I did, last year, come to derive a set of equation based from intuition, I later was informed that a similar model was pursued outside of my own model in the past, but I believe regardless, the reasoning I set my model on the exact derivations leading to those assumptions are in themselves unique. Unique as it is, it is like a starting off point to a more simpler model than the one that preceded mine. First of all, why did I pursue a free falling model of an electron the in the stable orbits of an atom?

1. Electrons cannot be at rest in a stable equilibrium

2. Electrons cannot be in motion pursuing ellipitical orbits

These two basic premises of quantum theory are at odds with each other. One thing was certain, if electrons had motion then Bohr was right:

3. Only non-stable orbits with motion can allow atoms to radiate.

So with the help of quantum theory, Bohr created a model of the atom where electrons followed ''special orbits'' and these ''special orbits'' where the ones where electrons had been able to whizz around without giving off the usual radiation we would expect from a moving charge. Later, the planetary model was superseded by wave mechanics, the idea was simple enough

4. That electrons did not move around the nucleus, instead they existed as a wave spread out statistically in space.

But with this, there was a catch. DeBroglie, the true inventor of the wave particle duality model, for all states of matter, never said that his wave mechanics specifically said this. From experiments, like the photoelectric effect and gamma scattering, we knew the particle had to exist both sometimes as a particle, other times a wave. The inseparability of the wave from the particle, lead to his famous wave hypothesis, stating that the particle was accompanied by wave. The wave itself was unobservable however, only today using very special techniques, computers and special equipment have been able to indirectly see the wave nature inside of particles. It still doesn't tell us at what time the electron would act as a particle, unless directly observed, by which time the wave would collapse and all that would remain, would be the particle. Yeah, quantum theory was weird.

In spirit of deBroglie, I'd like to carry on his strong assertion that particles where guided by waves, so that we can in some way rationalise the weird nature of quantum mechanics into a regime that is more acceptable for a willing and rational mind. Certainly, why cannot a particle be guided by its wave? Matter was guided by curvature in space, and it was this correspondence of the two ideas where I linked perhaps a unity between the strange wave mechanics of deBroglie to that of GR. One stated that matter told space how to curve and space told matter how to move, whereas particles told waves how to spread, and the waves told particles how to move. Maybe wave mechanics and curvature where closely related. This was my first motivation. We'll learn as my theory progresses, that the orbits described by the moving particle also contain their own curvatures, their own geometries. By inviting the weak equivalence principle, we would further learn how to allow a particle to move in an orbit without giving off any radiation.

My derivation was at best, rudimentary. To do it, I just needed to know some basic laws, like Newtons laws, Keplers laws and some electrostatic equations of motion.

In the more complicated arguments I explain that this acceleration disappears in the ground state, again due to it being in a state of free fall... Or does it? You might come to learn that accelerated charged objects experience only radiation, and this is true. Sometimes you might hear, ''the acceleration from a free falling body,'' and so both those statements might seem a bit at odds. What it means is that the body has to be freely falling in a gravitational field, not affected by an external source that adds to that acceleration in some way, otherwise it would obey the relativistic Larmor equation for circular orbits, or those followimg ellipses. There is still existing in this framework, the notion of wave mechanics in the theory from a de Broglie guiding wave model and would quicly make it semi classical , but I'm interested only in the case where the wave pilots the electron as curvature and waves may be saying the same thing since again.

Newton would have found when he was deriving Keplers results, a moment of clarity from his own laws, it was Kepler who actually guessed his work! Kepler not once ever derived his equations that described motion of planetary bodies, it was all trial and error. And some excellent guesswork.

We also note that Gm = r(s)v^2 as the gravitational parameter. This is important to Keplers work and Newton found it, but it features strongly in a second investigation I made which will be for a following day. I really only came to derive my own conclusions after being inspired by a book by Rogers where he stated that maybe particles obeyed Kepler's laws inside the atom, so I rewrote the gravitational theory in the language of electrostatics, so I was very surprised afterwards to learn that my idea of a free falling model of an electron had been speculated more thoroughly than my rudimentary model gave. I had no insight of a free falling model before this as I drew on a theoretical model from weak equivalence to explain why the ground state electron did not radiate. Though I claim my model is quite a bit more simpler, I think it gives a clearer insight how I fell upon these ideas which appeared to exist in literature outside of my independent model;

In his work, and no I haven't read the actual paper, but there is a Langrangian derived. It appears as a Kinetic term and a potential term and the very last term describing the spin and orbit of the equation, the spin orbit equation is something I am pretty well read up on. I haven't gone as far to describe any of the results I came to in terms of a Langrangian. In regards To Michals approach, I had already been postulating on how different orbits could be more accurately described and more recently suggested a correction term to the spin orbit equation as the eccentricity of the electrons orbit, a dimensionless parameter, which if an electron was moving around the nucleus, in a real way, eccentricity would become part and parcel of the dynamics

Lets do the math now, because its a bit complicated how I came to it. I had two results, both as important as the other. Let me remind the reader, I came to explain that the charge relationship following a Bohr orbit, using the results of Kepler later confirmed from Newtons classical equations was

Ze ~ 4 π² m /k(B)(R³/t²)

Where (R³/t²) is the Kepler law for various orbits and notice and keep in mind, k(B) the Coulomb or Boltzmann constant. The latter will come to have a makeover soon.

I decided, if we talk about the Hydrogen atom, it must be set equal to one. As a stringent result, a common thing to do is if the mass refers to an electron mass, this too can be set to 1. The resulting equation, which I wrote as an equality, I now write as an approximation

e ~ 4 π²/k(B) ⋅ (R³/t²)

because my new investigation imposes something important. For any model recognising the importance of the apparent symmetries of gravitation and the electrostatic laws, we are accostomed to notice the objects of similar nature as

F = G(Mm/r²)

And

F = k(B) (Ze/ r²)

Authors being bold this is not a coincidence, said for this reaon, that k(B) and G, are strict analogues of each other which obey inverse square laws. In this sense, Newtons masses become the analogues of charge. In the past,in models I wrote about, Id often say for that reason, Gm² was a gravitational charge with units of charge squared, but current research adds a tweak, one might argue its a matter of convention, or the units you chose to work, where now I modify it and convinced myself, the real model must satify for each unit of mass charge, we must now state its equal to

√G m = √k(B) e

This is to satisfy a model where

F = G(Mm/r²) = k(B) (Ze/ r²)

To get Keplers guess, from hard derivation from Newtons law, we note its important to notice that v²/r describes inward acceleration from a curved path in orbit, and that each revolution is a velocity satisfying

v = 2 π r/t

Now we write

G(Mm/r²) = m(v²/r) = k(B) (Ze/ r²)

Plugging in the revolution you will get

G(Mm/r²) = m(2 π r/t)²/r = k(B) (Ze/ r²)

Collecting the radius terms, we get

GMm = 4 π² m(r³/t²) = k(B) Ze

Notice in the central expression, we got the Kepler law of orbital motion. Lets rewrite this a new way. Say we break up all mass charges, the Coulomb charges and make them equal the result derived using Kepler orbital motion;

√G M ⋅ √G m = √k(B) Z ⋅ √k(B) e

= m (v²/r) ⋅ r² = 4 π² m(r³/t²)

We notice we can cancel the small mass on the first and last expressions of the equation and gives

√G M ⋅ √G = 1/m ⋅ (√k(B) Z ⋅ √k(B) e)

= (v²/r) ⋅ r² = 4 π² (r³/t²)

And is the same as saying

GM = 1/m ⋅ (k(B) Ze)

= (v²/r) ⋅ r² = 4 π² (r³/t²)

And if the remaining mass charge M is always the analogue of the charge and a square root of the Coulomb constant we can get

√G ⋅ √k(B) ⋅ e = 4 pi² (r³/t²)

How, see 1). At the end

By absorbing √G and √k(B) we rewrite a new constant, its a mixture of both gravitational and electrical constants, and we must respect its a new object we will call Φ. Rearranging we finally get

e = 4 π²/ Φ ⋅ (r³/t²)

From inspection of this with my original result which ignored this more careful derivation, its still surprising how close it was to

e ~ 4 π²/k(B) ⋅ (r³/t²)

Where we had an equation, set the electron mass which is small m=1 and the nuclear charge Z=1 for the most basic model available, the hydrogen atom.

