetrate the barrier. This is genuine indeterminism, not simply an unknown quantity until someone measures it.
It is important to note that the superposition of possibilities only occurs before the entity is observed. Once an observation is made (a position is measured, a mass is determined, a velocity is detected) then the superposition converts to an actual. Or, in quantum language, we say the wave function has collapsed.
The collapse of the wave function by observation is a transition from the many to the one, from possibility to actuality. The identity and existence of a quantum entities are bound up with its overall environment (this is called contextualism). Like homonyms, words that depend on the context in which they are used, quantum reality shifts its nature according to its surroundings.
In the macroscopic world ruled by classical physics, things are what they are. In the microscopic world ruled by quantum physics, there is an existential dialogue among the particle, its surroundings and the person studying it.
Macroscopic/Microscopic World Interface:
The macroscopic world is Newtonian and deterministic for local events (note however that even the macroscopic world suffers from chaos). On the other hand, the microscopic quantum world radical indeterminacy limits any certainty surrounding the unfolding of physical events. Many things in the Newtonian world are unpredictable since we can never obtain all the factors effecting a physical system. But, quantum theory is much more unsettling in that events often happen without cause (e.g. radioactive decay).
Note that the indeterminacy of the microscopic world has little effect on macroscopic objects. This is due to the fact that wave function for large objects is extremely small compared to the size of the macroscopic world. Your personal wave function is much smaller than any currently measurable sizes. And the indeterminacy of the quantum world is not complete because it is possible to assign probabilities to the wave function.
But, as Schrodinger's Cat paradox show us, the probability rules of the microscopic world can leak into the macroscopic world. The paradox of Schrodinger's cat has provoked a great deal of debate among theoretical physicists and philosophers. Although some thinkers have argued that the cat actually does exist in two superposed states, most contend that superposition only occurs when a quantum system is isolated from the rest of its environment. Various explanations have been advanced to account for this paradox--including the idea that the cat, or simply the animal's physical environment (such as the photons in the box), can act as an observer.
The question is, at what point, or scale, do the probabilistic rules of the quantum realm give way to the deterministic laws that govern the macroscopic world? This question has been brought into vivid relief by the recent work where an NIST group confined a charged beryllium atom in a tiny electromagnetic cage and then cooled it with a laser to its lowest energy state. In this state the position of the atom and its "spin" (a quantum property that is only metaphorically analogous to spin in the ordinary sense) could be ascertained to within a very high degree of accuracy, limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The workers then stimulated the atom with a laser just enough to change its wave function; according to the new wave function of the atom, it now had a 50 percent probability of being in a "spin-up" state in its initial position and an equal probability of being in a "spin-down" state in a position as much as 80 nanometers away, a vast distance indeed for the atomic realm. In effect, the atom was in two different places, as well as two different spin states, at the same time--an atomic analog of a cat both living and dead.
The clinching evidence that the NIST researchers had achieved their goal came from their observation of an interference pattern; that phenomenon is a telltale sign that a single beryllium atom produced two distinct wave functions that interfered with each other.
Many-Worlds Hypothesis :
The many possibilities carried by quantum superpositions are spread out over space and time. However, Newtonian physics is an accurate description of ordinary experience. What is the relationship between the strange quantum world and the classical world of common sense? Clearly the difference occurs when we measure or observe a quantum system. Whatever the process, it occurs at that time. The ``how and why'' of this process is unsolved and many believe modern physics will be incomplete until it is resolved.
By the 1950's, the ongoing parade of successes had made it abundantly clear that quantum theory was far more than a short-lived temporary fix. And so, in the mid 1950's, a Princeton graduate student named Hugh Everett III decided to revisit the collapse postulate in his Ph.D. thesis. Everett's idea is known as the relative-state, many-histories or many-universes interpretation or metatheory of quantum theory. Dr Hugh Everett, III, its originator, called it the "relative-state metatheory" or the "theory of the universal wavefunction", but it is generally called "many-worlds".
Many-worlds is a re-formulation of quantum theory which treats the process of observation or measurement entirely within the wave-mechanics of quantum theory, rather than an input as additional assumption, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. Everett considered the wavefunction a real object. Many-worlds is a return to the classical, pre-quantum view of the universe in which all the mathematical entities of a physical theory are real. For example the electromagnetic fields of James Clark Maxwell or the atoms of Dalton were considered as real objects in classical physics. Everett treats the wavefunction in a similar fashion. Everett also assumed that the wavefunction obeyed the same wave equation during observation or measurement as at all other times. This is the central assumption of many-worlds: that the wave equation is obeyed universally and at all times.
Quantum systems, like particles, that interact become entangled. If one of the systems is an observer and the interaction an observation then the effect of the observation is to split the observer into a number of copies, each copy observing just one of the possible results of a measurement and unaware of the other results and all its observer copies. Interactions between systems and their environments, including communication between different observers in the same world, transmits the correlations that induce local splitting or decoherence into non-interfering branches of the universal wavefunction. Thus the entire world is split, quite rapidly, into a host of mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.
According to many-worlds all the possible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realised. The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneously but do not interfere further with each other, each single prior world having split into mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.
Again as above I insert here like above in this article Planks constant ( h ) : (5.1)
5-13-14 The constant above value for the quantum measurement that gives importance to wave concepts of packets of energy & (mass possibility) :
|| 6.626 069 57 x 10-34 J s
| Standard uncertainty
|| 0.000 000 29 x 10-34 J s
| Relative standard uncertainty
|| 4.4 x 10-8
| Concise form
|| 6.626 069 57(29) x 10-34 J s
5-15-14 The New Paradigm that this Blog is about J_WAVES & J_ETHER IN 5 DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE WITH WAVES AS THE SMALLEST UNIT NOT PARTICLES.
5-16-14 What the Slandered Physics Model considers Particle like electron,this new paradigm, considers as being 137 wave crest J_Wave in the inner shell of an atom.
5-19-14 The mass of 1 j_Wave mass weight is me = 9.109 × 10−28/137 =6.648905109x10-30 round off to 6.649 *10^-30 gm . This sting of 137 crest's of J_Waves tubular waves me=9.109* 10^-28 gm .
5-23-14 This small amount of mass in an electron is large compared to that of another that was called mass-less the neutrino.
Mass of Neutrinos Accurately Calculated for First Time, Physicists Report
Feb 10, 2014 03:43 PM EST
Physicists report they are now able to better understand the age and shape of the universe after accurately measuring the mass of neutrinos for the first time.
Neutrinos are ghostly subatomic particles that, by all reasoning, should have a minute mass, but until now that mass has never been accurately calculated, which has posed problems with what's known as the standard model of cosmology. Neutrinos are difficult to study because they interact so weakly with matter.
A better understanding of the physical properties of neutrinos is of scientific interest because the information could be used to study environments currently observable with light or radio waves.
Writing in the journal Physical Review Letters, scientists from the universities of Manchester and Nottingham report that they deduced the mass of neutrinos by using data from the European Space Agency's Planck space observatory and additional measurements of gravitational lensing, the phenomenon of light from distant galaxies being magnified as it passes through closer galaxies.
By examining the oldest light in the universe, fading glow of the Big Bang known as cosmic microwave background (CMB), the researchers pinpointed some inconsistencies in the standing theories on neutrinos and their place in the universe.
"We observe fewer galaxy clusters than we would expect from the Planck results and there is a weaker signal from gravitational lensing of galaxies than the CMB would suggest," said Richard Battye, from The University of Manchester School of Physics and Astronomy.
"A possible way of resolving this discrepancy is for neutrinos to have mass. The effect of these massive neutrinos would be to suppress the growth of dense structures that lead to the formation of clusters of galaxies," he said.
Among physicists, the types of neutrinos are knows as different "flavors." While originally thought to be massless, these various neutrinos flavors have recently been estimated to have a total mass of 0.06 electron volts (eV), which is far less than a billionth of the mass of a proton.(<1,673E-36 kg x 1E3<1,673E-33 gram mass neutrino not copied my insert).
