Assumptions For Edst

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, Faraday Group (altphy.org), 10/NOV/2008 List of assumptions for EDST (elastic deformations in space-time) model of elementary particles (not necessarily ranked in order of importance): 1. the cores of e.p.s are Planck dimensions constrained objects 2. the cores are comprised of spherical standing waves of temporal curvature 3. internal energy density is balanced with external pressure; external pressure is caused by the extreme inelasticity of space, Y0 ≈ 1044 N / 1022 N 4. e.p.s are dual structures: twisted cores of temporal curvature coupled with Compton-sized spinning electric flux rings 5. the distributed nature of the flux rings causes self-interference phenomena 6. the geometry above and the two qualities of space-time, Y0 and Z0, are minimally sufficient to describe e.p.s and their interactions 7. the strong force and gravitation are essentially the same thing – caused by residual extension of curvature beyond the core 8. geometry explains instability such as with 8Be The purpose of developing EDST is two-fold: to extricate/excavate physics from its selfmade prison/tomb consisting of an agglomeration of arcane math, untestable concepts, illucid ideas, and a general avoidance of the scientific principle: propose, test, revise / start over – and – provide a view of nature that is consistent, elegant, and verifiable. The elegant nature of the model is exemplified by these two revelations: an explanation of inertia and view of matter. Inertia is simply the lack of relativistic energy to add or take away from a core at rest. View of matter: there are only two things in our universe: spacetime and energy. Life is a functional arrangement of these two things. Immediate problems with the model: the dual-structure has dual-spin: ωe = 10.905ωm. How? Why? Is it a result of how we measure spin? The core equations of the theory were derived using the concepts of linear elasticity and the ‘ideal stretched string’. The value for Y0 above has two values because of that and assumption 3 above. Derive Y0 based on the former, you get the first value. Derive Y0 based on point 3, the second. Consequences of this are: extension/strain increases drastically from mere fractions to 1/6 – and – electrons and protons have different radii (as opposed to the former model which asserts both have Planck diameter). Decisive tests: a decisive test was designed about the corollary premise that e.p.s are mini-dynamical systems which are disturbable. It is possible convention could dismiss this test with the path-integral approach to QM. But since there are eight assumptions above, there should be many decisive tests which can be designed. Dear reader, please help. Salvatore Gerard Micheal, micheals at msu dot edu