1). Lets be more clear why this is. We can accept that

√G M ⋅ √G/r² = 1/mr² ⋅ (√k(B) Z ⋅ √k(B) e)

= (v²/r) = 4 π² (r²/t²r)

This is an acceleration equation. mr² in the denominator of the second expression is further the rotational inertia. Alternatively, we can write

(√k(B) Z ⋅ √k(B) e)/r² = m (v²/r) = 4 π² m (r²/t²r)

Multipling through by √G we get

√G (√k(B) Z ⋅ √k(B) e)/r² = √Gm (v²/r) = √Gm (4 π² r²/t²r)

Since √k(B) Z = √Gm we can divide by through √k(B) Z and allow √GM/√k(B) Z ~ 1 giving us

√G (√k(B) e)/r² = (v²/r) = 4 π² r²/t²r

Now multiplying through by r² gives us, dropping the central expression

√G √k(B) e = 4 π² (r³/t²)

Divind through by √G √k(B) = Φ gives us our result we already confirmed

e = 4 π²/Φ (r³/t²)

This second way to derive itmay be simpler to understand.

]]>

But a is your particle after you observe it, b is it's pair before you observe a particle to find it's a state, and c is b after you find the post-observed a-state (charge+color+spin(x)=a & charge+color+spin(y)=b with c/x+y)

Particles are not entangled by tachyonic grav waves (dark energy), they are entangled by retrocausality, a grav wave will ripple from a source and pull everything within it's vicinity from present to future, so from present to past a grav wave will return to it's source and push everything in it's vicinity.

Dark energy is simply how dark energy becomes photons or baryonic mass, in the same way a photon will have a diagonal trajectory as it hits a mass and the gravity waves that photon makes in it's wake will catch up to that photon when it's path becomes diagonal and slow it to baryonic matter or reflect it back to it's source. Problem solved.

Now with quantum computers you still need those coordinates I'm omitting and the polarizing light ray to beam secret I'm witholding as an energy source.

]]>These organisms have an immediate cognitive advantage in that a second to them is a million years to us. They can observe all of the matter and energy in the universe, whereas we can only observe subluminal and luminal matter and energy. They can see us, but we can't see them!

Obviously in order to be seen and interact with our navy they'd have to build probes that exist slower than light.

]]>

[math]B = k_B \frac{4 \pi^2 r e}{2 h^2c^2} \cdot \frac{\partial U(r)}{\partial r} \cdot (\frac{mk}{L^2} [1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{2L^2E}{mk}} \cos (\theta - \theta_0)])J[/math]

where [math]B[/math] is the gravimagnetic field, we identify torsion as encoded in this as being part of the central potential [math] \frac{\partial U(r)}{\partial r}[/math], its full form is

[math]\Omega = \frac{1}{2mc^2} \frac{\partial U(r)}{\partial t}[/math]

and

[math]k = Gm^2[/math]

and

[math]\epsilon = \frac{2L^2E}{mk}[/math]

Is the eccentricity. In a later post Ill show how you derive the full result from calculus, but its ugly and complicated so I'm not doing that today. The main point is we have a correction term on the spin orbit equation, the deviation of the orbit described by the eccentricity. It shows how much it will deviate from a perfect circle so has real world applications, even inside of the interior of atoms.

The alternative formula is

[math]B = \frac{1}{2e\ mc^2} \cdot \frac{\partial U(r)}{\partial r} \cdot (\frac{mk}{L^2} [1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{2L^2E}{mk}} \cos (\theta - \theta_0)])J[/math]

And [math]J[/math] is the total angular momentum. You get the first equation by plugging in the inverse Bohr mass

[math]\frac{1}{m} \equiv \frac{mv^2}{m^2v^2} = k_B \frac{4 \pi^2 e^2 r}{h^2}[/math]

into the standard spin orbit equation, which is,

[math]B = \frac{1}{2e\ mc^2} \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial U}{\partial r}J[/math]

Ironically, I found that it didn't matter whether I used Bohrs inverse mass or inverse radius, they both produced the same equation, so they are not too much different animals.

]]>

Some people think I'm good at math, but I often reply, "I'm really not!" I have no reservations or hesitation or shame when I ask for help. I know all too well that its been a common theme in history. Schrodinger seeked help from his peers when writing his wave equation, DeWitt seeked help when forming the Bryce deWitt equation for gravity. Einstein seeked a lot of help when writing his general theory of relativity and even then took him ten years. If you're a gifted mathematician and a brilliant physicist with a sound philosophical mind, you're a rare breed. Penrose is one of those lucky ones. Feynmann was another. In this post I seek guidance on whether my apllication of differentiation has been done successfully. Peer review is a cruel world so you have to expect anything and everything. But here's the thing, I'm well read on many scientific subjects, but this is the difference between me and Jeffrytubes. I dont pretend to talk about subjects I know nothing about, and I'm not scared to approach the academic world about questions to clear something up. So be warned about people like him, if you dont know science, you could be easily charmed by someone talking buzzwords stringed together as if it makes sense, but doesnt.

]]>Electricity is a fluid. Just as the water and the air can flow through pipes, so the electricity can flow through metal wires or other electrically conductive things. However, water and air are material fluids, whereas electricity is an immaterial fluid. Water is dense, air is less dense than water and the electricity is the least dense, actually it crosses the border of materiality and goes in immateriality. I will give you further down an example on this.

Let’s first consider something else.

When a body moves through space filled with air, then higher pressure is created in front of it, while lower pressure (depressure) behind it. The higher pressure is Plus, the lower pressure is Minus. I use to call this a ‘principle of an arrow’ (− >—> +).

The greater the velocity of the body is, the stronger is the plus in front of it as well as the minus behind it (this principle can be found in many things, among others also in the so-called “Bernoulli’s principle”; please see **Bernoulli's principle can be found in the electric current, too **.

In this example a body is moving linearly through the air. Can we achieve higher and lower pressure on opposite sides of a body whose place in the space remains stationary? Yes, we can do that by means of a fan. When a fan is turning, then it is blowing in front of it (higher pressure/plus), but it is suctioning behind it (lower pressure/minus).

Let’s say we have a fan without internal drive. If this fan is standing on the way of the wind, then it is turning. We can simulate this by taking a small fan (like those in computers) and a hair dryer. We bring the turned-on hair dryer close to the fan. It starts to turn in one direction. If we bring a turned-on vacuum cleaner close to it, then it starts to turn in the contrary direction. But if we attach the fan to a wall and then bring the hair dryer or the vacuum cleaner close to it, the fan is not turning. The reason is that behind the fan there is no space filled with air where the flux can spread or from where it can suction.

Exactly the same happens with the electric flux. For example, when we touch with a finger the end of the phase tester (one-contact neon test light) (the other end touches the phase), our body becomes, so to say, the "space filled with air", actually an object with sufficient electrical conductivity whereto the flux can spread, or wherefrom it can suction and consequently the lamp lights up. [ The phase tester is a series connection of a resistor and a small neon lamp. ]

If the fan in the already described experiment is a little away from the wall, then it is turning slowly. The farther it is away from the wall, the faster it is turning, until it reaches the maximum speed. The farther removal has no influence on the turning speed. Let’s compare this to the phase tester (PT). If we attach a small piece of metal wire on the back end of the PT, then the lamp lights up weakly (we hold the PT on its plastic part, hence our body in this case has no influence on the phenomena). The longer or the thicker the wire is (or both at the same time), the stronger the lamp is shining, until it reaches the maximum. The further increasing of the wire volume has no influence on the lamp’s brightness.

However, it is not solely the volume of the wire that matters, but also its conductivity. If we have two equal wires, but made of different metals, the lamp will shine brighter with the wire of better conductivity.