However, this calculation faces an inconsistency when large-scale structures of the universe, such as the distribution of galaxies, are observed, the researchers said. But these inconsistencies can be resolved for if the mass of neutrinos is included in the standard cosmological model, the researchers report, suggesting that the sum of the masses of three known neutrino flavors is 0.320 +/- 0.081 eV.
"If this result is borne out by further analysis, it not only adds significantly to our understanding of the sub-atomic world studied by particle physicists, but it would also be an important extension to the standard model of cosmology which has been developed over the last decade," said Adam Moss, from the University of Nottingham.
The image displays the gravitational lensing effect. Bending light around a massive object from a distant source. The orange arrows show the apparent position of the background source. The white arrows show the path of the light from the true position of the source. Via Wikimedia Commons:
5-29-14 Electricity in Space by Hannes Alfven Nobel Prize Winners in Scientific American. "This motion of a conducting fluid in a hitherto unknown kind of wave. This may be a mighty forge of nature which causes such phenomena as sunspots and cosmic rays"
5-31-14 Photons have a non zero rest mass:
PHYSICS WITH PHOTONS OF NON-ZERO REST MASS
General Scientific Direction ONERA, BP 72, 92322 Châtillon, FRANCE
"This study is done under the following assumptions: A) The results presented in the two relativistic works of
Henri Poincaré “Sur la dynamique de l’électron” (ref.1 and 2) are true. B) The “second principle” of Einstein, the
constancy of the velocity of light, in “Zür Elektrodynamik der bewegten Körper” (ref. 4), is not necessarily true and
the photons can have an extremely small but non-zero rest mass mo.
Of course, all photons will be considered as identical, an already common assumption for electrons, for
protons and for all particles.
The results are simple and lead to a small modification of Maxwell equations for the propagation of
The solutions can be developed and lead to possibilities of verification's and of measures of the rest mass mo
either by astronomical observations or by astronautical experiments. They lead also to new cosmological
Since it is now clear that among the founding texts of Special Relativity are the two works
of Henri Poincaré “Sur la dynamique de l’électron” (ref. 1 and 2), it is interesting to look for their
differences with the work of Einstein (ref. 4). The ref. 2, the “Palermo Memoir” contains a mine
of relativistic results ignored by the Einstein text, but this Einstein text has also some additions:
three small applications of the Lorentz transformation (the aberration of stars, the Doppler-Fizeau
effect and the radiation pressure on moving mirrors) and a main difference: the “second
principle”: the constancy of the velocity of light. As a consequence, for Einstein, the photons
must have a zero rest mass.
For Poincaré the constancy of the velocity of light is only a physical ascertaining and his
“Lorentz transformation” is only a direct consequence of his Relativity Principle without the
necessity of the constancy of the velocity of light. Hence, the possibility remains that the photons
have a very small, but non-zero, rest mass. Their velocity, the velocity of light, would then be
extremely near to the limit velocity c and would be an increasing function of their energy.
Several comparisons allows to think that this idea is possible: A) At first the neutrinos
were considered as massless, but today their rest mass is supposed to be very small but non zero.
B) The same evolution of ideas occurs for the hypothetical “gravitons”. C) In transparent
mediums the velocity of light is much smaller than the limit velocity c and some fast particles can
go faster than the photons which gives the famous Cerenkov effect.
Because of the prestige of Einstein, only a few scientists have investigated the possibility
of a non-zero rest mass for the photon (for instance ref. 5–17) with few results and few
possibilities of verification's. However, the huge progress of astronomy, astronautics and
astrophysics allows to consider, that question again and some anomalies of pulsars as well as the
Kotov paradox can perhaps be explained by a non-zero rest mass of the photons."
6-1-14 The number of J_Waves in a particle determines the mass of that particle including neutrinos and photons.
6-27-14 My use of this Blog was interrupted in Terry's use of concrete 5 to access my Homestead name server on My spacetimeandspeed.com quit working.
My concept of space-time lensing of photons with small mass is the pushing on the photons J_Waves mass. This is J_Gravity disclosed here being the force of J_Ether in J_Space-time in respect to all mass reactions. J_Gravity pushes all smaller masses toward the center of gravity of a large mass as they move past this large mass of J_Waves spiraling out from it. Light photons are bent in their path from their light source around a large mass as shown by the White Paths in the image above in My disclosure.
6-29-14 Continuing the disclosure in the above paragraph as to the Two Slit experiment with the photon packet of J_Waves wave-front from the same light source moving through the Two Slit as through one slit. The larger mass of the edges of a slit causes the smaller mass of J_Wave mass to bend around the edge it is closes to. There is no interference pattern of J_Waves in one slit only like there is in the Two Slit experiment.
6-31-14 Discloser: The miss-conception of wave-particle duality is as follows;
Physics and all present-day Science including chemistry etc. incorrectly conceive the proton, neutron, electron etc. as being particles composed of quarks whereas my concept goes on to conceive further quarks are made with different number of J_Waves. Photons are also packets of different numbers of J_Waves moving through J_Space-time in wave-fronts at different frequencies. In the case of light photons different colors are moving through J_Space-time at different frequencies wave fronts. Copied from above:
"de Broglie Matter Waves:
Perhaps one of the key questions when Bohr offered his quantized orbits as an explanation to the UV catastrophe and spectral lines is, why does an electron follow quantized orbits? The response to this question arrived from the Ph.D. thesis of Louis de Broglie in 1923. de Broglie argued that since light can display wave and particle properties, then perhaps matter can also be a particle and a wave too." This is where dual wave-particle concept might have originated.
7-5-14 My new and unique is the different concept of a tubular wave in three dimensional variable diameter in a moving bulge of wave length at a frequency in space-time. Otherwise similar to de Broglie Matter Waves above. This is the J_Wave Disclosure.
7-6-14 Now proceeding with my concept of mass and energy three-dimensional tubular J_Wave that in electromagnetic wave fronts threw J_Aether-space-time composition. J_Gravity is an acceleration reaction to the two near crossing J_Spirals from the same body of atoms with a third J_Spiral from a different body of atoms.
7-7-14 The above is complicated these spirals are not normally in the same plane in this 4dimintiale space-time as these J_wave Spiral Strings crossing move in space-time causing the acceleration of J_Gravity.
7-8-14 The crest of J_Wave pushes those of other string J_Wave crest toward the center of the acting J_Wave's source body. I will next copy date input to Blog EQUATIONS.
7-21-14 My Disclosure of (J_Particle Model J_APM): A four-dimensional tubular J_Wave becomes a J_Particle of J_Closed Loop J_String with a certian number of J_Waves containing their certian amount of J_Mass.
7-23-14 Other than 7-21-14 Disclose above J_Particles are like Standard Particle Model Blog on page EQUATIONS on date 7-21-14.
7-24-14 The acceleration of gravity of each particle in a body is the same and dose not depend on the amount of mass in that body of 1 or more particles.
7-26-14 Each particle of a J_Mass and it's J_waves is accelerated the same towards the source atom's Black hole or Big-Bang area. This acceleration is caused by J_Gravity J_Waves in the Aether cosmos J_Strings. Other large bodies J_Mass like planet earth at its surface J_Gravity acceleration of 32 ft/sec/sec J_Gravity toward it. And the star our sun's larger J_Mass cosmic string's J_Waves causes J_Gravity to gravitate toward it. These J_Gravitates accelerations are inversely proportional to the distance between their masses.
7-27-14 Every J_Wave at the same distance from their source atom at the same J_Gravity rate. This is the same rate whether they are the closed J_String ore in the open cosmic J_String J_Spiral away from their source J_Atom. This acceleration on a given J_Wave is the average accumulation of all the atoms in the source body as well as all the other body's in the universe. This sums average would take an calculus that I am not capable of. But I know their weak force to a few decimal places that causes its acceleration would apply most significantly to the closest distance.
