I would say that the "supposed position of a defined object" can be called "an event".First I am not exactly sure what do you mean by a probability wave representing an

event. I was aligned to think of this in terms of probability waves representing the positions of defined objects.

A collision between a virtual particle and a fermion can be seen as "an event", as can the simultaneous change in the form of the probability wave. Remember, the probability wave yields our expectations and, if a collision occurs, certainly our expectations change. In modern quantum mechanics that change is called "collapse of the wave function".Do you just see them as essentially the same thing, or do you refer to something like a probability wave representing something like a collision between virtual particle and a fermion?

If the exchanged particle is "virtual", it means, from a colloquial perspective, that it "really isn't there". From a quanta mechanical perspective, it means that it has insufficient energy to exist at that particular point in space. Since at this point we are talking about photons (which have no rest energy) the energy is given by its momentum and we can apply the uncertainty principal.I did not pick up though, why the Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that the further apart the interaction fermions are, the less momentum transfer must be...

[math]\Delta P \Delta x \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}.[/math]

Essentially, so long as [imath]\Delta P \Delta x < \frac{\hbar}{2}[/imath] we can't detect it (to detect it would violate the uncertainty principal) and it qualifies as "virtual". Thus, so long as the exchange is virtual, the larger [imath]\Delta x [/imath] (the distance over which it is exchanged) the smaller [imath]\Delta P [/imath] (the momentum being exchanged) must be.

That is exactly correct.So I suppose when you refer to the speed of an element, you must be referring to its speed in [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath]-space. I.e. it is because every element must move at the same fixed speed, that more wiggling means slower speed towards the average direction of the entire object.

Yes. It seems to me to be quite reasonable that the momentum transfer rate would be proportional to the density of the sources that provide that exchange: i.e., the greater the total momentum change can be over the same change in tau (the reading on a clock traveling with the object being influenced).Right... When you say "total momentum", you are essentially referring to the number and density of the individual elements moving along [imath]\tau[/imath] (at fixed speed).

The issue was brought up in the last six paragraphs of the "Anybody interested in Dirac's equation?" thread. I really do little with it beyond suggesting that such an interaction certainly appears to be required by my fundamental equation. By the way, the purpose of displaying these relationships to modern physics which I have uncovered was not to prove modern physics was a tautology. The purpose was to generate interest in the proof of my equation among people who had the education to subject that proof to hard analysis. I have been totally confounded by the fact that those who could analyze that proof absolutely refuse to look at it.I may be forgetting something, but where and when the massive boson exchange/nuclear forces were brought up...?

Personally I have been quite astonished by the fact that so many of modern physics theories can be mapped into approximate solutions to my equation. That equation is a constraint and I certainly would not expect it to be the only constraint on modern physics as that in itself would imply physics is a tautology (the conclusion I have come to after many years). What I would expect (and have been unable to discover) is a solution to my equation which could not be found in modern physics: i.e., that some additional constraint would be required by physics. Such an event would give physics an independent status above and beyond a tautology, but I haven't found it and it seems that no one else is interested in looking.

Ah yes, parity is an interesting issue all by itself. Parity is often referred to as "mirror" symmetry. If you look in a mirror, you will find that the image is different from the image you would see if a duplicate "you" stood in front of you. That difference can be seen in three specific different ways.That is very interesting... Another very unexpected feature of modern physics turning out to be a very expected feature of the symmetry requirements. Should probably discuss that issue little bit at some point as well.

The most common way to see the difference is to note the fact that a duplicate of you would have to turn around to face you. When he did that, his right arm would be on your left and his left arm would be on your right: i.e., everything along the "right left" axis would appear to be inverted. All other relationships remain the same.

But that is because we commonly think of people turning around by rotating around their vertical axis. If we are going to actually analyze the phenomena itself, we could just as well presume he could have turned around by rotating around that horizontal "right left" axis. In that case we would expect to see his head on the bottom and his feet on the top: i.e., in the image, everything along the vertical axis would be inverted. (Note that his right arm is on the same side as your right arm; wave at yourself and think about it.)

The third way to see it is to see everything along the axis between the two of you inverted: i.e., you see the "front" of the image instead of the back you would expect to see if a duplicate "you" stood in front of you. In this case everything else is as expected. His head and your head are both on top and your right arm and his right arm are on the same side but his face is towards you and not away as it should be.

What I am getting at is the fact that a mirror image can be seen as accomplished by the inversion of any one axis. Now, consider the inversion of all three axes. If you invert all three axes, you get a mirror image: i.e., three parity swaps are identical to one parity swap. That brings up an interesting conundrum. Why should the physics of such an inverted universe be different from the original: i.e., when you consider the fact that all the information about the universe is contained in "the information about the universe", why should plotting the three axes in a particular direction make a difference. How does one know "the correct direction". It seems entirely reasonable that mirror symmetry should be a symmetry of the universe.

Things are a bit different in a four dimensional Euclidean universe. In that case, inversion of all the axes bring one back to the original configuration so inversion of all the axes have to be a symmetry of the universe. However, if we invert only the three axes of our perceived space (the tau axis not being inverted) then we have a parity inversion (a true inversion of all the axes would include inverting tau). This results in a rather strange circumstance when applied to massive boson exchange. If the velocity in the tau direction of an entity being exchanged is in the same direction as the source, one might very well expect the interaction to be subtly different from the case where they are traveling in opposite direction.

If that is a second order effect, it might very well be on the same order as the differential effect which would suggest that the weak nuclear force might well display parity consequences.

If you take a look at the fundamental equation, note that multiplying through by minus one changes the sign of all the terms. Changing the sign of all the momentum terms changes nothing as the total momentum is still zero and changing the sign of the energy term can be absorbed into the definition of "t" (which is unmeasurable anyway), thus the only real change is a change in the sign of the Dirac interaction term. That would change all attractive terms into repulsive terms and vice versa. (Kind of sets the direction of time in our explanations doesn't it?)

Inversion of tau is essentially changing particles into antiparticles so the above suggests that the interaction differences showing parity effects should be related to which version of the exchange pair is involved. What is above is really speculation as I have never honestly worked out all the details of the thing and there are a couple of things about the deduction which bother me. That is another reason I would like some well educated people to look at it.

What one person finds satisfying may bother another. I will direct you to Erasmus as he is apparently one hundred percent satisfied with the modern physics version of such things.Apart from this analysis, does any satisfying explanation exist as to why weak nuclear force violates parity symmetry?

What you seem to be missing here is the realization that my fundamental equation is essentially unsolvable. The best one can do is to find approximate solutions. In order to do that one needs to know exactly what terms can be ignored and what approximations for the terms which can not be ignored are reasonable: i.e., in essence, you need to know the mathematical solution before you start making your approximations. In other words, my equation isI can't work out what sort of interference one might expect between all the relevant bodies, but I'm just thinking if this explains the Allais effect as a gravitational effect, that would be remarkable.

**not**a means of deducing a solution but is rather a means of

**eliminating proposed solutions**. That is exactly the mistake Bombadil insists on making.

I read your reference and I have no idea as to exactly what the nature of the Allais effect is; that article does not give the details of the differences as compared to the expectations. It could be as simple as some kind of gravitational focusing effect due to the intermediate body or it may be some kind of local error not being taken into account. The Foucault pendulum is a very sensitive experiment and requires careful elimination of interfering forces. I was involved in setting one up in graduate school and we had some problems getting it to work properly. At any rate, my equation really doesn't provide any help on the thing that I can see. Sorry about that.

Just as an aside, I appear to have upset modest so I wouldn't expect any help from him. Sorry about that too.

Have fun -- Dick