The conductive body behind the PT doesn’t have to be made of metal. It can be also an electrolyte. As we already know, the pure water is a bad electrical conductor. But as soon as we add acid, base or salt in the water, its electrical conductivity considerably improves. Therefore, we can increase the volume of the conductive body behind the PT by immersing the wire in a container of salty, alkaline or acidic water. The earth/ground is actually a huge container of such water. The minerals in the Earth make the water an electrolyte and thus a large and good conductive body. But it is so only when it is sufficiently moist. In summers with low rainfall, the earth is dry and it is a bad conductive body. For example, if we build a city in the Gobi desert (Gobi is the driest place on the planet Earth), we cannot use the earth as “ground”. We have to invent another ground. We can, for example, let a jumbo-jet make circles over the city and use its huge chassis as “ground”. We will connect all the grounding wires to it and thus get * sky-earthing. *Of course I am joking, but principally there is nothing wrong in this joke. I have made up this example and oxymoron to stress how little we understand the electricity. I have seen the term “ground return” many times, as if the electric circuit closes itself through the Earth. No, in most practical cases it is not true. The electric current actually ends blind in the earth. Instead of ending in the earth, it can also end in the sky, i.e., in the jumbo-jet.

Let me now present the experiment which shows that the electricity flows in an open DC circuit. All we need is a battery, a small LED lamp and two large conductive objects on both ends of the LINE. Below is the schematic of the experiment:

I have recorded also a video to show the experiment (I apologize for my bad English):

The larger the metal objects, the better the result, i.e., the LED-lamp is shining brighter. But this can be somewhat misleading, because it is not the size of the object that matters, but the volume of the conductive material and its conductivity. In this video I have used a hollow metal object – a washing machine. The result would have been much better if I have had a metal object of the same size, yet not hollow, but solid.

If you don’t have two large metal volumes available, then as one large metal volume you can use the protective earthing conductor from a socket.

We can imagine the battery as many fans/propellers in series (please see** What is a battery?**). If these propellers are placed in a vacuum, then nothing will happen because there is nothing in the space around them to be moved. As soon as we put air or water in the space, the motion begins. It is the same with the battery and electricity. When we connect enough conductive volume behind the battery’s fans and in front of them, then the negative terminal has** ‘Wherefrom’** it can suction and the positive terminal has **‘Whereto’** it can blow that, what the other terminal has suctioned. The electricity flow, just as the water- and air flow, is a continuum and as such it needs continuity along both sides of the “propeller”. You will never really understand the electric current if you think of it as of separate moving particles. Think of this: when one talks about water-flow, he doesn’t talk about moving particles. When one talks about air-flow, then he doesn’t talk about moving particles. Why so? Because both are fluids. And a fluid is like gelatin. It sticks together and moves together as a continuum. Then, why would we think of electricity flow as of separate moving particles?

In case we close the conductive path in a circle, then the blowing from the one side meets with the suctioning from the opposite side, thus intensifying the electric flux many, many times.

Regarding the open-circuit flow, think also of the following examples from the history: many of you certainly know that we can make a simple radio receiver without using any external power source. It is called a crystal radio. The electromagnetic waves from the transmitter hit the antenna and induce electric current in it which then goes in the receiver’s apparatus. But this current would be very weak to actuate the headphones of the apparatus if behind it there is not sufficient conductive volume. What is used as a conductive volume in this case? The Earth, of course. The apparatus has to be well-earthed if one wants a satisfactory result, i.e., to listen to the broadcast of certain radio stations on the headphones.

Consider also this: In the 19th century was in use a single-wire telegraph (so-called “Earth-return telegraph”) after the people realized that the second wire is superfluous and thus they can cut the costs on wires. It was a simple DC on-off Morse code system with a battery earthed on both the transmitter’s and the receiver’s side. It was actually an open-circuit system.

Another thing. If we swing a glass- or a vinyl-plate like a hand-held fan, then we cause an alternating air-current, that is, we cause longitudinal waves in the air. If we swing it pretty fast, then we cause sound waves at the same time (which are also longitudinal waves). If we now rub the glass or the vinyl plate with a woolen cloth, then the plate is electrified and if swing it again, we cause besides the air- and the sound-waves also electromagnetic waves (in relation to this please see How can we get an intuitive visualization of the polarization of an electromagnetic wave? ).

We say that there is an electric field around the electrified glass and vinyl. What is an electric field? Is it something material? Did Michael Faraday mean some moving or stationary particles around an electrified or a magnetized object when he introduced the term “field” two hundred years ago? Certainly not. Actually, the scientists of the first half of the 19th century spoke of electric current as of electric field through the wires.

If the glass or the vinyl is not moving, then the field is also motionless. If the glass is moving, then the field is moving together with the glass. This moving field is an electric wind. This wind, of course, is immaterial, too.

If we move the glass towards one end of a piece of metal wire, then this immaterial wind propagates through the wire to its other end (if the wire is good conductive, it could be many kilometers long). At the other end blowing takes place(+) . If we move the glass away from the wire, then at the other end suctioning takes place (–). With the minus electrified object (that is, the vinyl), the opposite happens.

Here is the evidence. Please look at the circuits below:

When we move the glass plate toward and away from the wires (they could be many, many meters long and their free ends very far away from the circuits), then the LED lamps light up alternately: the LED lamp in the upper circuit lights up upon moving toward, while the LED lamp in the lower circuit upon moving away.

When we move the vinyl plate toward and away from the wires, then the opposite happens. The results can be summarized as follows:

For better results we should double the number of transistors (figure below). In this case the amplification is greater and the experiment is much more easily performed (we make actually the so-called Darlington pair of transistors).

More details about this experiment and about its analog performed with electroscope, you can read in this article **What is electromagnetic induction?**

This experiment shows again that the electricity flows in an open circuit. Actually, when we move an electrified object towards or away from a piece of wire, there is already an electric current in it. We need the transistor’s circuits only to ascertain that that current exists.

Now comes the sweetest part. In my book **“New theories on electromagnetism and on light an colors”** (there is a link to it at my **Profile page**) there is one more experiment with these circuits, a very astonishing one (it is on page 27 and 57). There I have actuated the transistors through electrified glass and vinyl, but acting on the emitter or on the collector, not on the transistor’s base (the free end wire is connected either to the emitter or to the collector). However, this wouldn’t have been possible if a piece of wire, 10–15 cm or more, was not attached to the base. It is an original experiment which you cannot explain for sure from the standpoint of the contemporary theory of semiconductors.

In relation to this article, please read also these:

**What is "ground" in electricity?**

P.S. My niece recently got shocked while she was sewing on an electrical machine. The voltage of the socket (220–240V) was somehow present in the metal plate below the needle. She got actually shocked because she was touching the metal plate with her hand and at the same time she has touched with bare foot a computer chassis under the table which was plugged in and thus grounded.

I have held many times a bare phase wire with a bare hand, but standing on an insulated floor and not touching anything with the other hand. The current which is flowing in my body in this case is too weak to be felt, because my body is the last link in the conductive chain. But if I touch with the other hand a large metal object, even if it is insulated from the ground, then a strong shock is inevitable. In this case my body is not anymore the last link in the chain and therefore the electric flux through it is stronger. If this shock lasts two-three seconds, it can be fatal, because the current goes through the heart.

**Added 30-Sep-2020: **I have recorded one more video in relation to this subject:

1. Electrons cannot be at rest in a stable equilibrium

2. Electrons cannot be in motion pursuing ellipitical orbits

These two basic premises of quantum theory are at odds with each other. One thing was certain, if electrons had motion then Bohr was right:

3. Only non-stable orbits with motion can allow atoms to radiate.

So with the help of quantum theory, Bohr created a model of the atom where electrons followed ''special orbits'' and these ''special orbits'' where the ones where electrons had been able to whizz around without giving off the usual radiation we would expect from a moving charge. Later, the planetary model was superseded by wave mechanics, the idea was simple enough

4. That electrons did not move around the nucleus, instead they existed as a wave spread out statistically in space.

But with this, there was a catch. DeBroglie, the true inventor of the wave particle duality model, for all states of matter, never said that his wave mechanics specifically said this. From experiments, like the photoelectric effect and gamma scattering, we knew the particle had to exist both sometimes as a particle, other times a wave. The inseparability of the wave from the particle, lead to his famous wave hypothesis, stating that the particle was accompanied by wave. The wave itself was unobservable however, only today using very special techniques, computers and special equipment have been able to indirectly see the wave nature inside of particles. It still doesn't tell us at what time the electron would act as a particle, unless directly observed, by which time the wave would collapse and all that would remain, would be the particle. Yeah, quantum theory was weird.