8-2-14 Now the Disclosure of J_Energy in respect to J_Waves is the same as current Standard Physics Model Particles:Physic's;Atomic; Electronics; Chemistry; and Thermodynamics except J_Waves make up the particles involved.
8-19-14 The J_Gravity is determined by the larger mass body and the particles of the lesser mass are accelerated at the same rate toward the larger mass body
8-23-14 Heat the energy in the J_Particle that cause it to vibrate also can radiate infrared heat from the J_Waves in it. Copied here from page EQUATIONS to finish the Disclosure on 8-2-14 above.
9-3-14 The J_Heat in vibrating J_Particles that their boundaries move back and forth in and out at a rate of speed depending on the amount of J_Heat.
9-3-14 GE $25.95 up .10 DOW J 17078.28 up 10.72 why is GE loosing ground? See page New Instruments bottom.
9-9-14 Disclosure the thermal exspansion is because J_Particle viberation increases the volume required by matter the J_Particle is a coponent of.
9-25-14 Scientific American article page 58 A Beacon from the Big Bang By Larwrence M. Krauss on page 65 top right is copied here:
Scientific American Volume 311, Issue 4
» Web Exclusives
Big Bang Gravitational Waves: True or Not? [Video]
New results this fall should clarify whether the BICEP2 experiment has really found primordial gravitational waves
Sep 16, 2014 |By Clara Moskowitz
The finding prompted mass news coverage, and physicists in labs everywhere popped champagne corks. But soon significant doubts emerged.
The suspense is killing me. In March physicists announced one of the most stunning discoveries in decades—the detection of gravitational waves produced just after the big bang. The finding prompted mass news coverage, and physicists in labs everywhere popped champagne corks. But soon significant doubts emerged. After much debate it became clear, even to the team at the BICEP2 experiment behind the original announcement, that the claims were premature. The experiment may have found primordial gravitational waves. But there is also a decent chance that the measurements were confounded by nearby dust in our galaxy.
Now, all we can do is wait for the dust to clear. Other experiments are hunting forgravitational waves and may find them soon, confirming BICEP2’s discovery. The most anticipated results are those from the Planck satellite, which may be able to observe the same signal BICEP2 did, if it exists. Planck will also reveal more about the Milky Way’s dust effects, which could either cast further doubt on the BICEP2 results or validate them, depending on how prevalent dust turns out to be in the area of the sky that BICEP2 observed. The Planck team members are planning to share their latest data this fall, probably in November.
Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe delves deep into the gravitational waves story in the October Scientific American. Krauss explains what the discovery means if it is true, including implications for the possibility of multiverses and even a way to unify the contradictory theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
9-26-14 Top Right SA Page 65 “During the exponential expansion of inflation, any initial quantum fluctuation with a small wavelength will be stretched along with the expansion. If the wave length becomes large enough the time the fluctuation takes to oscillate will grow larger than the age of the (extremely young) universe. The quantum fluctuation will essentially become frozen until the universe becomes old enough for it to start oscillating again. During inflation, the frozen oscillation will grow, a process that amplifies these initial quantum oscillations into classical gravitational waves.” My concept disclosed here is the J_Waves are the quantum, simply without Quantum Theory. Therefore J_Waves J_Gravitational waves push on the J_Particles in various directions ether towered or away from their source J_Atom. When pushing away the cause of universes inflation and expansion is explained. Otherwise my concept is the same as the first part of this paragraph.
9-26-14 The Disclosed J_Wave wave length is quantum unit of length is a Planck Length 1,616 x 10^-35 m; Expression lp = ( hG/C^3 )^.5; With Planck mass 2.176 x 10^-8 kg Expression (hc/G)^.5; Planck time 5.3912 x 10^-44 s; Planck temperature 1.417 x 10^32 k with Expression Tp = (hc^5/GkB^2 )^.5 .
9-26-14 Electric Charge is defined by APM above in relation to Planck Time unit. SPM tp = (hG/c^50^.5 = 5.39106(32)) x 10^-44 s
where: h=h/2 pie is the reduced Planck constant ( sometines h is used instead of bar h in the definition.
10-15-14 When I logged in today Concrete5 update had the 3rd US satellite 1st to go into orbit that requires no energy to maintain this orbit. I will now save on my Dell Laptop PC and use my MacPro apple laptop with its OS instead of the Windows 7 OS with Oracle Virtual Box with Linux Debian OS and try to copy URL with Google Chrome Web Browser instead of Empathy Browser I used here in
The update page for concrete5 didn't come up will try later. Linux Debian OS.
10-15-14 Now on Macbook Pro this blog is edited and concrete5 update didn't come up maybe it only comes up once a day.
10-16-14 COPY A LINK TO SPACECRAFT FOR ALL HERE:
A NEW ERA
10-16-14 INSERT A LINK TO A SPACECRAFT FOR ALL:
Monthly Archives: October 2014
On October 19 comet Siding Spring is expected to flyby Mars, coming within 87,000 miles of the planet, according to NASA . Since the comet is coming so close, NASA made the decision to move the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution … Continue reading
11-23-14 This LXLE Linux works fine with my BLOGS. See Page About US for more on Robert my departed brother.
7-29-15 changed file to word and Paste here:
2012 and Beyond
Control Panel and APM
7-7-15 Copied from Quora:
I have made a new theory regarding special relativity, cosmology and quantum mechanics. I am still 14 so I do not know how to write it in a mathematical way but I have all the proofs in visual manner which show how energy, mass and time were formed. How do I publish without sufficient support?
Ask to Answer
Jack DoanJack Doan
Edit Biography • Make Anonymous
Write your answer, or answer later
Arpan SahaArpan Saha, Student of Physics.
363 upvotes by Paul Olaru, Peter Bondy, Coolo Guyo, Christopher Macca, (more)
There is on one hand the answer you are looking for, and on the other hand, the answer that I based on my own experiences as a 14-year-old believe that you need to hear.
First the answer you're looking for. Even though arXiv requires institutional affiliation or endorsement by an already established scientist, actual peer-reviewed journals don't, for the reason that peer review takes care of the quality control. Your submission will first be very quickly reviewed by an editor who has some degree of expertise in the field in question, and then, if they find it meriting further attention, sent to two or three (anonymous) referees who are full-fledged experts in the field. They may recommend its rejection, or acceptance as it is, or acceptance with modifications. The last case leads to a back-and-forth exchange in which you tweak or rewrite your manuscript so as to incorporate the suggestions they make, until everyone's happy. If it gets to this point, congratulations, your manuscript is accepted and you are a published author.
Here are a couple of journals that may be relevant to the topic you've mentioned. In each of these cases, you'll easily find a submission link via which you can proceed to submit your manuscript.
Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP)
Physical Review D
Physical Review Letters
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Communications in Mathematical Physics
Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics
Annals of Physics
International Journal of Modern Physics A
Foundations of Physics
And here, you'll find a list of potentially predatory publishers you ought to avoid. Also, as others have pointed out, give viXra a wide berth.
Now, the answer you need to hear. Please note that this isn't meant to be dismissive, but rather what I would say if I were able to go back in time and address my younger self.
Firstly, the mathematics that you correctly recognise as being standard fare in physics is not an attempt to embellish one's work with more gravity and seriousness in order to impress peers. Rather, it serves the vital purpose of allowing you to think clearly about things that are very hard to see. Of course, intuition plays an extremely important role in a scientist's life and it's often what sets apart the luminary from the everyman, but that intuition doesn't fall from the sky. It needs to be painstakingly built by working through mathematical details, and unless you're willing to do this, you're going to sound a lot like someone who says 'I have a design for a perpetual motion machine, but I am not very familiar with thermodynamics'. Thermodynamics was essentially invented in order to help us think clearly about what is energetically possible and what isn't, and unless you address how your design circumvents the second law, you're not going to find takers.