In spirit of deBroglie, I'd like to carry on his strong assertion that particles where guided by waves, so that we can in some way rationalise the weird nature of quantum mechanics into a regime that is more acceptable for a willing and rational mind. Certainly, why cannot a particle be guided by its wave? Matter was guided by curvature in space, and it was this correspondence of the two ideas where I linked perhaps a unity between the strange wave mechanics of deBroglie to that of GR. One stated that matter told space how to curve and space told matter how to move, whereas particles told waves how to spread, and the waves told particles how to move. Maybe wave mechanics and curvature where closely related. This was my first motivation. We'll learn as my theory progresses, that the orbits described by the moving particle also contain their own curvatures, their own geometries. By inviting the weak equivalence principle, we would further learn how to allow a particle to move in an orbit without giving off any radiation.

My derivation was at best, rudimentary. To do it, I just needed to know some basic laws, like Newtons laws, Keplers laws and some electrostatic equations of motion.

A quick set of equations that feature in my paper which requires little format goes like this; we wish to derive the motion of the electron around the nucleus and see if it obeys Kepler's third law. We start off by writing down the general force equation in electromagnetic theory

Equations removed. Will be rewriting them.

Where [math]Z[/math] is the nuclear charge, [math]e[/math] the electric charge and [math]k_B = B[/math] as the Boltzmann constant. For Hydrogen atoms, [math]Z=1[/math]. We notice the nuclear charge cancels and by rearranging we obtain

Equations removed. Will be rewriting them.

And viola! Its that simple, we retrieved Kepler's third law for the planetary motion in which it's acceleration around the nucleus is simply

Equations removed. Will be rewriting them.

where the mass has been set [math]m = 1[/math] in the expression [math]k_B \frac{e^2}{r^2}[/math] which is the usual Coloumb force law, and [math]\frac{v^2}{r}[/math] is the expression which talks about circular motions.

In the more complicated arguments I explain that this acceleration disappears in the ground state, again due to it being in a state of free fall... Or does it? You might come to learn that accelerated charged objects experience only radiation, and this is true. Sometimes you might hear, ''the acceleration from a free falling body,'' and so both those statements might seem a bit at odds. What it means is that the body has to be freely falling in a gravitational field, not affected by an external source that adds to that acceleration in some way, otherwise it would obey the relativistic Larmor equation for circular orbits. There is still wave mechanics in the theory from a de Broglie guiding wave model quick would make it semi classical , but I'm interested only in the case where the wave pilots the electron as curvature and waves may be saying the same thing since again.

We make note that

[math]\frac{r^3}{t^2} = \frac{Gm}{4 \pi^2}[/math]

which is the exact result Newton would have found when he was deriving Keplers results, who actually guessed his work! Kepler not once ever derived his equations that described motion of planetary bodies, it was all trial and error. And some excellent guesswork.

We also note that [math]Gm = r(s)c^2[/math] as the gravitational parameter. Pulling the remaining constant to the LHS gives

Equations removed. Will be rewriting them.

As a conclusion by cancelling out factors we get

Equations removed. Will be rewriting them.

The gravitational parameter. I really only came to derive this after being inspired by a book by Rogers where he stated that maybe particles obeyed Kepler's laws inside the atom, so I rewrote the gravitational theory in the language of electrostatics, so I was very surprised afterwards to learn that my idea of a free falling model of an electron had been speculated more thoroughly than my rudimentary model gave. I had no insight of a free falling model before this as I drew on a theoretical model from weak equivalence to explain why the ground state electron did not radiate. Though I claim my model is quite a bit more simpler, I think it gives a clearer insight how I fell upon these ideas which appeared to exist in literature outside of my independent model;

In his work, and no I haven't read it actual paper, but there is a Langrangian derived. It appears as a Kinetic term and a potential term and the very last term describing the spin and orbit of the equation, the spin orbit equation is something I am pretty well read up on. I haven't gone as far to describe any of the results I came to in terms of a Langrangian, all that was important to me where the two equations:

Equations removed. Will be rewriting them.

Where the first one explained how the charge obeyed a Kepler orbit inside of the atom, and where the second described how the acceleration was obeyed by the Coulomb law relationship. In regards To Michals approach, I had already been postulating on how different orbits could be more accurately described and more recently suggested a correction term to the spin orbit equation as the eccentricity of the electrons orbit, a dimensionless parameter, which if an electron was moving around the nucleus, in a real way, eccentricity would become part and parcel of the dynamics

How he goes on to derive his exact Langrangian is uncertain to me (but I can make some good guesses), but the spin orbit equation already has a good write up here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin–orbit_interaction

]]>

Fact 1. It's well known from as early as the late 60's that there was strong evidence that space and time, where not just unified as a forth leg of a Pythagorean triangle, but that they are indeed complimentary to each other. When string theory came along, the idea that space and time shared an uncertainty principle was unavoidable from experimentation.

It has a surprisingly simple construction. If we take g as the metric

g(X):(x,y)

g(X):(y,x) ∈R

Then the metric uncertainty would satisfy

Δx Δy ≥ ℓ(Planck)

Roughly speaking, the uncertainty on either x or y depends on the information we can extract from the system. Because of this, the uncertainty principle doesn't mean things are random, only that there is a limitation of information we can obtain from complimentary observables.

Fact 2. There are around 3*10^26 particles in the average human brain. There is (give ot take a few powers of ten) Roughly 3*10^80 in the universe . With this in mind, there are more possible combinations of moves on the chess board than there is particles in the universe! The estimated amount of moves is 10^123 possible combinations called the shannon number. As a side note of interesting large numbers, this is still larger than the vaguest discrepancy in physics, called the vacuum energy in which the energy lacks a massive sum of 10^120 magnitudes.

]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>

I tell you building the first quantum computer is not a matter of a board game like monopoly. The world's fastest supercomputer is the same as the world's slowest modern computer (newest IPhone) with the same atomic structure in it's ICT, only it has more atoms and thus requires more energy.

That is to say a Quantum computer that doesn't experience decoherence at room temperature would be just as fast in a desktop as a supercomputer with deep blue's ICT design the size of Jupiter.

However, if you can get the higgs function of the atomic ICT design of a quantum computer correct in your desktop you can quantum teleport only the DNA strands your molecules copy improperly to result in the aging process out of your body after a calculation on a quantum computer.

The issue is not how much money you have, it's being able to process each atom in your quantum computers ICT design with 26 orders of magnitude more predictive magnification than that offered by an electron microscope. We survived 175 thousand years without taxes or monopoly board games or casino games like the dollar bill and currency.

What it is a matter of is my "Historical Codex", and a Dyson swarm using all the matter in mercury using .2 of the energy output of the sun in order to create a planet sized computers worth of bytes in the form of micro-black holes for a dark energy processor to create a quantum computer desktop with the same amount of processing power as that dark energy Dyson swarm that calculated the positions of parallel operations to the electric signals in said desktop ict.

]]>What if spin varies with mass? There are some theories which state that J ~ M, that is the total angular momentum varies with spin, the main question is the theoretical picture, size and concentration of mass seems important with the question of rotation and the spin of most black holes is what gives a key to a new model. It is believed by some theoretical physicists, that the mass concentration of a black hole, is in the center, and larger black holes have a larger concentration of mass and it seems the larger the concentration the faster these supermassive black holes will rotate. I've made a post on black holes before concerning whether spin varies with them but a recent article seems to have been published recently proclaiming that data provides evidence that Hawking was right about the area law of black holes and that entropy, and thus the sizes of them cannot change. Lets not delve too much whether the law is real, as our theory is borne from the collapse of stars, that a star will rotate slower than even 20% of the speed of light, while a stars collapse into a black hole may present it spins after in this new gravitational form as spinning much faster, that will mean that the body has to spin reach a faster spin as a limit, as reaches gravitational collapse. This leads to a hypothetical new model, where the spin prevents the collapse of certain stars into black holes, a model I will call, the Harmonic Symptotic collapse (as opposed to asymptotic behaviour in limit theory), if the spin of the collapsing mass is just equal to the speed of light or possibly only just approximate, it may prevent the star from collapsing entirely due to an internal centrifugal force.