But if I read your question correctly, you are actually willing to put in all the hard work. That is good news, because with that acknowledgment, you raise yourself above those who are often referred to as crackpots and enter the realm of the scientist. Now, I assure you that scientists spend a lot of time being confused, which is why I always think that it's an excellent idea to befriend people with greater mathematical background and/or physical insight than you. If you have friends or relatives who are currently in, or have been through grad school, you should certainly talk to them about your ideas. Or if that option is unavailable, there is always Quora and Physics Stack Exchange, whose users would only be too eager to answer all your queries.
But what if they steal your idea and publish it before you do? Well, I can tell you from experience that developing an idea from the scratch to a full-fledged manuscript is a process that can consume the better part of a year. And that too, if you actually see it through to the very end, because in accord with what Sahal pointed out in his answer, scientists much more experienced than you fool themselves all the time only to realise several months in that they had made a mistake.
Which brings me to my final point: the importance of being able to find time to understand something without the pressure to publish. It's a luxury that gets scarcer as you grow up and thus, certainly something that you shouldn't squander at this age, when not publishing regularly won't be held against you. You can afford to spend your time exploring blind alleys and examining all the ways in which your intuition can be wrong without having to worry about whether you'll find a post-doctoral opening waiting for you at the end of the tunnel. Make the most of it. Sahal and Souradeep have already mentioned 't Hooft's page on how to become a (good) theoretical physicist; you'll find that 't Hooft has painstakingly detailed out everything you'll need to know and resources you'll find useful (click on the links provided on the left) in order to get anywhere close to the frontier of human understanding.
It's a long journey, but it's every bit worth savouring. Good luck.
Updated 6 Mar. 26,282 views.
Sahal KaushikSahal Kaushik, Student of Physics
102 upvotes by Diptarka Hait, Anurag Bishnoi, Abdul Wadood, Tanmay Mudholkar, (more)
I'm sorry, but your theory is very likely to be bogus. Intuition (on which visual proofs rely) does not work very well outside the realm of our experience; QM and GR seem highly non-intuitive to beginners. Visual proofs won't work, unless you visualize curved 3+1 spacetime.
You will have to learn physics the hard way, just like everyone else. A lot of math (calculus, differential equations, linear algebra etc) will be required for advanced physics. The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics will helpful for quantum mechanics and essential for quantum field theory
The Nobel Laureate physicist Gerard t'Hooft has outlined the fields of theoretical physics and their prerequisites. How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist
There is some bad advice on this page.
There is a common misconception that Einstein did not excel in mathematics. He actually got the highest grade possible in his matriculation certificate. His work involves very advanced mathematics, and he had to learn Riemannian geometry so that he could develop the general theory of relativity. You can see his original paper (in German, but the equations look the same) here: Page on harvard.edu
Do Not upload anything with your name on ViXra. That will make you a certified crackpot and loon. That site is used exclusively for bogus papers, which the authors are not able to post to ArXiv.
Umang Dattani has mentioned a quote by Feynman in the comments on another answer:
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
Updated 20 Feb. 5,638 views.. Asked to answer by Sabuj Chattopadhyay
Jonathan CollinsJonathan Collins
4 upvotes by Marysia Collins, Ted Astono, Timothy Egoroff, and Raghotham PS Rao
You may well have a sound theory on how energy, mass and time were formed. However It would seem unlikely that you could also have proof of such a theory with or without the use of mathematics. "Time" is particularly challenging since it is in all likelihood merely a human construct and not part of the fabric of the universe. How can you prove the existence (or coming into existence) of something that cannot be observed and may well not exist outside the confines of the human mind? see An alternative interpretation of the consequences of Special Relativity
It is true to say that the scientific establishment currently relies upon mathematics as the primary tool for substantiation of any theory in the field of theoretical physics. However I would argue that mathematics cannot necessarily be relied upon to unlock all the secrets of the universe (I would make the same point about the human brain in its current state of evolution).
Mathematics is a human invention that in simple terms allows us to represent the universe quantitatively in symbols. Arguably mathematics has been as important as language in elevating human kind to the top of the food chain. The society we live in today simply couldn’t function without mathematics.
The whole of mathematics is founded on the principle of assigning a symbol to represent the quantity of a given thing.
1 + 1 = 2
Adam has an apple and Eve has an apple, so between them they have a quantity of apples denoted by the symbol “2”. Sounds like a simple concept but it is a rare individual indeed who will create an invention of this importance!
So on a day to day basis mathematics allows us to run a highly successful fast moving society with a high degree of precision. Imagine trying to schedule appointments without an accurate means to measure time!
Most of us with a rudimentary understanding of maths will manage quite adequately with normal day to day life. In fact for most of us it doesn’t get much more complex than comparing prices on consumables or counting out money to pay the shop assistant.
The symbols in mathematics allow us to count any number of apples that we may come across from1 to hundreds or thousands or millions and so on. So if Adam and Eve count 2 apples that they have between them mathematics is accurately quantifying the specific physical objects in their possession.
However there are 2 symbols at either end of the number system that do not work so well for counting apples:
0 (Zero). Mathematics was invented to quantify things that exist in the universe. Whilst we can understand the concept of Adam and Eve having zero apples in their possession, mathematics applied in this way is no longer quantifying things that actually exist.
∞ (Infinity). It is not known whether the universe is infinite. Human beings have evolved on a planet that is finite in size (approximate circumference of 24,000 miles) and as such have no experience of infinity. Mathematically then the concept of an infinite quantity of any specific thing in the universe remains strictly theoretical.
In day to day life there is no need to worry about the precise meaning of these 2 symbols. However when we use mathematics to describe the extremes of our universe it is obviously important that the numbers precisely quantify the things that are being measured. Scientific theories are frequently expressed in a mathematical formula such as Einstein’s famous equation that defines the relationship between Energy and Mass:
E = MC²
Energy (E) is equal to the mass (M) of any object multiplied by the speed of light (C) squared.
Einstein also postulated that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Imagine you are in a rocket ship blasting through space on full throttle. Intuitively you would expect that if you keep the throttle open you will keep accelerating... (more)
Gary TriestmanGary Triestman, Existential Philosopher, Electrical E... (more)
7 upvotes by Scotty B Elcock, Aurélien Emmanuel, Ajay Yadav, Jerold Loyola, (more)
I would suggest you first discuss it with a knowledgeable person who has a grasp of current SR, QM and cosmology, like myself :-)
He would quickly determine whether what you have come up with violates very basic fundamentals of physics that are well known and experimentally proven.
That would be the first blush, get it out of your realm of analysis and composition, and let another person review it with a view to detecting defects in it.
If after that first run, it survives a simple analysis, then a deeper view is in order.
I am not fully agreeing with others here that you cannot achieve a lot with visualization, you can if your visualization is rigorous to the actual laws/rules of which govern the scenario. Proper intuitive visualization IS mathematical if you maintain a good assignment of attributes and responses to the visual models and the elements.
Then of course after that you need to determine whether what you have discovered is actually new, and hasn't already been discovered, and then if it is new, what does it predict that is somehow thrilling or contributory to what is already known, i.e. is it useful in any meaningful way.
Written 15 Mar. 822 views.
Ian MillerIan Miller, Independent physical scientist, author
1 upvote by Greg Qur
My advice is to write down what you think, and if you are worried about precedent, get someone to witness it with a date - even a lawyer if you are really worried. Me, I would not be so worried, because if you really have a solution to one of the most difficult issues, I doubt anyone else will beat you to it.
My next piece of advice is, keep it to yourself for the time being. There is no rush. What you must do is first learn enough to understand the problems everyone else is having, not because you have to go down that path - if you have stumbled on an alternative that gets around these difficulties, great news! But you have to know what the problems are.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. I believe as stated, quantum field theory is just plain wrong. That, as you can see, will be regarded as heresy by the physics community. Nevertheless, the reason I feel it is wrong is that if it is used to calculate the expansion rate of the Universe, or the cosmological constant, calculations disagree with observation by 120 orders of magnitude. That is an error than cannot be ignored. However, I don't do anything about it, and the reason is, right now I do not know how to fix this problem. Now, the relevance to you is your theory has to avoid problems like this, and as yet you do not even know they exist. My advice is learn maths, learn physics, do the hard yards, THEN you will be in a position to determine whether you a re right, wrong, or can't tell.