]]>∇x Γ = - 1/2c² ⋅ ∂Ω/∂t

Ω = 1/2mc² ⋅(dU/dt)

B x v = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ dU(r)/dt ⋅ Jv

e(B x v) = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ dU(r)/dr ⋅ Jv

The first equation is my take on how the gravitational field is related to the torsion, remember... torsion should be taken as important, since it encompasses the full Poincare group of spacetime symmetries, which means its a phenom that should occur in nature, and as my arguments have progressed, its something that may be important on the scale of particles, where acceleration and the tightly bound curvilinear trajectories are analogous to large gravitational contributions. Acceleration will be a major feature of our second treatise. The second equation, is how I define torsion explicitly, related to a central potential in which a particle can travel round a fixed axis. The third equation described the coupling of gravity and magnetism through a cross product of velocity, so that gravimagnetism arises from motion in the gravitational field, analogous to how a particle can experience an electromagnetic field as it has motion through it. In fact, an early pet theory of a gravitational mass was explained by me as a possible reason to why certain particles experience an inertial mass as opposed to some all pervading Higgs field, but such an alternative model would certainly be difficult for an academia to swallow, so I dropped the idea a while back. The fourth equation unified the third, with that of an analogous Lorentz gravimagnetic force equation, but as always in my own professing, we must be clear that gravity is not a real force from the first principles of relativity. So, what can we now say about a particle, that is following a curved path, and how do we translate these ideas into gravity carefully?

In order for a particles trajectory to be following a tightly curved path in space it must have a maximum of gravity that is translatable from GR, the maximum acceleration it can have will be approximate, or possible equal to (though this does not include the idea of black holes, which is the true upper limit using a gravitational classical upper bound) as,

a ~ mc³/ħ

acceleration did appear in one of the derivations i made, which was itself modelled from the work of Sciama, whose own paper was also on gravimagnetism, titled the "origin of inertia" and we implemented it into the spin orbit equation while defining a torsion directly from acceleration in the rotating frame

a = Ω x v

Lets not toy too much as I really want to move on to the Dirac equation. There are many types of connections in mathematical physics, in fact, its one of the most complicated aspects of physics, I can't remember now off the top of my head how many there are, but its over a dozen. Whats unique about the connection though, is that they don't just come in different components, they are often written under different dimensions. For instance, in our work above, we defined the gravitational field as having units of an inverse length

∇x Γ = - 1/2c² ⋅ ∂Ω/∂t

These dimensions are most commonly found in literature, mostly because two connections define the Ricci curvature R, with dimensions of inverse length squared. Its also possible however, to define it under the j its of acceleration, in fact, because gravity and acceleration are phenomena that are coupled and for that matter, unified as the same thing under relativity, you might argue it is more accurate to measure it in these dimensions. If we were to create a gravitational field with these dimensions the next task would be to define how that itself is related to torsion. It can't be done in any ad hoc way, we need an argument to explain why the torsion would be related to it, just like how we related the gravitational field to torsion by a curve round some central potential. Keeping the torsion Ω as an artifact of motion, then we know from basic physics that (a change in velocity) divided by (a change in time) is the acceleration, so by redefining the connection as acceleration, we can now accutely redefine the torsion with dimensions of (a change in) velocity, so in a theoretical sense, the argument holds merit by such a remodelling. Such an equation would look like

Γ = ΔΩ/Δt

In this case, the gravitational field is taken in the rotating frame of reference, so that it can be related torsion. Now we want to write the Dirac equation in terms of a gravitational field. In can remember roughly how to do this from earlier essays a few years back when investigating how spin 1/2 particles would be written when interacting with some external gravitating mass, it is in the most simplest form

[pc ⋅ α + (mc² + mΓ ℓ ) β] = 0

where α and β are the usual Dirac matrices, following the unique properties of the Clifford algebra, where ℓ is some affine length. We recall now that the gravitational field, is the ratio of the torsion with time, where again the numerator is measured as a velocity and the denominator with time. Since it is an acceleration, the maximal acceleration of the torsion field must be

ΔΩ/Δt ~ mc³/ħ

]]>

Part 1; an 324 columb and 2 row [x y] coordinate matrix (sphere worlds) plus another 324 columb 2 row coordinate matrix (quantum gravity).

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

[n n]

Etc...

Part 2; You take every integer in the first two matrices to the power of the product of those two matrices. Like Russian matryoshka dolls you have to do this n number times, n=radius of observable universe over the planck length. & we must root every exponent in the -z direction to superimpose the smaller and smaller x and y values in the +z direction. && everytime we do this we need to take out the top exponent from power towers and redo it for counting down to the x y coordinates of the z vector which is the center of the codex, let's call this operation V for vector. Problem with operation V, you will lose entire matrices of coordinates when you remove an exponent from the power tower, so now we must rectify that by putting op V through the power tower and plugging those values back into the base matrix, and then redoing the full power-tower with these adjusted values, but this time rooting every other iteration of exponential matrices in the power tower so that the values remain the same.

Ex)

Vector +3

[3.14^[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]] 4.13^[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]]]

[3.14^[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]] 4.13^[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√4.13 √3.14]

√3.14^[√3.14 √4.13]

[√3.14 √4.13]]]

&

Vector -3

[3.14^[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]

[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]] 4.13^[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]

[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]]]

[3.14^[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]

[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]] 4.13^[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]

[4.13^[3.14 4.13]

[4.13 3.14]

3.14^[3.14 4.13]

[3.14 4.13]]]

&&

Vector -2 part 1

[3.14^[4.13 3.14]

[4.13 3.14] 4.13^[4.13 3.14]

[3.14 4.13]]

[3.14^[4.13 3.14]

[4.13 3.14]]

4.13^[4.13 3.14]

[4.13 3.14]]

etc...

&&&

Vector -2 part 2

[36.34^[1^[1 1]

[1 1]

Etc...Etc..

(Note! + and negative vectors shown in example are reverse from what they should be for the Historical Codex because the values for the matrices in this example are >1 but the actual values you want will all be <1)

EDIT: And there's still one final grueling layer to part 2 I'm not accounting for. Of course the original 324 coordinates of three z matrices containing 9 spheres is not I'm 3.14 4.13 it's less than one meters! So that means in the code where the -z side of the power tower are all rooted exponents, eventually it's going to yield a value greater than 1! Eventually up to 13.8/2 billion light years over one meter! So wherever that happens, every exponent above it is not going to be rooted, whatever iteration exponential matrices that is, will say the nth exponent.

Part 3; Then you put your answer into a fibonacci sequence. The beginning of the sequence is 1 (first matrix) + 1 (second matrix how the gravity moves xyz up down forward back) = another matrix of sphere worlds which is multiplied by a different quantum gravity matrix which is the second iteration of this special fibonacci sequence, which is a potential universe at time equals 2 planck seconds, with 4 matrices. Etc..(note: you must know where the vectors talk to one another is equal to the generation of the gravitational matrices & when incorporating one gravitational matrix into another vector's matrices one must add or subtract it's transformational values by the difference of values between the matrices in those vectors)

Ex)

[n1 n1]____[n2 n2]____[n3 n3]

________+__________=_____________

[n1 n1]____[n2 n2]____[n3 n3]

&

[n1 n1]___[n3 n3]____[x1 y1]

_______+_________=2*______

[n1 n1]___[n3 n3]____[x1 y1]

&&

[n2 n2]___[n3 n3]__[x2 y2]

________+________=2*______

[n2 n2]___[n3 n3]__[x2 y2]

&&&

___[x1 y1]____[x2 ny2]__[n4 n4]

+/-_______+/-________=__________

___[x1 y1]____[x2 y2]__[n4 n4]

&&&&

[n3 n3]___[n4/2 n4/2]__[nx ny]___[n5 n5]

________+_____________+________=________

[n3 n3]___[n4/2 n4/2]__[nx ny]___[n5 n5]

where, nx & ny = geometric equations applied to the [n3 n3] columns' gravitational tug and [n4 n4] matrix gets divided by 2 because of the inverse square law for [n2 n2]'s gravitational tug applied to [n3 n3]'s position from when it was [n1 n1]

The practical use of the codex is evolving the observable universe from the moment of the big bang to now.