Written Sun. 36 views.
Gavin FaulknerGavin Faulkner
7 upvotes by Gin Graves, Niamh Gallagher, Abdul Lutfi, Alameen Oredegbe, (more)
I'll tell you what I did when I was your age and had an interest in quantum physics. I assume you have significant knowledge and understanding of basic quantum theory, Einstein's equations, and M-theory (or string theory in general).
From there, I would suggest you start by attempting to understand some simple equations. Try to understand what the Lagrangian for the Standard Model means (and first what a Lagrangian is!). Then move on to larger equations, like that for General Relativity, the Schrodinger Equations, et cetera. Make sure that you fully and completely understand them.
Then, use what you have learned to formulate an equation for your idea, if of course, your idea isn't bogus. Try to make it falsifiable and scientific, you don't want to be labelled a pseudo-scientist. Finally, summarise your proofs, equations, and if possible a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian, into a paper. Then submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal.
tl;dr: Learn what the variables in equations mean.
Written 31 Mar. 774 views.
Jakob PerssonJakob Persson, big fan of SF since age 11
7 upvotes by Paul Olaru, Aj M Al, Ajay Yadav, Marc Kroeks, (more)
1. Document your ideas in whatever way you can. Video, drawings, formulas. Back it up to the cloud so it's not just on your computer's harddrive. Timestamp them and have witnesses (friends, parents, relatives) see them. This is your evidence in case someone tries to claim your ideas as their own.
2. Find a professor or researcher of physics at a local university. This person can help you formulate your ideas and will provide access to getting published.
Updated 13 Mar. 954 views.
Souradeep PurkayasthaSouradeep Purkayastha, Student
13 upvotes by Alameen Oredegbe, Timothy Egoroff, Julian Ingham, Sahal Kaushik, (more)
As some others have said, it is almost certainly likely that you are deluding yourself.
As you might know, theories in physics have been built up piece by piece, rectification upon rectification, to keep in tune with emerging experimental evidence that forced scientists to abandon pre-existing notions: at high speeds, at small scales, etc. Do you know enough mathematics to understand the domains of each of these models, their principal assumptions, what they can work with and what they can't work with, and why they have to be replaced by better theories? It seems almost certain that you do not, and until you get a solid understanding of the nuts and bolts of foundational theoretical physics, you are not really in a position to attempt esoteric unification theories.
If you're serious about it, I would advise you to not be in a hurry, and take your time amassing the fundamentals. Question yourself, question the things you learn, tinker with them, and solve problems. You will need to understand quite a lot of advanced mathematics before you reach, for example, General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Nevermind popular science depictions, they usually are very misleading. And yes, problems. You will find you'll need to do a lot of problems involving complicated mathematical steps. You'll have to model things, get results, and compare with experiment, or predict for future experimenters to find. For most people physics isn't a rosy waltz across some hi-fi theories. It needs hard work and humility, an awareness of how much you do not know.
As mentioned, you could look into internet sources, such as Gerard t'Hooft's pedagogical guide. It is also advised, if you plan to pursue this in future, to get mentors who can guide you in what order to study, otherwise you'll tend to move around in circles and not go very fast.
Written 21 Feb. 1,116 views.
Abd Ul-Rahman LomaxAbd Ul-Rahman Lomax
3 upvotes by John Jones, Timothy Egoroff, and Kamal Sankar
Okay, there are some great answers here, and I want to add something from a different point of view.
Wikiversity is in the Wikimedia Foundation family of wikis, and it is for "educational materials" and "learning by doing." Students (and professors) at any level may participate in creating educational resources there. Even cranks may create resources. The community, as it becomes aware of problem pages, will generally *not* delete them, but will organize them. They may be moved to show up as student essays and may be criticized, and if you are interested in the sciences, you will need all the criticism you can find. It will sharpen your wits. If a page is too far out for Wikiversity mainspace, even as a subpage, it will likely be moved to your user space. So your work will not be wasted. There are some competent physicists involved with Wikiversity, but mostly they may pay little attention to your page, but you can ask them! And you can also help with other Wikiversity pages in your field of interest and, at the same time, learn about working with a community.
I am User:Abd on Wikiversity, if you go there to try it out, let me know and I can show you around and help you to avoid getting into trouble. Not too much trouble, anyway!
I got involved with a topic and part of that involvement was developing resources on Wikiversity and helping out with the site, and I just had my first paper published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, and part of what allowed that was all the research I had done for editing the wikis.
Written 20 Mar. 397 views.
Pradhono Rakhmono AjiPradhono Rakhmono Aji, Physics Engineering
5 upvotes by Jerold Loyola, Abdul Lutfi, Youssef Abdellah, Timothy Egoroff, (more)
Congratz with your thought!!! Really, I was there when I was in your age. The next step before publishing your idea is, unfortunately, you need to find the supporting materials. You have to write it in mathematic model and that's what we call physics theory. But don't lose the spirit, just keep searching and trying to understand the math behind it. Learnin math is fun as always!
Written 15 Mar. 333 views.
Richard J BreenRichard J Breen, BS physics U ND '631/2 Ms Ed LI U 70 ... (more)
3 upvotes by Giovani Hidalgo Ceotto, Timothy Egoroff, and Kamal Sankar
It is wonderful that you have such an interest in Physics, science and cosmology
although you have probably missed or misunderstood the common current ideas. it IS POSSIBLE you have a new useful insight. Remember Newton was an astrologer, alchemist , theologian, and WILD Thinker before he developed his ideas of gravity and motion. Newton first did his math with very advanced geometry BEFORE he developed calculus .
Einstein was a clerk in a patent office before submitting his papers on "thought experiments"
Both were accepted because: they made PREDICTIONS THAT COULD BE TESTED AND MEASURED. Newton predicted the motion of the Moon and it agreed with what was observed. Einstein predicted and calculated deflection of light from a distant star as is passed the suns intense gravity. ( measured only during and eclipse)
there are more ideas than good ideas BUT you have to have the idea first.
GOOD LUCK . STAY INTERESTED. I hope you get get the Nobel prize someday.
Written 17 May. 1,117 views.
12 upvotes by Paul Olaru, Vishnu Stickney, Paolo Khayat, Jerold Loyola, (more)
So glad I came across a question like this on Quora. I'm going to sound crazy, but hey, crazy is the middle name of geniuses!
Congratulations for two reasons! firstly for firmly believing that you are capable of becoming a genius and come up with new theories that could change the way we see the universe... and secondly, coming out and telling people even after knowing you will be discouraged... No matter what all people say, keep working on it, along with that of course as many people said, understand the maths and other stuff that is necessary for you to prove it BUT make sure you reveal it to the people you trust the most at the right time, do hot hurry.... Ideas can be stolen very easily...
So better don't get it published now..
Ideas are precious.... There are plenty of people who have a PhD in Physics or maths... Not all have the talent that you have! believe me, what you have is rare... so unless you are pretty damn sure about publishing it now, do not reveal it to too many people, instead meanwhile increase your knowledge of the subject and develop your theory further and further... If you are proven wrong, develop it further without simply discarding it...BUT What happens if you are right? Who knows maybe you are the next Einstein!
Even if the whole world discourages you, keep going. Remember even Einstein was mocked at, before he proved his theory of relativity
(He gave immense importance to ideas and imagination). People in general can be quite conservative when dealing with new theories from young physicists. Whether it was Newton Or Galileo, society did not accept their theories right away even after coming out with sufficient proofs. So be careful! Hope you do well :)
Updated 1 Mar. 918 views.
George GonzalezGeorge Gonzalez, Four semesters of Physics! Passed all... (more)
4 upvotes by Paul Olaru, Olivier Garamfalvi, Timothy Egoroff, and Sabuj Chattopadhyay
You have done what people did for thousands of years, try to explain things using words and analogies. A noble idea, but just hopeless. Thousands of philosophers have written millions if not billions of words trying to describe nature, life, politics, and the like. That works out, kind of, for the fuzzy subjects, but it does not work for describing or explaining nature!