You will acquire a printout of all of the atoms of the periodic table, and how their quantum particles behave, with a magnification of up to 26 orders of magnitude greater than that offered by an electron microscope, and how micro lasers will effect a quantum system every planck second after your instruments perturb a system.

Unlike normal quantum teleportation, which involves changes over lateral time, the codex can instead be used to teleport quantum objects using *particle confusion*, which is a result of analog quantum gravity, as gravity propagates in two directions, moving n-number of sphere worlds that collide to generate one higgs function to the exact quantum phonetic frequency of another higgs function, will duplicate that higgs function precisely where the other higgs function is located.

This works because all potential universes are so similar at the quantum scale.

]]>

Which goes through this nuclear decay reaction, which is a closed loop Nuclear Fission reaction being the thorium cycle as the products through the cycle produce the original reactant releasing energy at each stage, which burn forever using this process.

Now, let's bridge this into Fusion to begin let us start with a fusion reaction that does not work like the thorium cycle. Hydrogen Fusion which is the process currently being worked on by most of the nations of earth that have the resource and technology to research it as a "Clean" nuclear reaction but works in the opposite way as Fission which is splitting of atoms, Nuclear fusion is binding of atoms that generate energy.

Which I am going to use the European model for Fusion reactors given that it confines plasma to simulate the conditions in the core of a Star which is about 100 million degrees Kelvin when fusion starts as the atoms are forced together.

Which in stars the Plasma is confined by Gravity and not the Electromagnetic Force but is still the same process.

This is the fusion cycle of our stars but we find there are many types of Fusion reactions that stars undergo as different elements below Iron are fused into heavier nuclei which is based on the Temperature of the Star's core and the elements present each heavier element requiring a higher temperature to cause fusion of because of the increase Electric Repulsion present as more protons are inside the nucleus more average kinetic energy or "Temperature" is required to push them together.

There is a classes of stars that use different Nuclear Fusion cycles as the elements are transformed into the higher forms of themselves in any case, the type of star has very much to do with temperature.

Now we will be talking a Fusion reaction for a B and O type Stars which is Carbon Fusion which has a Thorium like cycle for fusion or the CNO Cycle for Carbon Fusion which requires a vastly increased temperature to maintain being a much hotter star type at **600 million degrees K for core temperature for Carbon Fusion, but I think this would require around 1 to 10 billion degrees Kelvin for CNO cycle.**

**Which is a closed loop Fusion cycle like the thorium cycle is for fission which gives of Electron neutrinos, Gamma Radiation and Antimatter in the form of Positrons (Antimatter Electrons) in an infinite loop requiring non-isotope Hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, to maintain the CNO cycle.**

**"***Our ancestors harnessed the power of a sun, and so again shall we."*

__I want to remind you that there are even more powerful sources of energy than this though and to continue if this point is reached, but they are no longer Nuclear Fission/Fusion based.__

∇x Γ = - 1/2c² ⋅∂Ω/∂t

B = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅(m/r² + 1/c² [Φ + φ]Ω x v) ⋅ Jq

I wrote down, in later work that I had not published on line, that if we recognise

1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r = 1/e²

Then the equation can be concisely written as

B = K (m/r² + 1/c² [Φ + φ]Ω x v)/e

where,

K = J/2e

A Josephson constant analogue. Believing this to be true, I went to the basics, we established that torsion was identified with

Ω = 1/2mc² ⋅(dU/dt)

giving it units of inverse time, and is an object itself encoded in the original and standard equation which describes the spin orbit interaction formula. I also showed in my notes, that the cross product on B would give

B x v = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ (dU/dt) Jv

and Jv has the same units as mc²r, or as we showed early, the square of the charge e². But heres the thing, I crushed these down to their dimensional analysis and it is, after a little rearranging to find the Lorentz force,

e(B x v) = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ (dU/dt) Jv = (units of : electric charge squared over one unit of time)

Its OK that we are missing the Coulomb constant, because in any reasonable argument we can set that to 1 anyway, what we cannot miss is that the correct dimensions requires one more unit of inverse time, and its also missing a squared inverse unit of celeritas (sped of light) because to make the inverse time a length, it must couple to a velocity term. Its not impossible to fix this of course, but I've been so careful throughout my last work, j am highly curious as to where the missing tim and extra speed of light squared went to, or another way to put it which is equally right, you can argue that we are simply missing an inverse squared factor of length. So how would we fix it? First of all, we might make an argument for the former case, that we are missing an inverse of time, that would mean that the equation for torsion would have to make a squared value and then we'd need to plug in the inverse speed of light squared to properly obtain the inverse square law to obtain the Coulomb equation, so we would have

Ω² = 1/2mc² ⋅(d²U/dt²)

B = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/c² (d²U/dt²) Jv

But there is an easier correction to the dimensions, one which I favor more because this object, is called the central potential, and its potential is a function of the radius

d²U(r)/dr²

The central potential deals with systems that are moving around a fixed axis. Without all the corrections, of another inverse time and that with another inverse squared speed of light, we can still argue, that while

1/2mc² ⋅(d²U/dr²)

does not have inverse time explicitly shown, we can loosely say it indirectly related to torsion, because we have hindsight in the equation

Ω = 1/2mc² ⋅(dU/dt)

Now the dimensions are correct,

e(B x v) = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ (dU/dr) Jv

we don't even need to express the parenthesis as a derivative that is second in nature, theoretically we can drag one of those inverse terms out and imply

e(B x v) = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ (dU/dr) Jv

To make clear and light work of this, the units are now: charge squared by an inverse law of length squared which does match the units of a Lorentz force.

]]>

Purple everything

]]>Torsion in particle dynamics

The torsion has been proposed in literature to be related to the frequency of the spin

ω = -1/2 Ω = −(e/2mc)B

Where I gather the last expression under inspection from manipulation of dimensional analysis. It still remains though that torsion and spin while related, are still different dynamics. The gravitational field Γ is related to torsion as:

∇x Γ = - 1/2c² ⋅∂Ω/∂t

The magnetic field associated to spin and orbit is:

B = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J

= (1/mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) J/2e

(where J is the total angular momentum)

The Josephson constant appears J/2e from the definitions and I identify torsion here as:

Ω = 1/2mc² ⋅ (∂U/∂t)

A gravielectro field would be related as

E = 1/e ⋅ ∂U/∂t = c²/e ⋅ ∂m/∂t

And from Sciama units I identify:

a/G = 1/r ⋅ ∂m/∂r = ω²r/G

When putting a particle or sphere into motion by spinning it, it experiences a Lorentz force If the magnetic field has origins in the gravitational field, it couples equally to the Gravimagnetic field and is associated with torsion

B x v = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ Jv

= (1/mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) Jv/2e

Since Jv ~ e we can state roughly that

B x v ~ (1/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t)

It's approximate because in exact units, Jv is really twice the value of e. An exact equality would be

B x v = (e/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t)

Some more results Bohr obtained two major objects of importance, the Bohr radius and the Bohr inverse mass. He derived the inverse mass from the known classical laws

1/m≡(4π²Be²)/h

is:

B = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J

=1/me ⋅ (Φ/c²) ⋅ ∂v/∂t J

= 1/me ⋅ (a/G) J

= 1/me ⋅ ω²r/G ⋅ J

=1/me ⋅ m/r² ⋅ J

Where

1/G = Φ/c²

a/G = 1/r ⋅ ∂m/∂r = ω²r/G

1/e⋅ ∂U/∂r = c²/e⋅ ∂m/∂r

In CGS units. A gravielectro field now defined as

E = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ Jc = 1/2e ⋅ ∂U/∂r

Plugging in now the inverse Bohr mass we get

E = 4π²eB/2mc⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J/h

Here we can identify an important term arising as the magnetic dipole:

μ = eJ/2mc

So we can write

μ(S) = -g μ J/h

This now gives

E = -4π²μB⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J/h

Where

H = μB

Is an interaction energy.

The gravielectro potential is

From Sciama theory we have

E = - ∇φ - 1/c (∂v/∂r) ~ Φ/c² (∂v/∂r)

E = ∇x A = 0

The total electric field is

Φ = ∫ ρ/r ⋅ c²t²

And if density is uniform

Φ ~ -2πρc²t²

And by symmetry the vector potential is

A = 0

So the total gravielectro field is,

E = m/r² + 1/c² (Φ + φ)a

Rewriting the spin orbit equation in terms of the Sciama gravielectro field we get

B = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J

The electric field encoded in this is

E = 1/e⋅ ∂U/∂r

B = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ Φ/c² (∂v/∂r) ⋅ J

= -1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ (∇φ - 1/c (∂v/∂r))⋅J

With a total Gravimagnetic field as

B = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r J

= 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅(m/r² + 1/c² [Φ + φ]a) ⋅ J

a = Ω x v

So that we get after plugging it in

B = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅(m/r² + 1/c² [Φ + φ]Ω x v) ⋅ J

Need to knows!

We can define an acceleration as

a = ω x v

And

v = ω x r = ωr sinθ

Under this interpretation, the acceleration can be attributed to the centrifugal pseudo force

a = ω x (ω x r) = ω²r sinθ

And we recognise the orthogonality of ω⋅r =0 from the triple cross product rule

a x (b x c) = b(a⋅b) - c(a⋅b)

Mass to charge ratio has the same dimensions as angular momentum to magnetic moment,

L/μ = m/e

The angular momentum is

L = mωR^2

Derivation:

L = r × p

L = r × mv

L = mr × (ω × r)

L = mω(r · r) − mr(r · ω)

L = mr²ω − 0

L = mr²ω

Certainly it is not the smallest "imaginable" quantity. Take Planck length - 1.61622837 × 10^-35 meters. Now imagine a smaller number. There, you did it.

But is it fair to think of it as "the smallest quantity that exists in reality". In physics, people often adopt a philosophy where **things that cannot be measured also "do not exist"**. From that perspective they might say that "nothing smaller than Planck length exists" - since it would be fundamentally outside of our ability to experience it; thus there's no reason to assume it exists.

Unfortunately, by saying that one is muddying the philosophical waters much more than by simply saying "it represents our observation limit within the framework of modern physics". In general the problem of assuming that things beyond an observation limit literally do not exist is that you may well end up placing unnecessary mysticism on other parts of your world model without realizing it - for example relativistic simultaneity makes reality static if you presume that observation limit represents also the limit of "what exists".

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason there are so many exotic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is this same exact philosophical trap. The observation that matter absorbs enerqy in discrete quantities does **not** prove that energy always exists in discrete quantities. Obviously it's possible that only the absorption event is quantized. Since we can only produce observations with matter, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that we can always think of EM energy itself as quantized packets (photons). But it's equally true that quantized energy absorption mechanism of matter simply **places an observation limit to our experiments**. That idea yields a very simple local realist interpretation of the entire quantum theory, including a full local realist explanation to Bell Experiments. The topic I'm about to get to is connected to that local realist interpretation but I thought it deserves a thread of its own. So let's get to it!

**CMBR thought experiment**

I've commented more than once in various threads around here about the fact that the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is emanating from a single reference frame - commonly thought to originate from the moment in past when the universe first became transparent (i.e. when universe cooled down sufficiently from energy levels where everything would have been opaque plasma). Meaning, we can very trivially measure the motion of earth against CMBR, because we see blue-shifted frequency in one direction, and red-shifted in the opposite direction.

This should raise a lot of interesting questions in your mind, one of which is the very obvious point that CMBR appears to represents a rather pragmatic universal reference frame for us. Certainly relativistic calculations can still be done in any frame we choose - Lorentz transformation is still symmetrical between frames. But from philosophical standpoint it's a bit of a bother to place the entirety of known universe and CMBR into a space where it might not be at rest (Sort of anti-Mach's principle). Especially when CMBR is viewed as a remnant of a Big Bang event in which all of space was created "simultaneously" - if so it would stand to reason that simultaneity still exists

But that's not the fundamentally problematic part of this. Here's the problematic part; Since the energy of electromagnetic radiation depends on its frequency (as per the photoelectric effect), it means that when we accelerate into any direction in the universe, we would be running against more and more energetic CMBR radiation. Following the definitions of modern physics, **at some point the energy of CMBR in front of us would hit the Planck limit**. That limit is essentially the moment when the wavelength of a photon becomes smaller than its Schwarzschild radius - meaning it becomes a black hole.

(Yes, before we'd get that far we would hit many other obstacles - for one the increasing energy of CMBR would eat away the kinetic energy of the ship - but for the purpose of this thought experiments we might as well discuss the black hole limit)

Now, in terms of relativity principle, we have already broken this picture into a somewhat incoherent mess. We can't say that an object *out there* turns into a black hole because *we *are accelerating. **We are not changing reality out there - we are merely changing our own representation of reality**. (And this is why it always bothers me when people claim that length contraction is "real"...)

The object looks like a black hole **only **in our reference frame, but __not in others__. The problem with this is that Planck limit implies a very observable change in the behavior of an element (a black hole does not let information pass through it). An object either really is a black hole, or it is not, and we can find that out. We can find out if an apparent black hole is really a black hole, by observing whether information manages to pass through it. If the answer is "yes", we know we are merely looking at the situation from a wrong reference frame (and thus also length contracting Planck length becomes completely unproblematic - we just need to know the factor of error implied by our "wrong" reference frame.. ...or maybe choose a more convenient reference frame)

With this thought experiment, we seem to have somewhat broken the relativity part of Theory of Relativity. Not so much with CMBR, but rather with Planck constant. CMBR was just a convenient vehicle to discuss the thought experiment, but we could always construct the same experiment without relying on CMBR at all. If we have any EM wave, we can always blueshift it into an apparent blackhole by changing our reference frame. Put this together with the fact that EM radiation propagates coherently (the waves from different objects don't overtake one another), and we have means to differentiate between "correct" and "wrong" reference frames;

There's a lot of evidence suggesting that it is in principle possible to push enough energy into a small amount of space, and thus produce an actual black hole, not just an apparent one. The difference with this method of producing a black hole would be that it **acts like a black hole when observed from any reference frame**. By finding out the limits of producing an actual black hole, we would find out the actual rest frame of C (at least locally). Thus, we would have implicitly found one-way speed of C, and we would have established simultaneity in our local environment. Lorentz-transformed frames would be correct up to the Planck limit only, meaning a reasonable interpretation of Special Relativity is, well, becoming very close to Lorentz' aether theory.

Again, not too surprising being that Quantum Field Theory is basically conceptually what I'm describing, with the interesting difference that in Quantum Field Theory, the fields themselves are assumed to be quantized. I'm slightly puzzled why that assumption exists, being that we already think that all EM absorption events are quantized by themselves. That already means that our observation limit would make the fields look quantized, even if they are not (this goes back to the same philosophical trap that I discussed in the first couple of paragraphs).

**The role of Planck Constant**

I think at this point is best to take a few steps back, and discuss where did we get Planck constant in the first place. It is quite simply connected to the idea that atoms (or electrons) fundamentally store energy as harmonic waves.

This produces a wave-matter picture where we have rather obvious reasons to some fundamental observation limits. We can only probe particles or waves of reality by how they interact with other particles or waves of reality, and since the frequency-energy dependency of those objects implies a direct coupling between "more accurate measurement" and "more energy being pushed into the system by the observation mechanism itself", it means we can only get limited accuracy out of our experiments.

But **an observation limit doesn't automatically give us the limits what can actually exist in reality!** When we assume it does, we are starting to see the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity raising its ugly head. As discussed, Special Relativity (and General Relativity) trivially lead into "apparent singularities" when describing objects from wrong reference frames. This is one of the problems. Quantizing time relationships is another one. Based on the thought experiment I described above, we are looking at a very plausible possibility that singularities in Relativity theory can be simply a result of describing a situation from a wrong reference frame (note that when describing an accelerating frame, there is always an event horizon at some distance behind you - a clear indication of using a wrong reference frame. Likewise, the event horizon of a gravity well can only be defined from a specific reference frame).