There already are some pretty good mathematical theories that explain where things came from, so good that they can confidently predict the temperatures, pressures, and volumes of the universe down to the first microsecond. Your theory, to be of any use, would have to be at least as good. I'm guessing that it's not at all able to give any numerical results. If so, it's not likely to be useful.
Don't feel bad, there have been hundreds of really smart people working in this problem for a long time. You can't expect to outdo them all with one brain-flash. That's just not realistic. We all have those kinds of fantasies from time to time and that's fun, but after the coffee break we really should get back to the real world.
Written 12 Mar. 683 views.
Archer FrostArcher Frost
2 upvotes by Paul Olaru and Timothy Egoroff
I'd only tell you one fact: Maths is the language of Physics. You can't publish such a theory without adequate mathematical proofs to suggest it. I used to love Physics until I learned that its 80% is mathematics. If you're set on establishing your thesis as theory, wait till you have studied advanced level Physics and Maths and then evaluate the validity of your thesis before submitting it for review anywhere. It won't be surprising if you conclude then that your theory is all wrong. That's a long and hard way, but it's the right way to do it. And probably the only.
Remember, Einstein, Newton, Stephen Hawking and all Physicists you know of - are/were all masters of Mathematics.
Written 25 Feb. 382 views.
CJ Amit ChawlaCJ Amit Chawla, self taught physicist
6 upvotes by Chad Cooper, Paul Olaru, Alameen Oredegbe, Timothy Egoroff, (more)
Do not get disheartened.
It was usually the case with Einstein too.
He used to work out all the functioning in his mind first in the form of images. Only then he used to pick up a pen.
He sometimes borrowed help from other scientists like Max Planck and sometimes from his colleagues and even his students.
P.S: You really need to study physics and math before publishing to atleast know whether what you are talking about has/hasn't already been published. In the present era, the number of papers published annually are in tens of thousands.
Written 16 Feb. 538 views.
Madhav Prasad SinhaMadhav Prasad Sinha, Bookworm and science enthusiast
2 upvotes by Paul Olaru and Timothy Egoroff
I won't go into :
1. the merits of your assertion about 'making a theory and having all the proofs in visual manner'
2. how does one comprehend 'special relativity, cosmology and quantum mechanics' without knowing the 'mathematical way', much less theorise about these?
3. how does one have 'all the proofs in visual manner' for the entire cosmology or quantum mechanics or even only special relativity?
4. and how does one can approach the question of showing formation of 'energy, mass and time'?
5. or any conjecture about your age or scientific capabilities!
I am only looking at the question of publishing something/whatever without support!
To publish, you have to write and sketch diagrams (visual manner) first.
Then you can probably post it as an answer or comment to this question itself.
And then you must upload it on viXra.org, which proudly proclaims "ViXra.org is an e-print archive set up as an alternative to the popular arXiv.org service owned by Cornell University. It has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate.
ViXra is an open repository for new scientific articles. It does not endorse e-prints accepted on its website, neither does it review them against criteria such as correctness or author's credentials."
Btw, this 58 year old senile hagiographer is looking forward to your post/article.
Written 23 Feb. 398 views.
Ted WadeTed Wade, retired computer professinal, entrepr... (more)
I am far older than 24 but I can tell you that science is a strict task master and is slow to accept even a wonderfully presented mathmatical presentayion.
Your best bet is probably to place a copy of your concept in a well sealed package dated in a manner that cannot be altered and at the same time send a copy to your nearest university with a department relative to your subject matter.
They are not as likely to attempt to steel your idea as to dismiss it.
Even Einstein had difficulty having his theories accepted.
I've had a theory about the big bang for decsdes that I suspect is true but being unable to prove will never be accepted by science.
My theory, called by me for decades, the repetitive big bsng, is that our big bang happens, expands for billions of years, pauses for a like period, then retracts for a like period, back to its original mass.
After which is a repeating big bang.
Unproven, unable to be proven, even with the finest mathematics, can never be accepted.
I have no problem with that..
I am comfortable with my premise.
Written 12m ago. 1 view.
Brian MillerBrian Miller, Got an A in Physics
1 upvote by Timothy Egoroff
All fundamental laws of Physics can be identified with differential equations. All of them. I'm not going to say your idea is bogus or crackpot, it may very well be the next big theoretical breakthrough, but you need to prove it by working through and showing the math. Your theory needs to be falsifiable, that is it has to be capable of being dis proven. If it isn't its just a belief.
First, do the math or find someone who can help you express your theory in a mathematical way, then and only then think about publishing anything.
Written 13 Mar. 315 views.
Paul OlaruPaul Olaru
1 upvote by Timothy Egoroff
You should first check if it works well in the classical limit (that is, at low speed and large (our size) objects it reduces to classical mechanics, if you take one such object near lightspeed SR should be the result, gravity should be approximately general relativity around large bodies, when you go small it should fit at least the experiments in quantum mechanics and it should give new intell on the Universe. (or unifying gravity with the other forces, that would work too!)
Written 13 Mar. 618 views.
Rahul GargRahul Garg
6 upvotes by Timothy Egoroff, Raghotham PS Rao, Tanmay Nautiyal, Atharva Shukla, (more)
As a person who has always struggled (I am a sixteen year old and I study in The Doon School in India), I would say it doesn't really matter if you don't know a lot of maths. I have written quite a few research papers now and in the beginning I also struggled with complex mathematical equations. I have never received much professional help from anyone and have always been own my own. My main source of study has been the internet and I depend on it a lot.
It's a good start even if you can represent your theory in a visual way; whatever the other people might say. But you need to be good at making illustrations using a graphic design software (such as Photoshop or Illustrator). Somehow, I managed to learn designing a few years back and this really helps me in explaining complex phenomenon.
Now about the publishing part. I have had a tough time publishing theories on journals. They are just not willing to accept new theories from students like us (and I am saying this from personal experience). However, I suggest that you first get your idea or your draft theory reviewed by a teacher or a professor who you might know. In case you don't know anyone eligible to review it, then you can't really do much about it. I would suggest a site like Academia.edu - Share research where you can upload your own research or viXra.org open e-Print archive which is somewhat a non-reputed clone of arXiv.org e-Print archive .
I hope this helps.
P.S. In case you need any help with illustrations or want to know how to go about penning down your theory, feel free to contact me. I will be willing to help. I could also help with quantum mechanics and relativity as they are one of my favorite topics.
8-7-15 Research this offer See above line like the line below for possible contact.(JLD)
Written 19 Feb. 562 views.
Abdul LutfiAbdul Lutfi
1 upvote by Timothy Egoroff
Can I know what and how it is and works respectively? Maybe I can help. I'm 16. I have my own experience trying to publish some articles just to know how it works. I am too working on my own theory. So please I hope you will not see me as a predator. If you are willing to seek help from me, please draw and write them down on paper, scan it and send it to my mail as attachment. You can draw on it. Be free. No need to write it proper. Whatever things coming to you, just let it flow and draw, write and anything that you believe makes the link. I will not mind if it's messy.
By the way, you can look at my article here:
Incompressible Fluids Flowing Through Differential Pipes Diverge?
A POINT WHERE GRAVITY IS NEUTRAL
I hope we can collaborate. Hope you reply through mail.
Written 17 Mar. 135 views.
Nikhil MelgiriNikhil Melgiri
6 upvotes by Tim Hopkins, Maarten van den Driest, Nick Valdez, Mathew Clutter, (more)
if you are friends with a physicist, present your idea to him, and he will help you with the mathematics. I am 15 years old, so i just post my questions and theories online so people comment and edit upon it. We have a lot in common bro.
Written 27 May. 545 views.
Harish RamanHarish Raman
4 upvotes by Paul Olaru, Aurélien Emmanuel, Virendra Yadav, and Ankit Saraf
How did you calculate anything in your theory without math? Imagining stuff does not make it a viable theory.
If you're really 14 and haven't heard of 'scientific method', Google it. If you make a theory, you must provide a way to verify it in an unambiguous way. Math is the commonly accepted language of showing the results. The math either works or it doesn't. There is no in between. Visualizations don't count.
Updated 21 Feb. 796 views.
Janet SellersJanet Sellers, Artist and Writer
1 upvote by Timothy Egoroff
Thank you, Arpan, for your wise and kindly answer. I learned a lot just now on many levels.
Written 16 Mar. 132 views.
Adit AkarshAdit Akarsh, Physics isn't complete. But I know cl... (more)
3 upvotes by Paul Olaru, Timothy Egoroff, and Raghotham PS Rao
Use help. Ask a specialist on Quora. See if you can contact professors online.
- 12 year old.
Written 16 Feb. 498 views.. Asked to answer by Raghotham PS Rao
Abhinav ChoudharyAbhinav Choudhary, I am not a virgin, Life fucked me!
2 upvotes by Paul Olaru and Raghotham PS Rao
I am sorry to say this but visual proof does no good of it does not satisfy mathematical equations.
I hope your theory is more relevant than just a visual thought.
Written 16 Feb. 684 views.
Bhuvan SridharanBhuvan Sridharan, The BackYard SCIENTIST!
12 upvotes by Paul Olaru, Tony Vincent, Ege Özmeral, Lucas Stresser, (more)
Study maths , physics hard.
Become physicist and love physics.
If your theory still holds true.
Rule the world with your theory.
- a fourteen year old.
Written 16 Feb. 747 views.
Timothy EgoroffTimothy Egoroff, ?
Time is the phisicall allowability of 3 dimensional movement\existance. This is known as the time domain or vacuum energy. Read (coming soon) for more information in the topic.
Written 26 Jun. 10 views.
Rahul NayakRahul Nayak
1 upvote by Kamal Sankar
Its good but without formulating formula on your works your works will be useless.learn good maths.you will be having great future.
Written 14 Mar. 133 views.
8-7-15 Copied from today's Email:
EarthSky // Science Wire, Space Release Date: Jul 06, 2015
Hidden supermassive black holes revealed
Scientists have detected 5 supermassive black holes previously clouded from view. The research suggests there are millions more hidden black holes out there.
An artist’s illustration of a supermassive black hole, actively feasting on its surroundings. The central black hole is hidden from direct view by a thick layer of encircling gas and dust. Image credit: NASA/ESA.
Astronomers have found evidence for a large population of hidden supermassive black holes in the universe.
Using NASA’s Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) satellite observatory, the team of international scientists detected the high-energy x-rays from five supermassive black holes previously clouded from direct view by dust and gas.
The research supports the theory that potentially millions more supermassive black holes exist in the universe, but are hidden from view.
The findings were presented today (July 6) at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting, at Venue Cymru, in Llandudno, Wales.
A Hubble Space Telescope color image of one of the nine galaxies targeted by NuSTAR. The high energy X-rays detected by NuSTAR revealed the presence of an extremely active supermassive black hole at the galaxy center, deeply buried under a blanket of gas and dust. Image credit: Hubble Legacy Archive, NASA, ESA.
The scientists pointed NuSTAR at nine candidate hidden supermassive black holes that were thought to be extremely active at the center of galaxies, but where the full extent of this activity was potentially obscured from view.
High-energy x-rays found for five of the black holes confirmed that they had been hidden by dust and gas. The five were much brighter and more active than previously thought as they rapidly feasted on surrounding material and emitted large amounts of radiation.
Such observations were not possible before NuSTAR, which launched in 2012 and is able to detect much higher energy x-rays than previous satellite observatories.
Lead author George Lansbury is a postgraduate student in the Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, at Durham University. Lansbury said:
For a long time we have known about supermassive black holes that are not obscured by dust and gas, but we suspected that many more were hidden from our view.
Thanks to NuSTAR for the first time we have been able to clearly see these hidden monsters that are predicted to be there, but have previously been elusive because of their ‘buried’ state.
Although we have only detected five of these hidden supermassive black holes, when we extrapolate our results across the whole Universe then the predicted numbers are huge and in agreement with what we would expect to see.
Bottom line: An international team of astronomers Using NASA’s Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) satellite observatory, have detected the high-energy x-rays from five supermassive black holes previously clouded from direct view by dust and gas. The research supports the theory that potentially millions more supermassive black holes exist in the universe, but are hidden from view.
Read more from the Royal Astronomical Society
8-8-15 Copied from reference to my subscription July 2015 Scientific American:
Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
What if Dark Matter Is Stranger Than We Thought? [Video]
By Clara Moskowitz | June 16, 2015
One of the biggest mysteries in science today is what makes up dark matter—the plentiful, invisible material that swarms throughout the universe, exerting its gravitational lure on regular matter. Physicists have traditionally surmised that dark matter is a single type of particle that rarely interacts with the rest of the particles in nature, such as the normal electrons and quarks that make up the atoms in our bodies. But that picture is not the only option.
Lately another theory, sometimes called complex dark matter, has been gaining prominence. This scenario posits not just one category of particle composing dark matter but many—and it includes the possibility that some of these particles could combine to form composites akin to dark atoms. Complex dark matter could act and group in different ways than the simple dark matter particle is thought to do. It could, for example, form structures that mirror and overlap with the disks of spiral arms in galaxies.
Physicists Bogdan Dobrescu and Don Lincoln, both of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, describe the possibilities of complex dark matter in the latest issue of Scientific American. Read their article here. Lincoln also details the idea in a recent video, below:
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Turbocad_Dwg_2_save_as_pdf.pdf My J_Aether-Paradigm Theory is complex , J_Waves along J_Strings are J_Dark Matter and J_Dark Energy that are the creation of J_Mass J_Gravity and J_Aether.
7-8-15 I pasted Quora Rahul Garg conservation with me. He is interested in simplifying Physics and minimising Math usage. I WILL TRY TO PUBLISH MY CONCEPTS WITH HIS HELP.
7-11-15 I uploaded the above Turbocad Dwg 2 file saved as pdf yesterday. I tryed to email it to Rahul Garg like I did by pasting in to his email address copied from Turbocad like I did Dwg 1 which I think he got. No way would it email even this pdf file. He dad asked me to use his email befor I sent him Dwg 1. I will reply to the next email I get from him.
7-14-15 TurboCad Dwg 3 pasted i wordpad:
Continue to excel SS on equal area in J_String with J_Waves:
7-16-15 Copied from Physics Digest My Email:
Perpetual motion is entirely possible and does not contradict any laws of Physics. What is not possible is a machine that extracts energy from such motion.
The motion of electrons about the nucleus did present a serious problem for classical mechanics. The problem was that a negative point-like particle (the electron) orbiting a positive nucleus should, unlike the case of a planet orbiting a star, act like an electric current and radiate energy. This radiation would indeed cause the electron's orbit to decay and nothing would stop it colliding with the nucleus.
It required the apparatus of Quantum Theory to resolve this problem. The electron becomes a probabilistic cloud rather than a point-particle. It exists in certain quantum levels which have probabilistic distributions rather than orbits and no two electrons can have the same quantum state (the Pauli Exclusion Principle).
As you can see your intuition of an electron "moving" around the nucleus no longer applies. Indeed anyone's intuition no longer really applies. You simply have to grind out the mathematics of the Schrödinger Equationand the like: something which has turned out to be the most accurate scientific theory we have ever developed!
7-17-15 The Spread Sheet excel roughly indicates d1 of J_Spiral J_Rod diameter is approx 95 mm when 137 J_Waves are 1 Planck length h 16.162 x 10^-36 m = 16.162 x 10^-33 mm. lp=Square-Route(hG/c^3)=1.616199(97) x 10^-35 m. The Turbocad rough drawing of J_String inner J_Rod dia 95 mm the scale needs to be corrected a Planck length is much smaller than (Bohrs length* Pi) circumference. I will redo dimensions in the above 3 drawings links.