**Some hypothetical possibilities for Quantum Gravity**

So, if the problem is that we are applying the principle of Relativity in places where it doesn't work, what can we do instead? Hopefully I have at this point managed to open your mind into multitudes of valid possibilities still open for us. From this point on, I'd wish to discuss somewhat hypothetical musings that I've been thinking about personally, but not developed very far. Maybe they spark some ideas in your minds for further developments.

The most obvious step that comes to my mind is to first apply a healthy dose of Mach's principle into this situation. EM waves / photons propagate coherently (they can't pass each other), so we should be modeling a uniform structure to support this propagation. I think it's naive to assume that reality is made out of decoupled "matter" and "space" (it's naive to consider these as two separated things). We can't really even define what is "matter", beyond it being a form of electromagnetic behavior itself. At this point already there is no clear discrete boundary between matter and space. Matter clearly can be in motion. If matter and space are coupled, think about what that means for the "rest frame of space"...?

The success of Quantum Field Theory already suggests that it's perfectly valid to model matter as merely excitations of space. This implies it is equally valid to model space as excitations of matter - think of matter as a harmonic wave center, and space as simply the extended "veil" of that "wave center", where the veils of all matter combine into single coherent structure. You can think of this veil as the means for the harmonic wave centers to communicate (which they constantly do - we call it thermal radiation)

Thus we'd have a model where the existence of matter defines the rest frame for space (locally). This model gives you - potentially - a trivial explanation to otherwise strange phenomenon like frame dragging and anomalous galaxy curves (the matter of the galaxy yields a partially rotating rest frame for the space that is local to itself, thus requiring larger orbit speeds to the outer stars). But also it gives you the potential to combine quantum theory and gravity.

I realize that most people might not be well versed with Relativity enough to realize how relativistic time relationships fall into this picture, so let's discuss that briefly. First of all, Special Relativity is trivial, it's just a result of all natural observers and devices being electromagnetic systems; Basically exactly the argument given by Lorentz when when he developed Lorentz transformation. Mathematically identical to SR, philosophically just means you'd probably prefer one frame for your calculations (but up to the Planck limit you don't really have to).

For General Relativity, a full proof of General Relativity running with universal reference frame is little more involved, but described by Richard Stafford (who frequented this forum) in his book here; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-26v8xdJjFrNEZWMml5aUJCd1E (page 82 onwards for the critical bits).

Probably shouldn't be too surprising result though, as otherwise GR would require relativistic simultaneity -> static universe.

And here we finally get back to the connection to the Quantum Absorption interpretation - where I propose that the basis of the (apparent) quantum indeterminism is that all the excess energies that were not absorbed by electrons simply continue to propagate to the universe.

In Richard's book, from page 97 onwards, he discusses an interesting idea of gravity as refraction between pieces of matter. In principle any mechanism that produces jitter during energy exchange between microscopic objects, with magnitude that is inversely proportional the distance squared, would yield exactly what we call gravity (to understand exact details of why, you may have to go through the whole analysis, as it boils down to relativistic time relationships for objects with crooked paths). It would not be a force in itself, it's just that the jittered paths would yield refraction across the volume of the objects, that would bend their paths towards one another.

It is rather natural to consider the possibility that such jitter mechanism might be related to EM propagation, being that gravity shares some properties with EM radiation. Couple of interesting possibilities come to mind.

One is effectively a version Richard mentions. Neutrally charged macroscopic objects are only net neutrally charged - their microscopic elements are still charged, with interaction strength being inversely proportional to the distance squared. If the charge interaction events are quantized, then charged elements would be giving jolts to one another, with strength of the jolt becoming weaker by distance - this would refract the paths of the objects, and act like gravity.

Another possibility is that the ordinary black body radiation, after being absorbed by the surface of an object, will continue to travel under absorption threshold through the object. This wave in itself could possibly yield jitter to microscopic elements (that can't absorb it). Or potentially it could constructively interfere with other low-level energies and create virtual particles inside macroscopic objects (energy levels that do get absorbed). In both cases, the absolute (first case) or statistical (latter case) magnitude of the implied jitter would be inversely proportional to the distance squared.

All of these ideas are pure speculation, but I think they are rather good examples of somewhat plausible possibilities of marrying gravity with a quantum mechanical picture. The point is, there is no reason to presume that gravity has to be explained with a dedicated interaction carrier. There's no reason to muddy up the picture with Plank time problems. And there's no reason to constrain oneself to the traditional relativistic picture of time as a distance metric in itself (and thus vulnerable to Planck limits). These are all examples of getting rid of a purely philosophical trap that most of physics tends to get tangled up, simple because of **insisting that unobservable things cannot exist**. I think that idea is holding us back from finding simpler and better models, and I think I have now given few pretty good examples why, and how gravity could fall in line with Quantum Theory.

---------

**Another paper about the topic**

One last thing for anyone who made it this far. While looking for references to this post, I ran into a paper that brought up many of the same issues I'm bringing here, and I think it's really worth reading. His conclusions might be little different than mine, but the problem is exactly the same.

Enjoy it here;

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9610066.pdf

**Does matter differ from vacuum?**

Christoph Schiller

Abstract:

A structured collection of thought provoking conclusions about space and time is given. Using only the Compton wavelength \lambda = \hbar/mc and the Schwarzschild radius r_s = 2Gm/c^2, it is argued that neither the continuity of space-time nor the concepts of space-point, instant, or point particle have experimental backing at high energies. It is then deduced that Lorentz, gauge, and discrete symmetries are not precisely fulfilled in nature. In the same way, using a new and simple Gedankenexperiment, it is found that at Planck energies, vacuum is fundamentally indistinguishable from radiation and from matter. Some consequences for supersymmetry, duality, and unification are presented

111+333=444

Then Divide the result by two and you will get the value that is between the two chosen numbers which is:

222

It doesn't matter if you add 1+3=4/2=2 or even 111,111,111+333,333,333=444,444,444/2=222,222,222

How many numbers does not change the fact that the way in which we have numerical value aligned on a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Grid makes all sorts of interesting patterns show up..

For example you can also go cross ways.

777+333=1,110/2=555 which diagonally is the middle number

Or Outside Barrier of values such as 777+111=888/2=444 which exteriorly is the middle number.

You can play with this to find out more values I am sure but isn't it interesting that this might be some form of numerical Matrix' of sorts which is a type of mathematics I do not understand very well but what I do understand is that it is loaded with pattens this formula here.

<#> (spaced by 1 relative to dimension) + <#> = <#> /2 = <#> Number inbetween chosen dimesional value.

]]>

]]>

R'' = 8πG/3 ⋅ ρ + **a**(absolute) sinθ

where

**a**(absolute) = [a(centrifugal) + a(Coriolis) + a(Euler)]sinθ

**In short: when an electron jumps from an energy level to a lower energy level, it releases electromagnetic waves. The atomic clock counts these electromagnetic waves to click time.**

**---------- The above does not need to be discussed ----------**

**Does each jump release a wave?**

**My hypothesis: There is a little chance, the electron jumps into another atom nucleus directly, then we will lose a wave.**

**When the density of cesium increases, the distance between cesium atoms decreases, the chance of electrons jumping into another atom nucleus directly increases. The atom clock will count less than before.**

**So there will be a situation: For the two calibrated atomic clocks, the one with low cesium density will go faster than the one with high cesium density. This is what people call time dilation right now.**

**The nature of time dilation: Gravity increases the density of cesium, so that the wavenumber of atomic clocks is less than that of weightless atomic clocks. It's not that gravity slows down time.**

**---------- An experiment can proof it or not ----------**

**A simple experiment: Two small atom clocks and a centrifuge. Put one clock in the centrifuge, keep it under high centrifugal force, the density will increase. Then compare two clocks.**

**Who is speaking:** Edward D. Lee, Ph.D (Learn more about Dr. Lee at his website eddielee.co)

**When it's taking place:** June 6, 9:30 AM PST

**Registration:** https://wizacademy.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMrfGhpj8tG9WCESo3Us0149v0bNPLr2Xc