7-20-15 Scale Factor Needed:
7-22-15 The Scale Factor for Rough Sketch Dwg 2 & Dwg 2 above is approximate 1.50124 E+23 to scale up from Planck value to mm values of rough sketches.
7-26-15 Saved on Eee documents:
EarthSky // Human World, Science Wire Release Date: Jul 21, 2015
Large Hadron Collider discovers new particle
They’re calling them pentaquarks. What you need to know of the latest discovery about the tiny particles that make up our world.
By Gavin Hesketh, UCL
The Large Hadron Collider, famous for finding the Higgs boson, has now revealed another new and rather unusual particle. Teams at the LHC, the world’s largest particle accelerator, recently began a second run of experiments using far more energy than the ones that found the Higgs particle back in 2012. But another of the groups, LHCb, have also been sifting through its data from the billions of particle collisions of the first run of the LHC, and now think they’ve spotted something new: pentaquarks.
Pentaquarks are an exotic form of matter first predicted back in 1979. Everything around us is made of atoms, which are mode of a cloud of electrons orbiting a heavy nucleus made of protons and neutrons. But since the 1960s, we’ve also known that protons and neutrons are made up of even smaller particles named “quarks”, held together by something called the “strong force”, the strongest known force in nature in fact.
Experiments in 1968 provided the evidence for the quark model. If protons are hit hard enough, the strong force can be overcome and the proton smashed apart. The quark model actually explains the existence of more than 100 particles, all known as “hadrons” (as in Large Hadron Collider) and made up of different combinations of quarks. For example the proton is made of three quarks.
All hadrons seem to be made up of combinations of either two or three quarks, but there is no obvious reason more quarks could not stick together to form other types of hadron. Enter the pentaquark: five quarks bound together to form a new type of particle. But until now, nobody knew for sure if pentaquarks actually existed – and, although there have been several discoveries claimed in the last 20 years, none has stood the test of time.
The intricate dance of the J/psi and the proton. Image credit: CERN
Pentaquarks are incredibly difficult to see; they are very rare and very unstable. This means that if it is possible to stick five quarks together, they won’t stay together for very long. The team on the LHCb experiment made their discovery by looking in detail at other exotic hadrons produced in the collisions and they way these break apart. In particular, they looked for the Lambdab particle, which can decay into thee other hadrons: a Kaon, a J/psi, and a proton.
The J/psi is made of two quarks and the proton is made of three. The scientists discovered that for a short period of time these five quarks were bound together in a single particle: a pentaquark. In fact, through detailed analysis of the data, they actually discovered two pentaquarks and have given them the catchy names Pc(4450)+ and Pc(4380)+.
Why is this important?
The discovery answers a decades-old question in particle physics and highlights another part of the mission of the LHC. Discoveries of new fundamental particles such as the Higgs boson tell us something completely new about the universe. But discoveries like pentaquarks give us a more complete understanding of the rich possibilities that lie in the universe we already know.
By developing this understanding, we may get some hints about how the universe developed after the Big Bang and how we’ve ended up with protons and neutrons instead of pentaquarks making up everyday matter.
With the LHC now colliding protons at almost twice the energy, scientists are ready to tackle some of the other open questions in particle physics. One of the main targets with the new data is Dark Matter, a strange particle which seems to be all around the universe, but has never been seen. Testing the current understanding of quarks, the strong force and all the known particles at this new energy is an essential step towards making such discoveries.
Gavin Hesketh is Lecturer in Particle Physics at UCL.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
10-5-15 Copied from Sky and Earth:
EarthSky // Science Wire, Space Release Date: Sep 28, 2015
Mars is a desert world, but it’s not completely dry. Scientists have found liquid water flowing on Mars.
These dark streaks are called recurring slope lineae. They are a seasonal phenomenon on Mars. Scientists now say the streaks are evidence of flowing water on Mars. The streaks are shown here in a false-color image from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Image via NASA / JPL / Univ. of Arizona.
NASA announced this morning (September 28, 2015) that its researchers have found liquid water flowing, or at least trickling, on the surface of Mars. NASA scientists announced these results at a news conference today, simultaneous with the publication of a new paper in Nature Geoscience. Analysis of imagery from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has confirmed salty water flowing down Martian slopes. This flowing water is responsible for the fascinating seasonal dark streaks on Mars – called recurring slope lineae by scientists – which are seen in places on the planet’s surface. Three of the paper’s co-authors spoke NASA’s news conference, which was broadcast on NASA-TV.
The streaks themselves extend up to 16 feet (5 meters) in width and tens or hundreds of feet in length. They appear to ebb and flow on Mars. In a way reminiscent of Percival Lowell’s early notions of plants coming and going in a seasonal cycle on Mars (a notion later proved wrong), these recurring slope lineae come and go with the Martian seasons. They darken and appear to flow down steep slopes during warm seasons and then fade in cooler seasons.
The dark streaks appear year after year in places on Mars where temperatures reach zero to 30 degrees Fahrenheit (250 to 273 Kelvin).
Lujendra Ojha of the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) in Atlanta is lead author of the new study (he also happens to be a death metal guitarist, by the way). He first noticed the dark streaks as a University of Arizona undergraduate student in 2010, via images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’s great instrument called the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE). He and his colleagues theorized at the time that flowing water was the cause of the streaks.
HiRISE observations later have documented the mysterious dark streaks at dozens of sites on Mars. Ojha said of the new study:
We found the hydrated salts only when the seasonal features were widest, which suggests that either the dark streaks themselves or a process that forms them is the source of the hydration.
In either case, the detection of hydrated salts on these slopes means that water plays a vital role in the formation of these streaks.
What is the source of this Mars water? The new paper doesn’t definitively pinpoint a source, but suggests the water might be melting subsurface ice, or it might be the result of salts thought to be in the Martian soil, pulling water out of the thin Martian atmosphere. Or, perhaps most intriguingly, it’s possible liquid might even be bubbling up from unknown aquifers below Mars’ surface.
The salt in the water is important, by the way. It keeps the water from freezing on Mars, a cold desert world, whose closest Earth analog is Antarctica.
Dark narrow streaks called ‘recurring slope lineae’ emanating out of the walls of Garni crater on Mars. The dark streaks here are up to few hundred meters in length. They are hypothesized to be formed by flow of briny liquid water on Mars. Streaks like these can be seen in spacecraft images at dozens of sites on Mars. Image via NASA/JPL/University of Arizona.
Here are more recurring slope lineae, about 100 meters long. Image via NASA/ JPL/ Univ. of Arizona.
Of course, for us on Earth, water means life. Did life arise on Mars once, and can we find out? Is there life on Mars today? That’s why the discovery of water on Mars, so long suspected, is so fascinating. How likely is it that there is life on Mars today? The scientists pointed out that, although we haven’t been able to answer the question of whether life exists beyond Earth, the way to answering that question is surely following the water.
In other words, the presence of flowing water on Mars dramatically boosts the possibility that there is life on Mars today. Plus, scientists point out, now that we know water is flowing on Mars, we can be “more methodical” in the search for life.
And there’s more. The presence of this water on Mars may have implications for future human exploration on Mars in ways we can only imagine now.
The idea of water on Mars is not new. The planet has frozen water at its poles, and there’s also water in Mars’ thin atmosphere. Most recently, scientists said they believe tiny puddles form at night in places on Mars’ surface. There is also evidence that Mars had an ocean three billion years ago. Where did it go? Scientists say that “something happened” on Mars, possibly a major climate change.
Whatever happened caused Mars to lose most of its water, but clearly some water has remained.
So, at last … proof of flowing present-day water on Mars! Ojha said:
When most people talk about water on Mars, they’re usually talking about ancient water or frozen water. Now we know there’s more to the story.
Bottom line: Scientists have found liquid water on Mars. The proof comes in the form of seasonal dark streaks on Mars’ surface, called recurring slope lineae by scientists. They are thought to be caused by briny water from an unknown source on Mars, flowing downhill.